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 § 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.
Claims 60 and 66-67 is 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.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "The method of claim 58, wherein the bubble deforming procedure is performed after the first time instance and before the second time instance.” However, there is no bubble deforming procedure in Claim 58. It is likely this claim is supposed to depend upon Claim 59 which does define a bubble deforming procedure. However, in its current state, the claim should be rejected under 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 66 recites the limitation "The method claim 64, wherein the output comprises a flagging result.” However, there is no output previously defined in clam 64. It is likely this claim is supposed to depend upon Claim 65 which does define an output. However, in its current state, Claim 66 should be rejected under 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 67 recites the limitation "The method claim 64, wherein the output comprises a notification to halt at least any operation of the automated analyzer comprising a use of the sample liquid.” However, there is no output previously defined in clam 64. It is likely this claim is supposed to depend upon Claim 65 which does define an output. However, in its current state, Claim 66 should be rejected under 112(b) for insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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.
Claims 55-57 and 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP Publication No. 2014145621 A) in view of Shirasawa et al (JP Publication No 2004354100 A).
Regarding Claim 55, Suzuki discloses A method of detecting bubbles in a sample liquid disposed in a container for use in an automated analyzer (Note “bubble detection algorithm”, see Specification paragraph 0021 which is part of the automatic analyzer), the method comprising: capturing, using an image capture device, a first image of the container at a first time instance (Note “imaging unit”, see Specification paragraph 0018 where an imaging unit captures an image of the sample storage container before dispensing of the sample).
However, Suzuki fails to disclose capturing, using the image capture device, a second image of the container at a second time instance after the first time instance; comparing, using a processor, the first image with the second image to determine a pattern matching score; determining, using the processor, a presence of bubbles in the sample liquid if the pattern matching score crosses a predetermined threshold score; and determining, using the processor, an absence of bubbles in the sample liquid if the pattern matching score does not cross the predetermined threshold score
Instead, Shirasawa discloses capturing, using the image capture device, a second image of the container at a second time instance after the first time instance (Note “first and second image” and “time difference”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the images have a time difference); comparing, using a processor, the first image with the second image (Note “difference image”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the images are compared as a difference image) to determine a pattern matching score (Note “characteristic amount”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where a characteristic amount, which will be described in further in depth, is determined from the differences); determining, using the processor, a presence of bubbles in the sample liquid if the pattern matching score crosses a predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized and therefore a bubble is determined when the lower threshold of said range is crossed); and determining, using the processor, an absence of bubbles in the sample liquid if the pattern matching score does not cross the predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized. Therefore, no bubble is characterized when the pattern matching score does not cross the lower threshold of the range). Shirasawa also describes the motivation for using these two images in describing the benefits of the differential image to improve detection of a floating object (See Specification paragraph 0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Shirasawa
Regarding Claim 56, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but fails to disclose wherein the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold score, and wherein the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is less than the predetermined threshold score.
Instead, Shirasawa discloses The method of claim 55, wherein the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized and therefore a bubble is determined when the pattern matching score is greater than the lower threshold of the range and falls inside of the range), and wherein the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is less than the predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized. Therefore, no bubble is characterized when the pattern matching score is lower than the entire range and falls outside it). Shirasawa also describes the motivation for using these two images in describing the benefits of the differential image to improve detection of a floating object (See Specification paragraph 0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Shirasawa
Regarding Claim 57, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but fails to disclose wherein the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold score, and wherein the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is less than the predetermined threshold score.
Instead, Shirasawa discloses The method of claim 55, wherein the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized and therefore a bubble is determined when the pattern matching score is lower than the upper threshold of the range and falls inside of the range), and wherein the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid is determined if the pattern matching score is greater than the predetermined threshold score (Note “characteristic amount” and “threshold”, see Specification paragraph 0012 where the characteristic amount is compared to a predetermined range a bubble is characterized. Therefore, no bubble is characterized when the pattern matching score is greater than the entire range and falls outside it). Shirasawa also describes the motivation for using these two images in describing the benefits of the differential image to improve detection of a floating object (See Specification paragraph 0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki in view of Shirasawa
Regarding Claim 59, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, further comprising performing a bubble deforming procedure to deform the bubbles in the sample liquid, wherein the bubble deforming procedure comprises vibrating, using a vibrating mechanism, the container and/or blowing, using a fluid delivery mechanism, a gaseous fluid into the sample liquid (Note “ultrasonic wave”, see Specification paragraph 0055 where defoaming of the bubble is performed using an ultrasonic wave and sound pressure which exceeds the bubble pressure to defoam it. Also note paragraph 0054 where a Langevin type vibrator is used to generate such ultrasonic waves which would read as vibrating the container with a vibrating mechanism).
Regarding Claim 61, Suzuki discloses The method claim 55, further comprising performing a bubble removing procedure to remove the bubbles in the sample liquid (Note “ultrasonic wave”, see Specification paragraph 0055 where defoaming of the bubble is performed using an ultrasonic wave and sound pressure which exceeds the bubble pressure to defoam it).
Regarding Claim 62, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 61, wherein the bubble removing procedure further comprises moving a sample probe to contact a surface of the sample liquid upon determining the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid (See Specification paragraph 0118 where the sample dispensing probe is brought into contact with the surface of the sample where additionally liquid level detection and the bubble detection means occur and can be retested again if needed).
Claims 58, 60, 65, and 68-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP Publication No. 2014145621 A) in view of Shirasawa et al (JP Publication No 2004354100 A) further in view of Funabashi et al (JP Publication No. 2017032302 A).
Regarding Claim 58, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but fails to disclose instead further comprising aspirating, using a probe, a portion of the sample liquid upon determining the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid
Instead, Funabashi discloses further comprising aspirating, using a probe, a portion of the sample liquid upon determining the absence of bubbles in the sample liquid (Note “no bubble”, see Specification paragraph 0054 where if no bubble is detected, the dispensing or aspirating operation continues). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 60, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 58, wherein the bubble deforming procedure is performed after the first time instance and before the second time instance (Note “Before defoaming” and “after defoaming”, see Specification paragraph 0067 where the imaging unit can take a picture before and after defoaming and therefore would the defoaming would be between those time instances of those pictures).
Regarding Claim 65, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but does not necessarily disclose further comprising providing, using an output device, an output indicative of the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid upon determining the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid, wherein the output comprises a notification for an operator to manually check for the bubbles in the sample liquid.
Instead, Funabashi discloses further comprising providing, using an output device, an output indicative of the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid upon determining the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid, wherein the output comprises a notification for an operator to manually check for the bubbles in the sample liquid (Note “alarm”, see Specification paragraph 0055 where an alarm is issued to the operator if bubbles are detected). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 68, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but fails to disclose further comprising moving, using a transport mechanism, the container from the first position to the second position spaced apart from the first position, wherein the container is removably received in a rack, and wherein moving the container from the first position to the second position further comprises moving, using the transport mechanism, the rack from the first position to the second position.
Instead, Funabashi discloses further comprising moving, using a transport mechanism, the container from the first position to the second position spaced apart from the first position (Note “rack conveyance line”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where a rack conveyance line is used to move the samples along positions. See this operation described further in paragraph 0052 where the sample transport rack is moved into a lower position of the bubble detection mechanism), wherein the container is removably received in a rack (Note “specimen transport rack”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where the samples are stored in a specimen transport rack), and wherein moving the container from the first position to the second position further comprises moving, using the transport mechanism, the rack from the first position to the second position (Note “rack conveyance line”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where a rack conveyance line is used to move the samples along positions). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 69, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 68, but fails to disclose wherein moving the rack from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the rack along a lane .
Instead, Funabashi discloses wherein moving the rack from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the rack along a lane . (Note “rack conveyance line”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where a rack conveyance line is used to move the samples along positions and would read as being moved along a lane). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 70, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 68, but fails to disclose The method of claim 68, wherein the transport mechanism comprises a shuttle that removably receives the rack therein, and wherein moving the rack from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the shuttle from the first position (P1) to the second position.
Instead, Funabashi discloses The method of claim 68, wherein the transport mechanism comprises a shuttle that removably receives the rack therein, and wherein moving the rack from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the shuttle from the first position (P1) to the second position (Note “rack conveyance line”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where a rack conveyance line would read as a shuttle for moving a sample within a transport rack and noting it is this conveyance line that received the rack). Instead, Funabashi discloses wherein moving the rack from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the rack along a lane (Note “rack conveyance line”, see Specification paragraph 0021 where a rack conveyance line is used to move the samples along positions). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 71, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 70, but fails to disclose wherein the image capture device is disposed on the shuttle.
Instead, Funabashi discloses wherein the image capture device is disposed on the shuttle (Note “imaging unit”, see Specification paragraph 0052 where the transport rack is moved along the line and into a bubble detection mechanism where it is illuminated and then imaged by the imaging unit and therefore the imaging unit is disposed on this conveyance line). The motivation is also taught by Funabashi (See Specification paragraph 0009) where the bubbles if present can cause erroneous liquid level detection. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Suzuki in view of Funabashi.
Regarding Claim 72, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 71 further comprising reading, using a reading device, an identifier associated with the container at the first position of the container (Reference “barcode reader 118”, see Specification paragraphs 0091-0092 where a barcode is read on the container prior to the imaging unit analyzing for bubbles at the position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 63-64, 66-67, and 73-74 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 63, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 62 but fails to disclose further comprising: moving, without aspirating the sample liquid, the sample probe away from the surface of the sample liquid after performing the bubble removing procedure; moving the sample probe to contact the surface of the sample liquid to sense a level of the sample liquid; and aspirating, using the sample probe, at least a portion of the sample liquid from the container after sensing the level of the sample liquid. Further, no other reference appeared to obviously combine with Suzuki which might teach such limitations. Therefore, Claim 63 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 64, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 55, but fails to disclose further comprising: capturing, using the image capture device, a third image of the container at a third time instance after the second time instance; comparing, using the processor, the first image, the second image, and the third image with each other to determine a multi-image pattern matching score; and determining, using the processor, the presence of bubbles in the sample liquid if each of the pattern matching score and the multi-image pattern matching score crosses the predetermined threshold score. Further, no other reference appeared to obviously combine with Suzuki which might teach such limitations. Therefore, Claim 64 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 66 and 67 are also objected to as dependent claims to Claim 64 above.
However, please note the rejection of Claims 66-67 under U.S.C. 112(b). As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding Claim 73, Suzuki discloses The method of claim 72, but fails to disclose further comprising moving the image capture device between a first capture position corresponding to the first position of the container and a second capture position corresponding to the second position of the container. Further, no other reference appeared to obviously combine with Suzuki which might teach such limitations. Therefore, Claim 73 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 74 is also objected to as dependent claims to Claim 73 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1993. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM to 2:30PM ET.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights