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 .
Summary
Claims 10-17 are pending. Claims 10-17 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 10-17 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 claims 10 and 17: The phrase “in a horizontal direction” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if it pertains to “aspirates or discharges a liquid” or “capable of driving a probe.” This language is also in claim 17.
Regarding claims 10 and 17: “Capacitance between the probe and a surrounding” is indefinite. It seems like a word might be missing. If the Applicant intends to indicate the area surrounding the probe, the Applicant may consider language such as “measure a capacitance between the probe and its surroundings.” This language also appears in claim 17.
Regarding claims 10-14 and 17: The movement of the probe is indefinite. Para. 37-38 of the specification as filed describes the steps that are taken to perform the automatic position adjustment, however claim 10 only recites actions happening “when the dispensing mechanism is driven.” Therefore all limitations related to the movement of the probe are statements of intended use that are performed outside the scope of claims 10-14. The Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the control unit is configured to:” and then positively reciting the driving of the probe by the control unit. This indefiniteness also pertains to the location of the first member and the second member, because their location is based on the movement of the probe (“being located on one side and the other side across a movement trajectory of the probe”). Claim 17 is a method claim and still does not positively recite the movement of the probe. The first paragraph only states that it is “capable of driving…in a horizontal direction.” Paragraph 3 only recites calculating something “when the dispensing mechanism is driven.”
Regarding claim 11: There is no antecedent bass for “the circular movement trajectory” therefore it is unclear if this language was supposed to appear in claim 10 first.
Regarding claim 12: “Circumferential direction” is not sufficiently defined. It should be introduced with reference to a properly introduced “circular movement trajectory.”
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites method steps that are not within the scope of apparatus claim 1. Therefore the scope of claim 15 is unclear. Furthermore, the language “are attached” is indefinite because it does not define what the members are attached to. A straightforward reading of the language of claim 15 would indicate that they are attached to each other, but this is not what the specification teaches.
Regarding claims 11-16: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by OKUYAMA et al. (US 20150114140).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: An automatic analyzer (FIG. 2) comprising: a dispensing mechanism (31a) capable of driving a probe that aspirates or discharges (para. 45) a liquid in a horizontal direction (X and Y in FIG. 2; para. 45) and a height direction (Z in FIG. 2; para. 45); a capacitance measurement unit (35 in FIG. 3) provided on the probe (31a; FIG. 3; para. 49) and configured to measure a capacitance between the probe and a surrounding (para. 49; FIG. 13A; para. 120-121) and a control unit (3 in FIG. 5) configured to control the dispensing mechanism (31a in FIG. 5) and the capacitance measurement unit (35 in FIG. 5), wherein the control unit includes: a liquid level detection unit (from capacitance signal as discussed in para. 49, 75) configured to detect a liquid level of the liquid based on the capacitance measured by the capacitance measurement unit (para. 49. 75); a peak value calculation unit (para. 121) configured to calculate respective peak values of capacitances (FIG. 13A) caused by a first member and a second member (protrusions J12 in FIG. 7A; para. 121) when the dispensing mechanism is driven in the horizontal direction (Movement in the horizontal direction in shown in FIG. 12A and discussed in para. 109, 124), the first member and the second member being located on one side and the other side across a movement trajectory of the probe and provided at a predetermined interval in a movement direction of the probe (As discussed in the 112 rejections above. The movement of the probe is a statement of intended use, therefore the location of the first and second members is indefinite and also a statement of intent. Please note that FIG. 7A shows members J12 spaced at intervals.); and a position determination unit (para. 69-71) configured to determine a horizontal position of the probe by comparing a first peak value caused by the first member and a second peak value caused by the second member (This process is discussed with respect to FIG. 13A in para. 121-122.).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: the first member (J12 in FIG. 7A) is provided on an inner diameter side of the circular movement trajectory of the probe (The trajectory of the probe is undefined as discussed above, therefore all statements pertaining the movement of the probe are statements of intended use that do not limit the structural scope of the apparatus.), and the second member (another J12 in FIG. 7A) is provided on an outer diameter side of the circular movement trajectory of the probe (Again the movement is undefined. Please note a probe could be moved in any trajectory past the protrusions J12.), and the position determination unit determines that the probe is displaced toward the inner diameter side when the first peak value is larger than the second peak value, and determines that the probe is displaced toward the outer diameter side when the second peak value is larger than the first peak value (This is relating the probes actual position in space to the output of the capacitance sensor as it is moved past the members as discussed in para. 121-122 with respect to FIG. 13A.).
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: the position determination unit determines that the probe is displaced in a circumferential direction when a movement amount or movement time for the probe to reach a position corresponding to the first peak value or the second peak value from a reference position is out of a predetermined range (As discussed above, the movement is not within the scope of the claim and is intended use. Please note however that OKUYAMA discloses simple search region SA1 to get a rough idea of where the member is located and then executing the fine movement that will allow precise position determination as discussed in para. 103-104 with respect to FIG. 9.).
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: the control unit further includes a position correction unit configured to correct a position of the probe when a displacement of the probe is determined (step S3 in FIG. 8; para. 105).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: the first member and the second member have a shape of protruding toward the movement trajectory of the probe (The protrusions J12 in FIG. 7A protrude towards the trajectory of the probe, which is above them as discussed in para. 124.).
Regarding claim 15: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: the first member and the second member are attached (Jigs J1-J4, shown in FIGS. 7A-D are mounted onto the sample processing apparatus as discussed in para. 99.) before the determination of the horizontal position of the probe, and are removed after the determination of the horizontal position of the probe (This is inherent in the fact that the jigs J1-J4 have to be mounted before the position adjustment process as discussed in para. 99.).
Regarding claim 17: As best understood, OKUYAMA discloses: A control method of an automatic analyzer (1 in FIG. 5 using information processing unit 3), the automatic analyzer including a dispensing mechanism (31a in FIG. 2) capable of driving a probe that aspirates or discharges (para. 45) a liquid in a horizontal direction (X and Y in FIG. 2; para. 45) and a height direction Z in FIG. 2 in para. 45), a capacitance measurement unit (35 in FIG. 3) provided on the probe and configured to measure a capacitance between the probe and a surrounding (para. 49; FIG. 13A; para. 120-121), and a control unit (3 in FIG. 5) configured to control the dispensing mechanism (31a in FIG. 5) and the capacitance measurement unit (35 in FIG. 5), the method causing the control unit to: detect a liquid level of the liquid based on the capacitance measured by the capacitance measurement unit (para. 49, 75); calculate respective peak values of capacitances (shown in FIG. 13A) caused by a first member and a second member (protrusions J12 in FIG. 7A; para. 121) when the dispensing mechanism is driven in the horizontal direction (Movement in the horizontal direction in shown in FIG. 12A.), the first member and the second member being located on one side and the other side across a movement trajectory of the probe and provided at a predetermined interval in a movement direction of the probe (FIG. 9 shows a movement trajectory of the probe which will be between protrusions J12 of JIG J1 in FIG. 7A.); and determine a horizontal position of the probe by comparing a first peak value caused by the first member and a second peak value caused by the second member (This process is discussed with respect to FIG. 13A in para. 121-122.).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKUYAMA and MATSUI et al. (US 20130316336).
Regarding claim 16: As best understood, OKUYAMA does not disclose a cleaning tank configured to clean the probe.
MATSUI however does teach a cleaning tank (68 in FIG. 2; para. 49).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the cleaning tank of MATSUI in the analyzer of OKUYAMA to prevent contamination (para. 9 of MATSUI). Because OKUYAMA teaches the members fixed to all areas of probe movement (see locations 1-11 in FIG. 10; para. 107), having a cleaning tank would be an additional reference location (para. 69; FIG. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights