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
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 3 and 9 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.
Claims 3 and 9 recite the limitation "the one reaction container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 303ordinary 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) 1, 2, 4-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami et al. (JP 2022100417 A; Applicant prior art) in view of Takeuchi et al. (6326563).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the Tagami et al. reference discloses an automatic analysis device (110; Figure 1) comprising: a reagent holder (114) configured to hold a reagent container (115) that contains a reagent; a specimen holder (120) configured to hold a specimen container that contains a specimen;
a pipetting mechanism (103, 113) configured to pipette the reagent and the specimen
into a reaction container (108), a container placement portion (300), and a strain sensor (304).
The Tagami et al. reference doesn’t disclose a mass sensor configured to measure a mass of the reaction container, wherein the mass sensor includes: a fixing portion; a diaphragm at least a part of which is fixed by the fixing portion; and a piezoelectric element joined to the diaphragm. However, the Takeuchi et al. reference discloses a mass sensor (50) having a piezoelectric element (6) and a diaphragm (2) for measuring a minute mass of a nanogram order (see Abstract and Figures). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to substitute a mass sensor for the strain sensor of the Tagami et al. device as, for example, taught by the Takeuchi et al. reference in order to precisely determine minute masses when needed.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the Takeuchi et al. reference further teaches wherein the diaphragm, the container placement portion, and the reaction container constitute a resonance portion, and a mass of the liquid discharged into the reaction container is calculated based on a first resonance frequency of the resonance portion before discharge of the liquid into the reaction container, and a second resonance frequency of the resonance portion after discharge of the liquid into the reaction container. See column 11, lines 41 – 54.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the design choice feature of the diaphragm having a disk shape would simply be a matter of obvious engineering design choice involving only routine skill in the art to yield predictable results, and therefore provides no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, placing the container at approximately the center of the diaphragm would be inherent when using the modified device of Tagami et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, modified Tagami et al. discloses the invention as claimed (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose maximizing vibration amplitude when current is applied. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ a maximized vibration amplitude on the modified Tagami et al. device (if not already), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Williams reference (8287820) discloses another automatic pipette system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights