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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“exhaust unit” in claim 1;
“reaction container moving member” in claim 1;
“exhaust unit driving mechanism” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case:
“exhaust unit” in claim 1 is being interpreted as a vacuum pump or the like (specification, paragraph [0062]) and equivalents thereof; and
“reaction container moving member” in claim 1 is being interpreted as a reaction container floating member that is capable of moving the reaction container (specification, paragraphs [0083]-[0084]) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recite the limitations “an exhaust unit driving mechanism”. The specification merely recites the functions of the exhaust unit driving mechanism (paragraphs [0068]-[0069],[0074],[0098]) and is silent on what structure contributes to the particular “exhaust unit driving mechanism”. Figs. 4-5 depicts exhaust unit driving mechanism 401, however, it is unclear what structures performs the claimed functions. The disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. The disclosure is devoid of any structures that performs the functions in the claim, and thus the claims were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the automatic analyzer executes a first evaporative concentration step…and a second evaporative concentration step”. It is unclear if the limitations following “executes” are intended uses or functional limitations of the automatic analyzer, or if applicant intends on the limitations being computer-functional limitations (MPEP 2114 (IV)). For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as intended uses or functional limitations of the automatic analyzer. It is suggested for applicant to recite, for example, “the automatic analyzer further comprising a processor programmed to execute a first evaporative concentration step…and a second evaporative concentration step…” to claim the computer-functional limitations. Note that the dependent claims, such as claims 2 and 13, are rejected for the same reasons; wherein, it is also suggested to recite the performed steps as, for example, “the processor is further programmed to …” perform or execute the claimed steps. Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation “exhaust unit driving mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the functions of the exhaust unit driving mechanism (paragraphs [0068]-[0069],[0074],[0098]) and is silent on what structure contributes to the particular “exhaust unit driving mechanism”. Figs. 4-5 depicts exhaust unit driving mechanism 401, however, it is unclear what structures performs the claimed functions. The disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada et al. (JP H10260118A; see machine translation) in view of Guthrie (US 20080210384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sawada teaches an automatic analyzer (Fig. 1; paragraph [0001]) comprising:
a reaction container (Fig. 25, test tube 24) configured to accommodate a liquid sample (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0044] teaches a sample solution in the test tube; note that “liquid sample” is not positively recited structurally), the reaction container having an opening (Figs. 3h and 25, interpreted as the top opening of the test tube 24);
a heating member (Figs. 24-25, heater block 294) configured to heat the reaction container (Figs. 24-25; [0100]), the heating member having one or more bottomed insertion holes (Figs. 24-25 and [0088], vertical holes 296), the reaction container being insertable into the insertion hole (Figs. 24-25; [0088]);
an exhaust unit (Fig. 25, nozzle head 306 including nozzle plug 308 and exhaust port 312), the exhaust unit being openable and closable with respect to the opening of the reaction container (Figs. 24-25 and [0100] teaches the nozzle plug on the test tube to evaporate the sample liquid and drying it, and then [0101] teaches removing and moving the test tube 24 to different sections of the automated system and dispensing methanol into test tube 24; therefore it is implied that the nozzle plug is openable and closable on the opening of the reaction container to allow for evaporation procedures and then subsequent dispensing procedures), the exhaust unit being configured to seal the opening of the reaction container in a closed state (Fig. 25 and [0088] teaches the nozzle head 306 configured to seal the opening of test tube 24 via the nozzle plug 308); and
a reaction container moving member (Figs. 24-25, push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302, which reads on the 112(f) interpretation of “reaction container moving member” as a reaction container floating member that is capable of moving the reaction container) configured to move the reaction container (Figs. 24-25 and [0088] teach the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is configured to move test tube 24 up and down), the reaction container being moved between a separation position and a contact position by the reaction container moving member along the insertion hole of the heating member (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 24-25 and [0088] teach the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is configured to move test tube 24 up and down; therefore, the push-up rod and push-up plate is capable of moving the test tube 24 between two positions along the vertical hole 296), the reaction container and a bottom portion of the insertion hole being separated from each other at the separation position (Figs. 24-25, interpreted as the position of the reaction container when the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is moves upwards, which would cause the test tube 24 to be separated from a bottom portion of vertical hole 296), the reaction container and the bottom portion of the insertion hole being in contact with each other at the contact position (Figs. 24-25, interpreted as the position of the reaction container when the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is moves down, which would cause the test tube 24 to be in contact with the bottom portion of vertical hole 296), wherein
the automatic analyzer executes
a second evaporative concentration step in which the exhaust unit removes the vapor in the reaction container and the heating member heats the reaction container with a second heat quantity where the reaction container is at the contact position (Figs. 24-25 and [0100] teaches heating the test tube and blowing nitrogen gas into the test tube, with waste gas discharged through the exhaust hole, while the test tube 24 is at a lowered position contacting the bottom of the vertical hole 296).
Sawada fails to teach an exhaust unit (as interpreted under 112(f) as a vacuum pump or the like and equivalents thereof) configured to aspirate vapor in the reaction container;
the automatic analyzer executes
a first evaporative concentration step in which the exhaust unit aspirates the vapor in the reaction container and the heating member heats the reaction container with a first heat quantity in a state where the reaction container is at the separation position, and
a second evaporative concentration step in which the exhaust unit aspirates the vapor in the reaction container and the heating member heats the reaction container with a second heat quantity larger than the first heat quantity in a state where the reaction container is at the contact position.
Sawada teaches a driving lift motor that drives the nozzle head, push-up rod, and push-up plate up and down together ([0088]). Sawada teaches heating the test tube and blowing nitrogen gas into the test tube ([0008],[0100]).
Guthrie teaches an apparatus for concentration solutions in a vaporizing receptacle (abstract). Guthrie teaches a heating means to apply heat to the solution within the receptacle ([0017]). Guthrie teaches to enable the evaporator to collect the discharged solvent it is advantageous to connect a condenser to the exhaust of the vacuum pump ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust unit of Sawada to incorporate Guthrie’s teachings of an apparatus for vaporizing solutions including an exhaust of a vacuum pump ([0038]) to provide: an exhaust unit (as interpreted under 112(f) as a vacuum pump or the like and equivalents thereof) configured to aspirate vapor in the reaction container, the automatic analyzer executes a first evaporative concentration step in which the exhaust unit aspirates the vapor in the reaction container and the heating member heats the reaction container with a first heat quantity in a state where the reaction container is at the separation position, and a second evaporative concentration step in which the exhaust unit aspirates the vapor in the reaction container and the heating member heats the reaction container with a second heat quantity larger than the first heat quantity in a state where the reaction container is at the contact position. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving collection of evaporated vapor from the reaction container during evaporation processes and improving automation of the reaction container moving member and heating member.
Note that the limitations of “executes a first evaporative concentration step….and a second evaporative concentration step…” are interpreted as an intended use of the automatic analyzer. Note that an intended use or functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended uses or functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Sawada is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Sawada discloses the claimed reaction container, heater member, exhaust unit, and reaction container moving member as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use (i.e. “executes a first evaporative concentration step…at the separation position…and a second evaporative concentration step…at the contact position”) recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I). Moreover, the automated analyzer of modified Sawada includes the heating member, exhaust unit, and reaction container moving member as claimed, wherein the reaction container moving member is capable of moving up to a separation position and down to a contact position (Sawada, [0088]), and wherein the heating member is capable of heating the reaction container (Sawada, [0100]), and wherein the exhaust unit is capable of aspirating the vapor in the reaction container (see above; Sawada in view of Guthrie provides the exhaust unit capable of aspirating vapor). Therefore, the reaction container of the automated analyzer of modified Sawada is capable of being heated and aspirated when the container is at the separation position and the contact position as claimed; wherein in the instance that the reaction container is heated in the contact position due to the position of the reaction container moving member, the reaction container would contact more surface area of the heater member, and therefore would have a “second heat quantity larger than the first heat quantity” as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sawada further teaches wherein the automatic analyzer performs the second evaporative concentration step after performing the first evaporative concentration step for a predetermined time (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; the apparatus of modified Sawada is identical to the presently claimed structure, wherein modified Sawada discloses the claimed reaction container, heater member, exhaust unit, and reaction container moving member as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the intended use; See MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 3, Sawada further teaches wherein the separation position is vertically above the contact position (Figs. 24-25, the separation position is interpreted as the position of the reaction container when the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is moves upwards, which is above the contact position, i.e. the position of the reaction container when the push-up rod 300 and push-up plate 302 is moves down).
Regarding claim 5, Sawada further teaches wherein the heating member includes a plurality of the insertion holes (Figs. 24-25 and [0088], vertical holes 296), and the insertion holes are arranged in a line (Fig. 24), and the heating member is configured to be movable in parallel with an arrangement direction of the insertion holes (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Sawada’s heating block 394 is identical to the presently claimed structure, and therefore, would have the ability to perform the functional limitation; See MPEP 2112.01 (I); e.g. a user is capable of moving the analyzer and therefore the heating member together, i.e. in parallel, with an arrangement direction of the insertion holes).
Regarding claim 6, Sawada fails to teach: the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, further comprising: an exhaust unit driving mechanism configured to move the exhaust unit between an open position and a closed position, wherein the exhaust unit opens the opening by being separated from the opening of the reaction container at the open position, and depressurizes an inside of the reaction container by sealing the opening of the reaction container at the closed position.
Sawada the nozzle head 306 configured to seal the opening of test tube 24 via the nozzle plug 308 (Fig. 25 and [0088]).
Guthrie teaches an apparatus and method for concentrating and/or drying solutions in a receptacle which involves evaporation under low pressures ([0009]). Guthrie teaches a vacuum pump to reduce the pressure within the vaporizing receptacle and a means for sealing the receptacle to maintain the reduced pressure ([0014]-[0015]). Guthrie teaches a means for engaging and disengaging the receptacle with the apparatus may be automatically operated ([0033]). Guthrie teaches to enable the evaporator to collect the discharged solvent it is advantageous to connect a condenser to the exhaust of the vacuum pump ([0038]). Guthrie teaches during evaporation, the receptacle is sealed by pressing the open aperture against a seal that is connected to the vacuum pump ([0031]). Guthrie teaches a lever and spring used to force the receptacle against the seal, thus connecting, without leakage, the receptacle to the vacuum connection ([0119]). Guthrie teaches a motorized lifting mechanism to lift the vial until it engages the seal ([0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated analyzer of modified Sawada to incorporate Sawada’s teachings of sealing the reaction container (Fig. 25 and [0088]) and Guthrie’s teachings of evaporation under low pressure using a means for sealing and reducing pressure in the receptacle, and mechanisms for automatically engaging the receptacle with the apparatus, such as sealing the receptacle against the seal of the vacuum pump ([0009],[0014]-[0015], [0031], [0033], [0038],[0119], [0138]) to provide: the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, further comprising: an exhaust unit driving mechanism configured to move the exhaust unit between an open position and a closed position, wherein the exhaust unit opens the opening by being separated from the opening of the reaction container at the open position, and depressurizes an inside of the reaction container by sealing the opening of the reaction container at the closed position. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of opening and sealing the reaction container and improving evaporation of the reaction container when the reaction container is sealed and closed.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sawada fails to teach: the automatic analyzer according to claim 6, wherein the open position and the closed position are vertically above the reaction container, the exhaust unit driving mechanism moves the exhaust unit to a replacement position that is not vertically above the reaction container, and in the automatic analyzer, the reaction container in the insertion hole is replaced in a state where the exhaust unit is at the replacement position.
Sawada teaches a chuck unit to remove the reaction container from a test tube holding section to move to a different stage ([0101]).
Guthrie teaches a means for engaging and disengaging the receptacle with the apparatus may be automatically operated; wherein the means also provide for simple or automated replacement of the receptacle with a further receptacle ([0033]). Guthrie teaches during evaporation, the receptacle is sealed by pressing the open aperture against a seal that is connected to the vacuum pump ([0031]). Guthrie teaches a lever and spring used to force the receptacle against the seal, thus connecting, without leakage, the receptacle to the vacuum connection ([0119]). Guthrie teaches a motorized lifting mechanism to lift the vial until it engages the seal ([0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic analyzer of modified Sawada to incorporate Sawada’s teachings or removing the reaction container to move to a different stage ([0101]) and Guthrie’s teachings of simple and automatic engaging, disengaging, and replacement of the receptacle ([0033]) and the receptacle is sealed at an open aperture ([0031],[0119],[0138]) to provide: the automatic analyzer according to claim 6, wherein the open position and the closed position are vertically above the reaction container, the exhaust unit driving mechanism moves the exhaust unit to a replacement position that is not vertically above the reaction container, and in the automatic analyzer, the reaction container in the insertion hole is replaced in a state where the exhaust unit is at the replacement position. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully opening and sealing the top of the reaction container (i.e. positions vertically above the reaction container), while improving automation of positioning the exhaust unit driving mechanism in a desired position for proper removal and replacement of the reaction container from the insertion hole (e.g. ensuring the seal is not above the reaction container so that the reaction container can be removed from the insertion hole).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sawada fails to explicitly the automatic analyzer according to claim 7, wherein the automatic analyzer includes a plurality of the exhaust units, and the exhaust units are arranged corresponding to the insertion holes.
Sawada teaches a plurality of test tubes (Fig. 24, element 24) coupled to a nozzle head (Fig. 24, nozzle head 306), wherein each test tube is coupled to a respective exhaust port (Fig. 25, element 312) which correspond to the insertion holes (Figs. 24-25). Sawada teaches automatic sample processing to perform the series of operations to allow for efficient use of space ([0103]). Sawada teaches the invention improves work efficiency and allows for performing analytical processing on a large number of samples at once ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic analyzer of modified Sawada to incorporate Sawada’s teachings of a plurality of exhaust ports for each reaction container (Fig. 24) and improving work efficiency and processing large number of samples ([0103]) to provide: the automatic analyzer according to claim 7, wherein the automatic analyzer includes a plurality of the exhaust units, and the exhaust units are arranged corresponding to the insertion holes. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving throughput and efficiency of the automatic analyzer to process multiple reaction containers in the corresponding insertion holes.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Guthrie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lautenschlager (US 5858178 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sawada fails to teach: the automatic analyzer according to claim 3, wherein the insertion hole of the heating member has a step portion whose diameter decreases from an opening end toward the bottom portion, a liquid level of the liquid sample is at a position higher than the step portion in the state where the reaction container is at the separation position, and a liquid level of the liquid sample is at a position lower than the step portion in the state where the reaction container is at the contact position.
Lautenschlager teaches an apparatus for preparing and extracting samples by heating them together with a solvent in a container under pressure, and drying the samples by heating the container and drawing off resultant vapors (abstract; Figs. 1-4). Lautenschlager teaches a reaction container (Fig. 4, element 8, 147) placed in a heating member (pressure vessel 106 and sample holder 135). Lautenschlager teaches the heating member has a step portion whose diameter decreases from an opening end toward the bottom portion (Fig. 4 teaches a step portion 135c that decreases from an opening towards a bottom of the sample holder 135), which allows the reaction container to be easily gripped from above (column 9, lines 57-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insertion hole of modified Sawada to incorporate Lautenschlager’s teachings of a reaction container heating member with a step portion (Fig. 4) to provide: the automatic analyzer according to claim 3, wherein the insertion hole of the heating member has a step portion whose diameter decreases from an opening end toward the bottom portion, a liquid level of the liquid sample is at a position higher than the step portion in the state where the reaction container is at the separation position, and a liquid level of the liquid sample is at a position lower than the step portion in the state where the reaction container is at the contact position. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving gripping of the reaction container by a user as taught by Lautenschlager.
Note that “liquid sample” and therefore “liquid level… at the separation position” and “liquid level…at the contact position” are not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (i.e. “liquid sample” and therefore “liquid level… at the separation position” and “liquid level…at the contact position”) worked upon by a structure (automated analyzer) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Note that a functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional limitations, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. The apparatus of modified Sawada is identical to the presently claimed structure. Modified Sawada discloses the claimed insertion hole and reaction container moving member as claimed and therefore, would have the ability to perform the use recited in the claim. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada in view of Guthrie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US 20100111384 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sawada fails to teach: the automatic analyzer according to claim 8, wherein while one of the exhaust units is at the replacement position, another exhaust unit depressurizes inside of a corresponding reaction container.
Sawada teaches a chuck unit to remove the reaction container from a test tube holding section to move to a different stage ([0101]). Sawada teaches a plurality of test tubes (Fig. 24, element 24) coupled to a nozzle head (Fig. 24, nozzle head 306), wherein each test tube is coupled to a respective exhaust port (Fig. 25, element 312) which correspond to the insertion holes (Figs. 24-25). Sawada teaches automatic sample processing to perform the series of operations to allow for efficient use of space ([0103]). Sawada teaches the invention improves work efficiency and allows for performing analytical processing on a large number of samples at once ([0103]). Sawada teaches sequentially performing operations ([0002]).
Guthrie teaches an apparatus and method for concentrating and/or drying solutions in a receptacle which involves evaporation under low pressures ([0009]). Guthrie teaches a vacuum pump to reduce the pressure within the vaporizing receptacle and a means for sealing the receptacle to maintain the reduced pressure ([0014]-[0015]). Guthrie teaches a means for engaging and disengaging the receptacle with the apparatus may be automatically operated; wherein the means also provide for simple or automated replacement of the receptacle with a further receptacle ([0033]). Guthrie teaches during evaporation, the receptacle is sealed by pressing the open aperture against a seal that is connected to the vacuum pump ([0031]). Guthrie teaches a lever and spring used to force the receptacle against the seal, thus connecting, without leakage, the receptacle to the vacuum connection ([0119]). Guthrie teaches a motorized lifting mechanism to lift the vial until it engages the seal ([0138]).
Nagai teaches a sample processing apparatus (abstract), including automatically transporting specimen containers ([0145]). Nagai teaches while continuously performing another specimen process, a specimen container can be replaced or a cap section can be mounted on the specimen container ([0197]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic analyzer of modified Sawada to incorporate Sawada’s teachings of performing a series of operations on a large number of samples and sequential operations ([0002],[0101],[0103]), Guthrie’s teachings of sealing to reduce pressure of the receptacles ([0009],[0014]-[0015]) and automatically engaging and disengaging the receptacle and replacing the receptacle ([0033]), and Nagai’s teachings of replacing a container or mounting a cap while continuously performing another process ([0197]) to provide: the automatic analyzer according to claim 8, wherein while one of the exhaust units is at the replacement position, another exhaust unit depressurizes inside of a corresponding reaction container. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of sequential steps of respective reaction containers, therefore improving efficiency of analytical processing of a large number of samples at once.
Prior Art
Regarding claim 10, Sawada et al. (JP H10260118A; see machine translation) in view of Guthrie (US 20080210384 A1) further teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 7 (see above rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103), further comprising: a motor mechanism (Fig. 25, lifting drive motor 316), wherein the motor mechanism includes a motor (Fig. 25, lifting drive motor 316). However, the closest prior art of Sawada et al. (JP H10260118A; see machine translation) in view of Guthrie (US 20080210384 A1) fail to teach: wherein the motor mechanism includes a pivot cam driven by the motor, the pivot cam includes a first cam member, a second cam member, and a third cam member that are operated in conjunction with one another, the first cam member moves the reaction container, the second cam member moves the exhaust unit between the open position and the closed position, and the third cam member moves the exhaust unit between the open position and the replacement position.
Guthrie teaches a pivot cam (Fig. 2 and [0105], user operable lever that is pivotally mounted onto block 18 by pin 62) that includes a second cam member (carriage 9) that moves the elastomeric seal (13) downward between an open and closed position to seal the bottle ([0105]-[0106]). However, Guthrie fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 10, such as a first cam member that moves the reaction container and a third member that moves the exhaust unit between the open position and the replacement position.
A reference Saito et al. (US 6124139 A) teaches an immunoassay system (abstract; Figs. 1-2) including a motor (22), rotating shaft (22a), and cam member (23) that has three arcuate portions (23a,23b,23c) that can pivot and allow for direction movement of a microplate holder (column 8, lines 59-65). However, Saito fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 10.
None of the prior art teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 10. Therefore, none of the prior art teaches claims 11-13, which are dependent on all of the limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamazaki et al. (US 20140224430 A1) teaches a gas-blowing vaporizing and drying device for blowing gas at a solution to promote vaporization, the device including an exhaust port (abstract; Figs. 1-8). Yamazaki teaches the device includes a heating member having an insertion hole (Figs. 1 and 5, temperature regulated block 27) configured to hold a reaction container (container body 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights