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
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.
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) 1 – 3, 7 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0192265 A1 to Fleischmann (hereinafter “Fleischmann”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Fleischmann teaches an automatic analysis system (see abstract, paragraphs [0002] – [0003] describing method of assessing at least one sample tube for use in a laboratory automation system, see also paragraph [0023] describing the term “laboratory automation system” (LAS) as a system which can be configured to handle sample tubes automatically comprising at least one actuator configured for handling plurality of sample tubes etc., hence reading on the invention as claimed) comprising:
an automatic analyzer including a plurality of units necessary for analyzing a component contained in a sample (see paragraph [0023] which states “The LAS, as an example, may comprise at least one actuator configured for handling the at least one sample tube, such as configured for handling a plurality of sample tubes, e.g., sequentially or in parallel”, and further states “The actuator, as an example, may be configured for automatically moving the at least one sample tube, such as through a plurality of handling stations within the system.”, see LAS system, Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0095] – [0096] which includes at least one sample tube 116 which may contain a wide variety of samples as described at paragraphs [0003], [0024]);
an image capturing unit (see mobile device 112 which includes a camera 120, Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0095], [0096]) that captures an image of one of the units when a user holds one of the units over the image capturing unit (see paragraph [0099] which states “capturing at least one image of at least a part of the sample tube 116 by using the camera 120 of the mobile device 112”, see Figs. 1, 2, see also abstract section); and
a mobile terminal (see mobile device 112, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0095]) including a display unit (see for instance paragraph [0025] describing the “mobile device” which can be a mobile electronic device such as a mobile phone, a cell phone, a smartphone etc., thus comprising a display unit as claimed) that displays a plurality of options to be subsequently performed by the user for the unit when the image capturing unit captures the image (see paragraphs [0020] – [0021] describing “assessing the suitability for use” and “suitability category” which includes providing at least one item of information to the user as well as providing classification with regard to the usability of a sample tube in the LAS, therefore by providing the usability or suitability category of the sample tube to the user, the system provides the user with options that can be subsequently performed by the user, see also paragraph [0115] which states “an interactive button 146 may be displayed, allowing a user to actively start the evaluation, based on the tube data listed above. Having started the evaluation, at least one result may be shown, such as the suitability category. Thus, as an example shown in FIG. 6, the “thumbs-up” symbol may indicate that the sample tube 116 is “known and compatible” for use with the laboratory automation system 114. Other symbols and/or text may be used for displaying the result. Further, besides the at least one suitability category, additional information may also be displayed”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Insofar as Fleischmann may be construed as not explicitly stating “displays a plurality of options to be subsequently performed by the user”, Fleischmann teaches providing “assessing the suitability for use” and “suitability category” as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the display unit that displays a plurality of options to be subsequently performed by the user as claimed, since Fleischmann does include displaying the suitability category which indicates the status of the sample tube for use with the LAS system.
Regarding Claim 2, Fleischmann as modified above teaches wherein when the user selects the first option of the plurality of options, the display unit provides display to prompt the user to select at least one of maintenance information about maintenance of the unit and operation information about an operation condition of the unit (see Fig. 6 and paragraph [0115] which describes “The result of the method 118 may comprise the suitability category which can be assigned to the sample tube 116 in step iv) 134 of the method 118. The suitability category may comprise at least one category from the group consisting of: “known and compatible”, “unknown, but compatible” and “not compatible”” and further states “In FIG. 6, as an example, firstly, the tube data of sample tube 116 can be displayed, such as the cap type, the cap color, the height, the diameter, and the cap width. This summary may allow the user to correct data or add missing data. Further, an interactive button 146 may be displayed, allowing a user to actively start the evaluation, based on the tube data listed above. Having started the evaluation, at least one result may be shown, such as the suitability category. Thus, as an example shown in FIG. 6, the “thumbs-up” symbol may indicate that the sample tube 116 is “known and compatible” for use with the laboratory automation system 114. Other symbols and/or text may be used for displaying the result.”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, Fleischmann as modified above teaches further comprising a server that performs information communications with the mobile terminal (see assessment system 110, Fig. 1 which includes the mobile device 112 and at least one backend server device 130, such as cloud server 132, see paragraph [0096]), wherein when the user holds the mobile terminal over the first unit of the plurality of units (see Fig. 1), the mobile terminal transmits, to the server, an inquiry to ask for transmission of information about the first unit, and the server transmits the information about the first unit to the mobile terminal in response to the inquiry (see paragraphs [0051] – [0052], [0096], [0107], [0110]).
Regarding Claim 7, Fleischmann teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the unit is an incubator, and the operation information includes at least use history of a reaction container to be placed on the incubator. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an incubator, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use operation information based on use history as per user’s desire.
Regarding Claim 8, Fleischmann as modified above teaches wherein when the user holds the mobile terminal over the unit, the display unit provides display to prompt the user to input specific information, and when the user inputs the specific information, the display unit displays user-specific information for the user (see display 141, Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0113] – [0114] describing the display 141 which may be used as a graphical user interface and which may allow a user to input data, such data may be second item of identification information such as via an input menu 142, see Figs. 5 – 5b, 6, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 9, Fleischmann as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the user-specific information includes at least information about an operator serving as the user and information about a serviceperson serving as the user. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include user-specific information as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique (i.e., user specific information of an operator and/or serviceperson) to a known device (LAS devices) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding Claim 10, Fleischmann as modified above teaches comprising a first automatic analyzer and a second automatic analyzer (see paragraph [0023] which describes the LAS as a clinical laboratory, a forensic laboratory etc. hence can be a first and second analyzer as claimed), wherein when the user holds the mobile terminal over the unit, the display unit provides display to prompt the user to select one of the first automatic analyzer and the second automatic analyzer (see modification of claim 1 above which describes the display as providing the ”assessing the suitability for use” and the “suitability category”, hence it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize options based on the suitability category of use i.e., based on the sample, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Insofar as Fleischmann may be construed as not explicitly teaching a first analyzer and a second analyzer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second analyzer as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding Claim 11, Fleischmann as modified above teaches wherein when the image capturing unit captures an image, the display unit displays the captured image (see paragraphs [0099] – [0101], [0109] describing the mobile device configured to capture at least one image of the sample tube by using the camera 120, see Figs 1, 4 – 6, thus reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 12, Fleischmann as modified above teaches wherein the display unit displays character information about the unit with the captured image (see characters of the image as illustrated at Figs. 4 – 6, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Claim(s) 4 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischmann in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,940,455 B2 to Suter et al. (hereinafter “Suter”).
Regarding Claim 4, Fleischmann teaches the claimed invention except for wherein when the user selects the maintenance information, the display unit displays at least a cleaning or washing date and time of the unit, presence or absence/necessity or unnecessity of a maintenance operation, or necessity or unnecessity of replacement.
Suter, in the field of consumable management systems for laboratories, teaches wherein when the user selects the maintenance information, the display unit displays at least a cleaning or washing date and time of the unit, presence or absence/necessity or unnecessity of a maintenance operation, or necessity or unnecessity of replacement (see Col. 7, lines 1 – 4, 32 – 49 which describes the consumable management system 1 which further comprises a control unit 20 connected to a database 30 and further states “the database 30 can be a dedicated database for maintenance of consumable inventory. Alternatively, or additionally, the database 30 can be part of a laboratory information system (LIS) communicatively connected to and configured to manage a plurality of laboratory instruments. The inventory of consumables can comprise: a list of consumables stored in the consumable storage cluster 10 and the corresponding storage compartment 12 as well as the expiry date of consumables (which do have an expiry date). Furthermore, according to some embodiments, the inventory of consumables can comprise opening time and shelf life of consumables (time till expiry if opened) and remainder amount of partially used consumables”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the management system having a dedicated database for maintenance of consumable inventory including opening time and shelf life of consumables of Suter into Fleischmann, in order to provide cost-effective systems for laboratories.
Regarding Claim 5, Fleischmann in view of Suter as modified above teaches wherein the display unit provides display to notify a user about a maintenance item if a recommended maintenance date for the maintenance item has passed when the user selects the maintenance information (see Col. 7, lines 32 – 49 of Suter describing inventory of the consumables and further states “Furthermore, according to some embodiments, the inventory of consumables can comprise opening time and shelf life of consumables (time till expiry if opened) and remainder amount of partially used consumables”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 6, Fleischmann in view of Suter as modified above teaches wherein the unit is at least one of a sample dispensing mechanism that sucks/dispenses the sample, a sample placement unit for loading the sample, a reagent dispensing mechanism that sucks/dispenses a reagent, and a reagent placement unit for placing the reagent (see LAS system as described at paragraph [0023] of Fleischmann, see rejection of claim 1 above), and the operation information includes at least the number of measurements for each analysis item, a total number of the samples, or a remaining amount of the reagent (see modifications in claims 2 and 4 above, note that it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use operation information such as total number of samples etc., based on the user’s desire as the information is captured by the mobile device).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Miyada, Yuki et al. (CN 109387648 A) teaches an automatic analysis system comprising a mobile terminal 114 operated by a user 200 for analyzing samples of the automatic analysis system 100, Fig. 1.
Tachibana (U.S. 10,163,223 B2) teaches an automatic analyser that dispenses a sample and a reagent to each of a plurality of reaction vessels to react the sample and the reagent with each other and measures a liquid obtained by reacting the sample and the reagent with each other, the automatic analyser including a reagent storage unit that holds a reagent bottle accommodating the reagent, a two-dimensional code which is attached to any position within the automatic analyser, an image capture unit that captures images of the reagent storage unit and the two-dimensional code, an information acquisition unit that acquires coordinate position information of the two-dimensional code within the automatic analyser.
Wall Warner et al. (U.S. 2017/0318166 A1) teaches methods, systems, and computer program products for biological inventory tracking using cloud services and mobile devices. According to one method, information is input from a mobile device about a specimen sample. The information includes an image of the specimen sample captured using the mobile device including an identifying indicia. The information is uploaded and stored in an encrypted format accessible to authorized and verified users. At least one characteristic of the specimen sample is determined based on the information. Tracking and status information, as well as notifications or reminders, regarding the specimen sample are provided in real-time or near real-time to the mobile device.
Matsumoto et al. (U.S. 2004/0265173 A1) teaches an automated analyzer which can be installed within a restricted space, can be used in a short time of switching on, and provides superior operability. A plurality of specimen container holders for holding specimen containers are provided around the outer periphery of a cylindrically shaped carousel. A plurality of cup holders, which correspond with the specimen container holders and are used for mounting reagent cups, are provided around the inner periphery. A revolving tower that revolves a sample dispensing nozzle is provided at the inner periphery of the carousel, and the sample dispensing nozzle is structured so as to be capable of both horizontal and vertical movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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 E. Martin 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights