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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 03, 2026 has been entered.
Note: claims 14, 18-25 and 28 are patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims presented in this RCE could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14, 18-25 and 28 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant rejection reflects the Guidance published in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday January 7, 2019 at 50) and the October 2019 Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter both referred to as the “Guidance”).
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (Prong One); If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
With regard to (1), the instant claims are directed to a machine (i.e., an “automatic analyzer”) and therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the instant claims recite claim steps directed to the judicial exception that is an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of “mental process” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)) because said operations could be performed in the mind, but for the recitation of an “analyzing unit that executes specimen analysis”, “control unit”, “main body software that controls the operation of the automatic analyzer” and “attached software”. Mental operations in the instant claims are recited as: comparing the specific identification information and the corresponding identification information to determine whether the attached software from a plurality of versions of attached software is suitable for the main body software, upon determining that the attached software is suitable for the main body software, automatically releases the attached software to a computer operated by a service person; and upon determining that none of the plurality of versions of attached software is suitable for the main body software, returns a result indicating that there is no attached software suitable for the main body software such that the attached software is not released to the computer and in a second case in which there. In summary, the claim(s) recite(s) two abstract ideas, “specimen analysis” and “comparing”/“determining” steps.
Said recited judicial exception steps are directed to identifying, and generating (determining) information, but for the recitation of the computers having processors to perform the method. A claim, under its BRI, which covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer elements, falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). MPEP in 2106.04(a)(2)III says: “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”, and also says “[n]or do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.” Applicants rely on a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea MPEP 21604(a)(2) III C. In this case, the claims are directed towards determining and comparing data, and the processes can be done as a mental process with pencil and paper (or a computer).
Because the claims are directed to abstract ideas, they must further be analyzed under Prong Two to determine if said judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application as determined by further assessment of the “additional steps” recited in the claims. With respect to Prong Two, the additional elements and the rationale pertaining to why the additional elements are not integrated, are as follows:
(a) The claims recite mental steps (judicial exception) which are not integrated into a practical application because the control method amounts to mental processes/data organization as a general mental concept/process. The control method does not describe a resultant action/step that is taken by applying the determination to sample analysis, and therefore the control method does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “specimen analysis unit including a reaction disk, a reagent disk, a rack conveying belt, a reagent dispensing probe, a specimen dispensing probe, a stirring device, a light source and photometer” is recited at a high level of generality (as generic and well-known structures). The examiner further points to evidence that such an analyzing unit, like that disclosed as known prior art by applicant, PTL 1 (JP 2000-074925), in para [0002]-[0005] of applicants’ corresponding US 2021/0349114. The reaction disk, reagent disk, etc., are well-known elements in the analyzer art. Specifically, PTL 1 teaches an analyzing unit including a reaction disk 28, a reagent disk 21, a rack conveying belt 3, a reagent dispensing probe 32, a specimen dispensing probe 39, a stirring device 53, a light source and photometer (necessarily part of the detection unit 37 in PTL 1). PTL 1 also discloses computer 11 for overall management of the analyzing unit. The analyzing unit and necessary controlling of these elements as currently recited in the claims well known and are not applied in any application, much less a practical application.
(b) The claims rely on mental processes to determine whether or not an attached software is suitable for the main body software, thereby merely “applying” the organized concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f));
(c) Although the claims recite an analyzing unit/ control unit /and software, the claims do not apply the exception, as the claim does not transform the analyzing unit to a different state or thing beyond its ordinary purpose which is executing specimen analysis (See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(c)).
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Because the claims fail under (2A), the claims are further evaluated under (2B). The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under (2B) because, as discussed above with regard to integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner further points to evidence of this in para [0011] of applicants’ corresponding US 2021/0349114 where it is conventional that the service person visits the customer's place, and then first selects the version of the attached software that is suitable for the automatic analyzer. Thereafter, the PC operated by the service person and the automatic analyzer are connected to each other via a network, and then settings of the network or settings of the device configuration need to be performed. The maintenance can be started after the settings are completed. The generic computer elements (analyzer, control unit, and software), do not provide an inventive concept as generic analyzing unit used with a computer is well-understood, routine and conventional. Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (1) the analyzing unit, control unit and software are being used in their ordinary capacity and are merely tools to execute the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), (2) the additional claim elements of comparing identification information, determine whether or the attached software (or versions thereof) is suitable for the main body software, whether considered individually or as a whole, do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(e)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the “releasing the attached software to a computer operated by a service person” and “returns a result indicating that there is no attached software suitable for the main body software” would still both be considered insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook (See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)) and also just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not particular practical applications.
The dependent claims 15-25 and 28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the features represent an abstract idea and similarly do not integrate the exception into a practical application or include additional elements that amount to significantly more. The instant claims do not include an inventive concept.
Additionally, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) which states that methods of performing a mental process on a generic computer, performing a mental process in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are all claims that recite a mental process. Specifically, because the claims are directed to identifying/comparing and determining information, the steps are directed towards using a control unit as a tool to determine information. Further, because the claims recite the generic use of a computer, the claimed identifying, comparing and determining are actions that humans could have performed amongst themselves (or in their own mind).
Thus, in light of the above considerations the claims are non-statutory, and are thus not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14, 18-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 now recites the control unit automatically compares the specific identification information and the corresponding identification information and, based solely on the comparison determine which one of the plurality of versions of attached software is suitable as the attached software for the main body software. The examiner cannot find where this new language finds basis in the specification as filed. In particular, the examiner cannot find any step determined “solely” of the comparison by the controller. Furthermore, it is inherent that in the specification and the art discussed below that the a controller programmed to perform steps with do those steps “automatically” without having to flip some switch or the like. It appears at least the recitation new recitation that the control unit compare the claimed information “solely” based on specific information with corresponding identification information is new matter. Since applicant has not pointed out wherein the specification this new limiting element “solely” language finds support is further evidence that this new matter, see applicant’s Remarks filed on February 02, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14, 18-21 and 28 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koritzinsky et al., (US 6,598,011; hereinafter “Koritzinsky”-already of record) in view of Fukuda et al., (JP 2013077220-already of record) and admitted prior art (PTL 1 (JP 2000-074925-already of record), see para [0002]-[0005] of applicants’ corresponding US 2021/0349114)).
As to claims 14-21 and 28, Koritzinsky teaches an automatic analyzer that executes specimen analysis via an analyzer unit (Koritzinsky teaches a device for serving a medical diagnosis station (equivalent to an analyzing unit), and;
a control unit that controls operation of machines in the device including the analyzing unit (Koritzinsky specifically discloses (see col. 1, lines 50- 65, col. 2, lines 22-67, col. 5, lines 35-55, col. 8, lines 54-67, and col. 11, lines 9-12) that to ensure proper operation, the system is regularly repaired by highly trained personnel who address imaging issues, configure and calibrate the system, and perform periodic system checks and software updates. Further, in recent years, service provision has been supplemented by a remote service center capable of directly contacting a scanner (equivalent to an analyzing unit which performs analysis of an specimen) at a subscribing institution without requiring intervention by the institution's personnel part. The scanner 42 is coupled to a generator and controller, as well as a signal acquisition unit for controlling the operation of the X-ray source and gantry within the scanner 42, and for receiving signals generated by a detector array movable within the scanner (equivalent to a control section that controls the action of various devices within an apparatus incorporating the analyzing unit; it can be determined that the body software that controls the operation of the automated analyzer is included therein),
wherein the automatic analyzer is operable by main body software that controls operation of the automatic analyzer and attached software that includes a plurality of versions thereof, is independent of the main body software and is used during maintenance of the machines that configure the automatic analyzer and the attached software and the main body software respectively hold specific identification information that specifies an own version (Koritzinsky discloses that the repair of such devices involves service functions such as software updates, and propose a modular approach to software for such repairs and operations, files relating to data processing or services can be adjusted and upgraded from time to time),
Koritzinsky discloses that the control unit specifies the attached software suitable for the main body software from a plurality of versions of attached software by comparing the specific identification information and the corresponding identification information (see col. 7. Iino 47 et seq. and col. 10, line 6 et seq.)
Koritzinsky discloses that the controller determines the attached software is suitable for the main body software, automatically release the attached software to a computer operated by the service person (Koritzinsky teaches that behind firewall 138, an HTTP application server 140 coordinates handling of service requests, messaging, reporting, software transfers and so forth. Other servers may be coupled to HTTP server 140, such as service analysis servers 142 configured to address specific types of service requests, as described more fully below. In the illustrated embodiment, processing system 84 also includes a license server 144 which is coupled to a license database 146 for storing, updating and verifying the status of diagnostic system service subscriptions, see col. 9, line 59 et seq.);
determine which one of the plurality of versions of attached software is suitable as the attached software for the main body software;
upon determining that the attached software is suitable for the main body software, automatically release the attached software to a computer operated by a service person (Koritzinsky discloses both the diagnostic system and the remote service facility may include routines designed to trigger an alert upon expiration or anticipated expiration of a dated subscription. Furthermore, subscription or license verifications may relate to all or a part of the platform or configuration of the diagnostic system, such as particular programs, applications, protocols and so forth (see col. 21, line 17 et seq.) and
upon determining that none of the plurality of versions of attached software is suitable for the main body software, return a result indicating that there is no attached software suitable for the main body software;
wherein,
in a first case in which the attached software is released to the computer, the computer is configured to control the operation of the machines in the analyzing-unit automatic analyzer based on the attached software that is released to the computer, and
in a second case in which there is no attached software suitable for the main body software, the computer is configured to control the operation of the machines in the automatic analyzer based on the main body software.
That is, Koritzinsky discloses logic of FIG. 15 begins at step 352 with the triggering of a subscription check (checking different versions . As used herein, the term subscription should be understood to encompass both ongoing and periodically expiring licenses, pay-per-use arrangements, purchase arrangements, and other service and distribution arrangements. As illustrated in FIG. 15, step 352 will generally occur at the diagnostic system. At step 354 a subscription manager module contained within the license module 114 of the diagnostic system is accessed. The subscription manager module will include data relating to specific applications or services to which the diagnostic system holds rights or subscriptions, as well as data relating to expiration dates, levels of service, system identification, and so forth. At step 356, the system determines whether the status of the various subscriptions is up-to-date or whether certain of the subscriptions may be expired. If any such problems with the service subscriptions is detected at step 356, operation of the service platform or interface may be modified as indicated at step 358. Rather, or in addition to such modification in the service platform presentation or operation, a message may be generated and displayed at the diagnostic system indicating the need to contact a field service engineer or the service facility, or to update the subscription. Following step 358, the service activities may continue as indicated at step 360. Step 360 is also reached where the status of the subscriptions checked at step 356 are found to conform to the needed status for the service activities desired by the user (see col. 18, line 24 et seq.)
It is the examiner’s opinion that Koritzinsky discloses determines and releases an appropriate version of software from a plurality of attached versions (e.g., by determining status of the various subscriptions (versions of programs) are available (suitable) for the main body software or not).
However, if not, then Fukuda discloses a computer system that has an application storage unit (150) which divides an application by multiple different versions, and stores multiple application programs corresponding to each version. An application control unit (140) performs application control based on the application program, according to an operation input from a connected user terminal machine. A storage unit (130) stores version management information which relates a version of the application to the user, where the version related to the user is identified according to the utilization requirement from the user terminal machine. In particular, a user can use functions of an application having different versions for each user, in other words, functions of an application provided in each version for each version. Therefore, it is possible to reflect the functions of the previous version in the latest version of the application, reduce the development cost (expense and time) for maintaining consistency between versions, and also divide the functions provided by the application between the versions. Therefore, it is possible to provide application services with different versions for each user without giving users unfamiliarity or inconvenience due to changes in application functions and operability of the previous version due to version upgrades.
Specifically, Fukuda discloses in the embodiment shown in Figs. 7 and 8 in which the user can use a service by designating an arbitrary version in one application. FIG. 7 is an example of version management information for each user stored in the storage unit 130 of the application system 100 according to this embodiment. In this embodiment, a plurality of version IDs are associated with one user, and a version use invalid flag is provided for each version ID. Unlike the version invalid flag in the application management information in FIG. 4, the version use invalid flag is information for managing a version that can be used by the user.
FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a processing flow of multi-version control according to the present embodiment. When there is a connection request from the user terminal 300 (S101), the application system 100 performs user authentication processing (step S102). At this time, the user inputs the user ID and password from a predetermined login screen provided from the application system 100, and inputs or selects the version ID of the application to be used from the login screen or a separate version designation screen.
The connection request received from the user terminal 300 includes a version ID (version designation information) designated by the user along with the user ID and password by the user. If the result of the authentication process in step S102 is that the authentication is successful, the application system 100 proceeds to step S105a and performs a version use check process with reference to the version management information for each user.
The application system 100 determines whether the version ID specified in the version ID associated with the user ID exists, and if so, identifies ON / OFF of the version use invalid flag of the corresponding version ID. To do. If the specified version ID is not registered in the version management information for each user, a message indicating that the application of the version cannot be used is transmitted to the user terminal 300, and the process is terminated.
When the version use invalid flag in the version ID of the version management information for each user corresponding to the specified version ID is ON, the application system 100 indicates that the application in the other version can be used or the specified version is When the use invalid flag of the specified version ID is OFF, the application system 100 extracts the corresponding connection destination URL from the application management information 132. (S106a).
In this embodiment, since the user can specify a version and use an arbitrary version of an application, it is possible to provide an application service desired by the user according to application functions and operability that are different for each version.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have included in the automatic analyzer of Koritzinsky, the control steps of Fukuda which determines and releases an appropriate version of software from a plurality of attached versions since Fukuda teaches a multi-version management function that manages a plurality of versions for each application and allows a user to use one application with different versions. The version is information for managing each service provision content when a function provided by one application is added or when an existing function is modified or changed. Each time a version is upgraded by addition, change, etc., to a function included in one application, different versions of the application are individually managed which would allow the user to customize the desired needs and budget (i.e., licensing costs).
Koritzinsky and Fukuda are silent with respect to the analyzing units including a reaction disk, a reagent disk, a rack conveying belt, a reagent dispensing probe, a specimen dispensing probe, a stirring device, a light source and photometer. However, as admitted prior art in applicant’s specification, PTL 1 discloses such an analyzing unit and controller are well-known in the analyzer art (see para [0002]-[0005]). Specifically, PTL 1 teaches an analyzing unit including a reaction disk 28, a reagent disk 21, a rack conveying belt 3, a reagent dispensing probe 32, a specimen dispensing probe 39, a stirring device 53, a light source and photometer (necessarily part of the detection unit 37 in PTL 1). PTL 1 also discloses computer 11 for overall management of the analyzing unit. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have used the analyzing unit disclosed in PTL 1, as the analyzing units of Koritzinsky and Fukuda, based on such considerations as desired tests to be performed and overall cost.
Note that the specimen including “blood or urine”, is not considered as part of the claimed device structure and is therefore not given patentable weight, see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g).
Note: the new recitation the controller “automatically” performs the process steps is inherent in all control systems following a program. Further, the examiner believe this “automatically” comparison step does not find basis and only adds confusion the claims as set forth above.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koritzinsky, Fukuda and PTL 1, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Nishida et al., (JP 8-15267; hereinafter “Nishida”).
As to claims 22-25, the combination of Koritzinsky, Fukuda, and PTL 1 is silent to the control unit executing specification processing for the attached software when a power supply of the automatic analyzer is turned ON.
In the related art of automatic analyzer control systems, Nishida teaches a system configuration in which the measuring device and the sampler each have their own CPU, when either one of the ROMs needs to be exchanged or both ROMs have to be exchanged, the user is required each time. Must be dealt with according to the system configuration of. This is a problem that occurs because the combination of the versions of the control programs installed in the ROM of the measuring device and the sampler is different. For example, when it is sufficient to replace the ROM on the measuring device side, since it is necessary to match the other specification with the specification change, R of the measuring device. When replacing the OM, the ROM on the sampler side may have to be replaced without fail. Therefore, in the case of replacing the ROM as described above, it is necessary to manage the version of the control program of the currently delivered system and the types of the measuring device and the sampler for each analytical system shipped to the market. Very difficult to maintain. According to the invention of Nishida, the user can easily update the information on the sampler side by transferring necessary information such as a control program used on the sampler side from the measuring device to the sampler immediately after the power is turned on. An object of the present invention is to provide a sample analysis system capable of facilitating control program management.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have included in the control system of Koritzinsky, Fukuda, and PTL 1, the controller system configuration, like that taught by Nishida, since Nishida teaches the user can easily update the information on the sampler side by transferring necessary information such as a control program used on the sampler side from the measuring device to the sampler immediately after the power is turned on.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the outstanding 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner has carefully reviewed the arguments in the instant Remarks by applicants, which essentially allege that the control implemented by the computer is a practical application since the analyzing unit now includes a reaction disk, a reagent disk, a rack conveying belt, a reagent dispensing probe, a specimen dispensing probe, a stirring device, a light source and photometer. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants’ arguments. The “releasing the attached software to a computer operated by a service person” and “returns a result indicating that there is no attached software suitable for the main body software” would still both be considered insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook (See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)) and also just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not particular practical applications. The last clause of claim 14 is just controlling operations “based on” the software/program to analyzer including reaction disk, a reagent disk, a rack conveying belt, a reagent dispensing probe, a specimen dispensing probe, a stirring device, a light source and photometer (which are admitted by applicant as conventional, see PTL 1) and this is also just generally “applying” the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f).
The examiner has carefully considered applicant’s argument with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection based on the combination of Koritzinsky, Fukuda and Applicant’s admitted prior art. However, as discussed previous and here, the examiner respectfully does not agree with applicant’s arguments. The present application enables automatic determination and execution of the corresponding affiliated software when the attendant's computer is connected to the automated analysis device, thereby reducing the risk of using the wrong affiliated software and greatly simplifying the workflow. Koritzinsky discloses that additional modules may be associated, for example, with a system scanner, or may be embodied in a computer or workstation associated with a single or multiple diagnostic systems; in the event that the system state maintains its state just before accessing the service request page, image data files, log files, error files, etc. may be identified, captured, stored, and sent to the service facility to evaluate potential problems in the diagnostic system. As can be seen, Koritzinsky discloses that the affiliated software can be connected to the analysis section, that the affiliated software can be provided in a computer, and that the potential problems of the analyzer can be acquired. Fukuda discloses that the control center is capable of automatically identifying versions of affiliated software. The application control unit 140 may perform application control by identifying a version of an application to be provided to a user to be connected by referring to versioning information of each user. That is, Fukuda enables automatic identification of the affiliated software and selection of the affiliated software according to the user's needs. In the case of the disclosure on Koritzinsky and Fukuda, the affiliated software is an affiliated software executed on a computer operated by the attendant, and having the affiliated software make adjustments to the respective devices is a routine choice that can be made by a person skilled in the art according to the needs, the effect of which can be expected. In summary, respectfully the examiner does not find applicant’s argument convincing. It is worth noting the art rejections set forth in this US case parallel those made in applicant’s corresponding CN and EP, in which both foreign offices have concluded that the instant claims are obvious of the state of the art for similar reasons delineated above.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Kiaie et al., (US 2011/0289497) teach methods and/or systems for updating a medical device. Embodiments include medical devices which are configured for updates in response to various events including connection of a peripheral device to the medical device, a user initiated event, or based on received recommendations (see abstract).
Shindo et al, (US 2012/0078514), teach a sample analyzing system, comprising a sample analyzer and a management apparatus connected to the sample analyzer via a communication network. The management apparatus comprises: a first memory that stores a computer program for the sample analyzer and manual data which corresponds to a version of the computer program; a first communication device; and a first controller configured to transmit, via the first communication device to the sample analyzer, the computer program and the manual data corresponding to the version of the computer program stored in the first memory. The sample analyzer comprises: a second communication device; a second memory that stores the computer program and the manual data received by the second communication device; and a second controller configured to execute the computer program stored in the second memory.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798