DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 01/05/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are currently pending. Claims 14-18 are withdrawn.
Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 19 are amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to claims 14-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 14-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to claims 3, 4, 6, 11, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 11, and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-17, filed 05/21/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 (regarding the Kim and Shigihara references) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie) in view of Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara) and Nakano U.S. Publication 2020/0061677 (henceforth referred to as Nakano).
As to claim 1, (Currently Amended) Horie teaches an automatic analyzer (paragraph [0043] automatic analyzer 10), comprising:
a dispensing nozzle to be cleaned (paragraphs [0001] and [0044] nozzle 22 and an ultrasonic cleaner for cleaning a nozzle); and
an ultrasonic cleaner including a cleaning tank (paragraph [0054] cleaning tank 211) and an ultrasonic transducer (paragraph [0054] Bolt-clamped Langevin type transducer (BLT) 100).
Horie differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of the dispensing nozzle to be cleaned, and the ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element and a front mass, wherein: a lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank is provided with a through-hole having a first opening on an outer wall surface of the cleaning tank and a second opening on an inner wall surface of the recess, the front mass includes a columnar portion that extends into the through-hole, the columnar portion of the front mass having a tip portion disposed at the second opening of the through-hole and facing the recess of the cleaning tank, wherein an annular gap is provided between the tip portion and the second opening, and the tip portion of the front mass is disposed so as to emit ultrasonic waves toward a side of the dispensing nozzle when the dispensing nozzle is inserted in the recess for cleaning.
Shigihara teaches an ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0030] ultrasonic cleaning device 1). Shigihara teaches
the cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of the dispensing nozzle to be cleaned (FIGS. 10-11 paragraph [0061] cleaning tank 16C), and
wherein:
a lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank is provided with a through-hole having a first opening on an outer wall surface of the cleaning tank and a second opening on an inner wall surface of the recess (FIGS. 5 and 10 paragraph [0041] ultrasonic transducer 14 is fixed to the cleaning tank 16 via attachment hole 47. The ultrasonic transducers are on the lateral surface of the cleaning tank 16.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic analyzer as taught by Horie with an ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara. The ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara is one of the ways in which the ultrasonic cleaner can be configured.
Nakana teaches an ultrasonic transducer (paragraph [0078] ultrasonic transducer 1). Nakana teaches
the ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element (FIG. 15 paragraph [0089] piezoelectric element 3) and a front mass (FIG. 15 paragraph [0089] vibration surface 17 reads on the front mass),
the front mass includes a columnar portion (paragraph [0088] the vibration member 15 may be formed in a columnar shape) that extends into the through-hole (FIG. 15 the ultrasonic transducer extends into the through hole), the columnar portion of the front mass having a tip portion disposed at the second opening of the through-hole and facing the recess of the cleaning tank (FIG. 15 the front mass faces the recess of the cleaning tank), wherein an annular gap is provided between the tip portion and the second opening (see attached figure), and
the tip portion of the front mass is disposed so as to emit ultrasonic waves toward an object (paragraph [0131] the piezoelectric element 3 of the ultrasonic transducer 1 is vibrated in the radial direction indicated by the arrows to apply ultrasonic vibrations to a cleaning liquid 100).
The combination of Horie, Shigihara, and Nakana will result in the ultrasonic waves being emitted toward the dispensing nozzle when the dispensing nozzle is inserted in the recess for cleaning.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Annular gap is provided between the tip portion and the second opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
534
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic analyzer as taught by Horie with an ultrasonic transducer as taught by Nakana. Having a columnar portion is known in the art and one of the various ways in which an ultrasonic transducer can be shaped.
As to claim 2, (Currently Amended) Shigihara further teaches the lateral surface portion of the cleaning tank has a plurality of the ultrasonic transducers installed thereon (FIG. 11 there are a plurality of ultrasonic transducers 14Bb installed on the lateral surface portion of tank 16C).
As to claim 3, (Currently Amended) Shigihara and Nakana further teach tip surfaces of the tip portions of respective front masses of two ultrasonic transducers of the plurality of ultrasonic transducers face each other (Shigihara FIG. 10 the ultrasonic transducers 14Cb and 14Cc on the side face each other) and have diameters that match each other (It would have been obvious to substitute Shigihara’s ultrasonic transducers with Nakana’s ultrasonic transducers. Nakana’s ultrasonic transducers would have diameters that match each other).
Shigihara and Nakana do not teach a distance between the tip surfaces of the respective front masses of the two ultrasonic transducers that face each other is substantially equal to the diameter of the tip surfaces of the respective front masses. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion.
As to claim 4, (Currently Amended) Shigihara further teaches the two ultrasonic transducers having the tip surfaces that face each other are arranged coaxially (FIG. 10 paragraph [0062] the ultrasonic transduces 14Cb and 14Cc on the side walls 46Ca and 46Cb are arranged so that the axes are aligned on the plane).
As to claim 5, (Currently Amended) Nakano further teaches the front mass has a step portion, and the columnar portion extends from the step portion into the through-hole (see the following figure), and a seal is installed on the columnar portion on a step- portion side of the columnar portion, and between the columnar portion and the through-hole (FIGS. 12 and 15 a packing 66 is installed on the columnar portion on a step- portion side of the columnar portion, and between the columnar portion and the through-hole).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Step portion and the columnar vibration portion 15 would extend from the step portion into the through hole)]
PNG
media_image1.png
534
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, (Currently Amended) Shigihara teaches the upper end portion of the recess corresponds to a fill level for a cleaning liquid to be received in the cleaning tank for performing cleaning (FIGS. 8 or 10 the upper end portion of the recess corresponds to a fill level for cleaning liquid to be received in the cleaning tank for performing cleaning. It would have been obvious for the upper end portion of the recess to correspond to the liquid fill level in order for the ultrasonic transducers to be submerged and effectively apply ultrasonic waves to the liquid and, subsequently, the nozzle needing to be cleaned).
Shigihara does not teach that an upper end portion of the recess is 0.5 to 1 mm from an upper end portion of the tip surface of the front mass. However, absent the demonstration of any new or unobvious results, the claimed sizes/ proportions are considered by Examiner to be prima facie obvious as a change in size/ proportion. It is old and well known to change sizes/ proportions, with no change in their respective functions, as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/ Proportion.
Since the art recognizes that the distance is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine an optimal value for the distance between the end portion of the recess and the upper end portion of the tip surface in Shigihara, through routine experimentation, and that the claimed distance would have been found obvious through such routine experimentation, unless the applicant can demonstrate unexpected results.
As to claim 8, (Currently Amended) Shigihara further teaches an ultrasonic transducer controller (paragraph [0107] control panel 68); and a drive power supply (FIG. 1 paragraph [0043] drive portion 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner with a controller. It is known in the art to use a controller to control aspects of the invention such as the power supply (paragraph [0107]).
As to claim 10, (Currently Amended) Shigihara and Nakano further teach the cleaning tank and the ultrasonic transducer, and the ultrasonic transducer controller and the drive power supply can be installed separately (Shigihara FIG. 1, 5, 16 and 18 the cleaning tank, ultrasonic transducer, ultrasonic transducer controller and the drive power supply can be installed separately. Nakano has stud bolts 68 that allow for mounting of the ultrasonic transducer, which means that the ultrasonic transducer can be installed separately. ).
As to claim 19, (Currently Amended) Horie teaches an automatic analyzer (paragraph [0043] automatic analyzer 10), comprising:
a dispensing nozzle to be cleaned (paragraphs [0001] and [0044] nozzle 22 and an ultrasonic cleaner for cleaning a nozzle); and
an ultrasonic cleaner including a cleaning tank (paragraph [0054] cleaning tank 211) and an ultrasonic transducer (paragraph [0054] Bolt-clamped Langevin type transducer (BLT) 100).
Horie differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of the dispensing nozzle to be cleaned; and the ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element and a front mass, wherein: the front mass includes a columnar portion that extends into a through-hole formed in a side of the cleaning tank, the columnar portion of the front mass having a tip portion disposed at an opening of the through-hole provided at an inner wall surface of the recess of the cleaning tank, wherein the tip portion faces the recess of the cleaning tank, wherein an annular gap is provided between the tip portion and the second opening, and the tip portion of the front mass is disposed at the opening provided at the inner wall surface of the recess so as to emit ultrasonic waves from the toward a side of the dispensing nozzle when the dispensing nozzle is inserted in the recess for cleaning.
Shigihara teaches an ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0030] ultrasonic cleaning device 1). Shigihara teaches the cleaning tank having a recess that enables insertion of the dispensing nozzle to be cleaned (FIGS. 10-11 paragraph [0061] cleaning tank 16C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic analyzer as taught by Horie with an ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara. The ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Shigihara is one of the ways in which the ultrasonic cleaner can be configured.
Nakana teaches an ultrasonic transducer (paragraph [0078] ultrasonic transducer 1). Nakana teaches
the ultrasonic transducer having a piezoelectric element (FIG. 15 paragraph [0089] piezoelectric element 3) and a front mass (FIG. 15 paragraph [0089] vibration surface 17 reads on the front mass),
the front mass includes a columnar portion (paragraph [0088] the vibration member 15 may be formed in a columnar shape) that extends into the through-hole (FIG. 15 the ultrasonic transducer extends into the through hole), the columnar portion of the front mass having a tip portion disposed at the second opening of the through-hole and facing the recess of the cleaning tank (FIG. 15 the front mass faces the recess of the cleaning tank), wherein an annular gap is provided between the tip portion and the second opening (see previously presented figure in claim 1 rejection), and
the tip portion of the front mass is disposed at the opening provided at the inner wall surface of the recess so as to emit ultrasonic waves toward an object (paragraph [0131] the piezoelectric element 3 of the ultrasonic transducer 1 is vibrated in the radial direction indicated by the arrows to apply ultrasonic vibrations to a cleaning liquid 100).
The combination of Horie, Shigihara, and Nakana will result in the front mass extending into a through-hole formed in a side of the cleaning tank and the ultrasonic waves being emitted toward the dispensing nozzle when the dispensing nozzle is inserted in the recess for cleaning.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automatic analyzer as taught by Horie with an ultrasonic transducer as taught by Nakana. Having a columnar portion is known in the art and one of the various ways in which an ultrasonic transducer can be shaped.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie), Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara), and Nakano U.S. Publication 2020/0061677 (henceforth referred to as Nakano) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tanaka et al. U.S. Patent 6,138,698 (henceforth referred to as Tanaka).
As to claim 7, (Currently Amended) Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a shake detection unit, wherein the shake detection unit is configured to stop driving of the ultrasonic transducer upon detecting shake.
Tanaka teaches a similar ultrasonic cleaner (column 3 lines 27-28 ultrasonic cleaning apparatus). Tanaka teaches a shake detection unit (column 4 lines 54-57 detecting device 50, which comprises of output sensors 51, detect abnormal ultrasonic vibrations), wherein the shake detection unit is configured to stop driving of the ultrasonic transducer upon detecting shake (column 5 lines 22-25 if the abnormal condition of the ultrasonic unit 3 is detected, the ultrasonic cleaning apparatus is interrupted immediately).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a shake detection unit as taught by Tanaka. It would have been obvious to use a shake detection unit to detect a vibration abnormality to determine whether or not the ultrasonic oscillation unit 3 is functioning correctly (column 5 lines 24-25).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie), Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara), and Nakano U.S. Publication 2020/0061677 (henceforth referred to as Nakano) as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Chimura et al. JPH0575292 (henceforth referred to as Chimura).
As to claim 9, (Currently Amended) Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano a conveyance base upon which the cleaning tank and the ultrasonic transducer are mounted, the conveyance base configured for conveyance on a conveyance line of the automatic analyzer.
Chimura teaches a conveyance base (paragraph [0012] movable base 14). Chimura teaches a conveyance base upon which the cleaning tank and the ultrasonic transducer are mounted (paragraph [0013] the ultrasonic cleaning tank 21 is installed on one side of the mobile platform 14), the conveyance base configured for conveyance on a conveyance line (paragraph [0012] the movable base 14 moves along a guide rail 13).
The combination of Horie, Shigihara, Nakano, and Chimura would result in the conveyance base moving along the conveyance line of the automatic analyzer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a conveyance base as taught by Chimura. It would have been obvious to install the ultrasonic cleaning tank onto the conveyance base in order to position the ultrasonic cleaning tank into any desired position (paragraph [0012]), such as a position in which the ultrasonic cleaning tank can receive a nozzle for cleaning (paragraph [0019]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie), Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara), and Nakano U.S. Publication 2020/0061677 (henceforth referred to as Nakano) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sakurai et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0199794 (henceforth referred to as Sakurai), Chimura et al. JPH0575292 (henceforth referred to as Chimura), and Yoshioka JP2000287670 (henceforth referred to as Yoshioka).
As to claim 11, (Currently Amended) Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a line barcode, a matrix barcode, or an integrated circuit chip associated with the ultrasonic cleaner that enables the ultrasonic cleaner to be automatically distinguished from a rack carried by a conveyance line of the automatic analyzer.
Sakurai teaches a similar ultrasonic cleaner (paragraph [0024] ultrasonic operating apparatus). Sakurai teaches an integrated circuit chip associated with the ultrasonic cleaner (FIG. 3 paragraph [0036] the information storage element 12 is an integrated circuit chip. paragraph [0068] the identification information and the use history information is stored in the information storage element 12c, 12d or 12e).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a way to determine type discrimination as taught by Sakurai. It is known in the art to know the identification information and the use history information in order to manage and monitor the use status, sterilization, and cleaning of the transducer probes (paragraph [0068]).
Chimura teaches a conveyance base (paragraph [0012] movable base 14). Chimura teaches a rack carried by a conveyance line (paragraph [0012] the movable base 14 moves along a guide rail 13, which read on the rack and conveyance line, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a rack and conveyance line as taught by Chimura. It would have been obvious to have a rack that travels along a conveyance line in order position the rack at any desired position (paragraph [0012]).
Yoshioka teaches a barcode reader (paragraph [0080] barcode reader 39). Yoshioka teaches items needing to be identified to be automatically distinguished from a rack (paragraph [0081] cartridges 35 can be individually identified by their identification medium 38, such as a barcode, as it is supplied to the region 11).
The combination of Horie, Shigihara, Nakano, Sakurai, Chimura, and Yoshioka would result in Sakurai’s ultrasonic cleaners being individually identified by Yoshioka’s barcode reader as it travels along Chimura’s conveyance line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a way to individually distinguish objects such as ultrasonic cleaners. It is known in the art to use barcodes and barcode readers to identify objects, including ultrasonic cleaners, as a means of organizing and managing the objects/ultrasonic cleaners.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0161829 (henceforth referred to as Horie), Shigihara et al. U.S. Publication 2008/0289971 (henceforth referred to as Shigihara), and Nakano U.S. Publication 2020/0061677 (henceforth referred to as Nakano) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chimura et al. JPH0575292 (henceforth referred to as Chimura).
As to claim 13, (Currently Amended) Horie further teaches racks of containers (FIG. 1 paragraph [0044] sample containers 23 are loaded on a rack 24).
Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano differ from the instant claim in failing to teach a conveyance line, the automatic analyzer further comprising a conveyance base on which the ultrasonic cleaner is mounted, the conveyance base configured to be transported along the conveyance line to transport the ultrasonic cleaner to a cleaning location
Chimura teaches a conveyance base (paragraph [0012] movable base 14). Chimura teaches a conveyance line for transporting racks of containers (paragraph [0012] a parts supply unit 10 is mounted on a movable base 14 that moves along a guide rail 13, which reads on the claimed conveyance line), a conveyance base on which the ultrasonic cleaner is mounted (paragraph [0013] the ultrasonic cleaning tank 21 is installed on one side of the mobile platform 14), the conveyance base configured to be transported along the conveyance line to transport the ultrasonic cleaner to a cleaning location (paragraph [0019] the movable table 14 positions the ultrasonic cleaning tank 21 to a position in which the nozzle 4 can be immersed into the ultrasonic cleaning tank 21).
The combination of Horie, Shigihara, Nakano, and Chimura would result in Horie’s racks being mounted on Chimura’s conveyance base and the automatic analyzer having a conveyance base.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasonic cleaner as taught by Horie, Shigihara, and Nakano with a conveyance base as taught by Chimura. It would have been obvious to install the ultrasonic cleaning tank onto the conveyance base in order to position the ultrasonic cleaning tank into any desired position (paragraph [0012]), such as a position in which the ultrasonic cleaning tank can receive a nozzle for cleaning (paragraph [0019]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/LEVON J SHAHINIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights