DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2009/0226344, hereinafter Nishida in view of United States Application Publication No. 2003/0075556, hereinafter Tajima.
Regarding claim 10, Nishida teaches an automatic analyzer (paragraph [0002]) comprising: a probe (the point at which item P connects to item 90a) to which a tip (item P) is attached to a distal end of the probe (figure 5) and that is configured to aspirate and discharge a liquid through the tip (paragraph [0042]); a first container holding unit (item 60a) configured to hold a plurality of containers (item 202) that contain a liquid to be aspirated by the probe (paragraph [0050]); a second container holding unit (item 80b) configured to hold a plurality of containers (paragraph [0049]) that contain a liquid to be discharged by the probe (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]); a control unit (item 400) that controls a movement of the probe (paragraph [0009]), the automatic analyzer further comprises a standby unit that causes the probe to stand by (paragraph [0119]), and the standby unit is located at the detection unit (paragraph [0119]).
Nishida fails to teach a detection unit configured to detect whether the tip is attached to the distal end of the probe; and the first container holding unit, the detection unit, and the second container holding unit are arranged in this order; and the control unit performs control such that the probe returns to the detection unit and the detection unit detects the tip after the probe aspirates the liquid on the first container holding unit, passes through the detection unit, and discharges the liquid on the second container holding unit.
Tajima teaches a pipetting device in which a detection device is utilized for the judging the presence of the pipette tip to verify operation and to verify the presence of liquid within the pipette (Tajima, paragraphs [0136]-[0139]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the detection device of Tajima which determines if the pipette tip is present and control the pipette tip so that it returns to the detection unit and the detection unit detects the tip after the probe aspirates the liquid on the first container holding unit, passes through the detection unit, and discharges the liquid on the second container holding unit because it would allow for the verification of the presence of liquid within the pipette (Tajima, paragraphs [0136]-[0139]). Further, the order of the first container holding unit, the detection unit, and the second container holding unit are considered to be in this order as the pipette goes from the first container holding unit to the detection unit and then to the second container holding unit.
Regarding claim 11, Nishida teaches further comprising: a cleaning tank (item 220) configured to clean the tip (paragraph [0054]), the cleaning tank being provided between the first container holding unit and the second container holding unit (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nishida teaches the detection unit is installed above the cleaning tank (the detection unit is located on the top surface of the device and the cleaning tank is located below and therefore is above). However, if it is determined that the detection unit is not above the cleaning tank, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the cleaning unit and detection unit would still function as described.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nishida teaches the detection unit is capable of transmitting tip detection information in the detection unit to the control unit when a control command is issued from the control unit (see supra).
Regarding claim 14, Nishida teaches a discarding position (item 40) that is a position to discard the tip from the probe (paragraph [0024]), wherein the first container holding unit, the detection unit, the second container holding unit, and the discarding position are arranged in this order (they are considered to be in this order as the pipette goes from the first container holding unit to the detection unit, to the second container holding unit and then to the discarding position), and the detection unit enables detection of the tip before discarding the tip at the discarding position (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nishida teaches the detection unit includes a light source that emits light and a photodetector that detects the light (see supra).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Nishida and Tajima and the apparatus of modified Nishida is capable of aspirating the liquid to be aspirated, which is held by the first container holding unit, a plurality of times in a dispensing operation and discharging the liquid into the second container holding unit. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Nishida (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Nishida and Tajima and the apparatus of modified Nishida is capable of working on a sample and reagent as the liquid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Nishida (see MPEP §2115).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights