DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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.
As to claims 1,2,7,9,14,15,18, “preferentially performs” is indefinite. Initiating a phrase in such a manner introduces an uncertainty as to whether performance takes place. Contrast with “is preferentially performed” (italics added, last 2 lines, claim 19) which has an entirely different meaning.
As to claim 2, preamble calls for an “apparatus”, but the “an input part” is not operatively connected to any other elements in the body of the claim, suggestive of a list of unconnected parts. The claim is not internally consistent.
As to claim 14, this is an apparatus claim. As such, it’s not clear how lines 2-3 are structural and/or functional limitations. Is the controller somehow configured to operate under the conditions of lines 2-3? (The claim does not state that.) Lines 2-3 are neither structurally nor functionally related to remaining limitations in this apparatus claim. Maybe, the controller is configured to carry out everything in claim 14; but the claim does not state such. It’s not clear how lines 2-3 can be interpreted as defining an apparatus claim.
As to claim 14, this apparatus claim is problematic, as it appears to include the steps of a controller performing measurements. An apparatus claim includes a combination of structural and functional limitations, and should not include step(s). Is it Applicant’s intent to claim a controller that is configured to perform both the steps of measurement?
As to claim 15, this is an apparatus claim. However, it’s not clear how lines 2-3 provide a structural and/or function limitation. Is the controller somehow configured to perform the measurement during the conditions provided in lines 2-3 (and after suction is completed)? Is that Applicant’s intent? Presently, it appears that the claim merely provides an atmosphere (or setting, if you will) that depicts when the controller performs the step of performing measurement; and in that event, the claim is confusing because lines 2-3 do not serve to add any structural or functional limitations. Nothing seems to support lines 2-3 in the wherein clause. What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 15, an apparatus claim calls for a combination of structure and/or functional limitations, and cannot be combined with a step. Lines 2-3 are neither structurally nor functionally related to remaining limitations in this apparatus claim. How is this claim to be interpreted such that all of it is limited to the combination of structure and functional limitations? What is Applicant’ intent?
As to claim 15, is the controller configured to perform measurement of the specimen held in the rack, or is the claim combined with a step (i.e. the step of the controller actually performing the measurements?) An apparatus claim is limited to the combination of structure and/or functional limitations. It is problematic to combine a step limitation with structure in an apparatus claim, as an apparatus is the combination of structure and functional limitations.
As to claim 16, this is an apparatus claim. As such, it’s not clear how line 2 is a structurally and/or functional limitation. Is the controller somehow configured to operate under the conditions depicted in line 2? (The claim does not express such) Line 2 is neither structurally nor functionally related to the remaining limitations in this apparatus claim. As such, it’s not clear how line 2 is to be interpreted in this apparatus claim.
As to claim 16, is the controller configured to perform measurement of the specimen held in the rack, or is the claim really adding a step (i.e. step of the controller actually performing the measurement?) An apparatus claim is limited to the combination of structure and/or functional limitation. It is problematic to combine a step limitation in an apparatus claim, as an apparatus is the combination of structure and functional limitations.
As to claim 17, this is an apparatus claim. However, it’s not clear how line 2 provides a structural and/or functional limitation. Is the controller somehow configured to perform both measurements during the conditions depicted in line 2? Presently, it is not clear if such is the case as nothing structurally or functionally supports line 2 as being either a structural or functional limitation. (Presently, it appears that the claim merely provides an atmosphere (or setting, if you will) that depicts when the controller performs the measurement steps, but nothing structurally and/or functionally supports such. What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claim 17, this is an apparatus claim. The body of the claim is confusing because it includes the step of the controller performing 2 measurements. Is this claim an apparatus claim or is this claim a method claim. (It may only be one or the other) Is this claim limited to the combination of structure and the step of carrying out actual steps, or is the controller merely so configured? What is Applicant’ intent?
As to claim 18, it’s not clear how lines 2-3 are either structural and/or functional limitations. Is the controller somehow configured to operate under the conditions depicted in lines 1-2? (The claim does not express such) Lines 1-2 are neither structurally nor functionally related to the remaining limitations in this apparatus claim. (Presently, it appears that the claim merely provides an atmosphere (or setting, if you will) that depicts when the controller preferentially performs the measurement steps, but nothing structurally and/or functionally supports such.) Is the controller merely configured to carry out all of lines 2-5, or is this step suggestive of an apparatus claim that includes a step?
As to claim 18, is the controller configured to suspend pre-measurement treatment and perform measurement of the specimen, or in the alternative, is the claim really adding steps (i.e. the steps of suspending pre-measurement treatment, and performing measurement of the specimen). An apparatus claim is limited to the combination of structure and/or functional limitations, and it’s problematic to introduce a step. It is problematic to combine a step limitation in an apparatus claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taku et al 6444171.
Reference Taku et al 6444171 teaches (Figure 1) A specimen measurement method, comprising:
setting a normal mode or an urgent mode as a specimen (blood or urine per lines 9-15, col. 1) measurement mode for each of racks (2, and another in position 211 of Figure 1) each capable of holding a plurality of specimen containers, the urgent mode being higher in urgency in measurement than the normal mode (per lines 20-33, col. 3); and
storing a first rack tray 152 and a second rack tray 152
when a rack in the normal mode and a rack in the urgent mode are stored
The Reference does not refer to storing the racks in a housing.
As to claim 19, it is known to store blood and/or urine samples in a cooler (housing) to protect such from a patient to a test sight, suggestive of employing such in Taku.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,2,3,14,16,15,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagai et al 10150185119 (listed 1449).
As to claim 1, Reference Nagai teaches (Figures 1,2) a specimen measurement apparatus configured to measure a specimen, comprising:
a housing 2 (Figure 1);
a first rack tray 30 (door 30, Figure 2) configured to store therein a rack (Figure 3a) capable of holding a plurality of specimen containers, the first rack tray being able to be taken in and out with respect to the housing;
a second rack tray (second door 30, Figure 2) configured to store therein a rack capable of holding a plurality of specimen containers, the second rack tray being able to be taken in and out with respect to the housing, independently from the first rack tray (as drawer 30 “is pulled out forwardly by an operator” (Para 50); and
a controller 201 programmed to perform a process related to measurement of the specimen, according to a normal mode or an urgent mode that is set as specimen measurement mode for each of the racks, the urgent mode being higher in urgency in measurement than the normal mode (Paragraph 50,87-88,101-104),
wherein when a rack in the normal mode and a rack in the urgent mode are stored in the housing, the controller preferentially performs measurement of the specimen held in the rack in the urgent mode (Paragraph 50,87-88,101-104).
As to claims 2,3, the CPU determines priority or not (per Paragraph 101-103) based upon the rack.
As to claims 14,16, the device stirs (stirrer 60, Figure 2) during the processing (per Para 37).
As to claim 15,17, the piercer 211 takes sample, with subsequent analysis (per Para 110).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon for at least 1 claim is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference Taku et al 6444171 teaches (Figure 1) a specimen measurement apparatus configured to measure a specimen, comprising:
a first rack tray 152 configured to store therein a rack 2 capable of holding a plurality of specimen containers, the first rack tray being able to be taken in and out
a second
a controller 70 programmed to perform a process related to measurement of the specimen, according to a normal mode or an urgent mode that is set as specimen measurement mode for each of the racks, the urgent mode being higher in urgency in measurement than the normal mode (per lines 20-33, col. 3),
wherein when a rack in the normal mode and a rack in the urgent mode are stored the rack in the urgent mode. (Taku neither teaches nor suggests the combination of the crossed out limitations above, with remaining limitations of claim 1).
Reference Dewitte et al AU 2015261711 (1449) teach a specimen measurement apparatus configured to measure a specimen, comprising:
a housing (Figure 1);
a first rack
a second rack tray
a controller 352 programmed to perform a process related to measurement of the specimen, according to a normal mode or an urgent mode that is set as specimen measurement mode for each of the racks, the urgent mode being higher in urgency in measurement than the normal mode
“The scheduler module 352, in turn, determines when each specimen 23 (FIG. 2) should be prepared and/or analyzed based upon the specimen type, whether the specimen 23 (FIG. 2) is a priority specimen, the type of assay to perform, and the time for 52 completion associated with that specimen 23 (FIG. 2), as well as corresponding data associated with other samples and/or specimens 23 (FIG. 2) in the system 10 (FIG. 1).”,
wherein when a rack in the normal mode and a rack in the urgent mode are stored in the housing, the controller preferentially performs measurement of the specimen held in the rack in the urgent mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights