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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks filed on November 21st, 2025. Claims 11-20 are pending. Claims 1-10 are canceled.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (EP 0871034), hereafter Mimura.
With regard to claim 11, Mimura discloses an automatic analysis comprising a plurality of analyzers 3A-3G configured to execute, based on a relative relationship between a measurement sample value of a standard sample whose property is known and a measurement value of a sample, an analysis to derive a property of the sample, and a display device configured to display information related to calibration or quality control executed for the analyzer using the standard sample (pars.[0001-0003,0013,0027,0066], analyzers 3A,F,G, for example). Mimura further discloses that the display device CRT 43(pars.[0019,0079,0082-0083,0146], figs. 4, 5, and 22) is configured to display at least one of a request list including request information and a preparation list including preparation information as recited in claim 11 (displaying on the screen display request buttons 423, 424,523,525 for requesting the display of a calibration or accuracy management screen; see claim 1 and figs. 4/5; and with respect to picklist/preparation info as given by pre-setting button 2201 and displaying Name 2211, Name 2217 (par.[0147], fig. 22, for example), and an in-rack position number assigned to a position in which the standard is provided in association with each other (Rack 221; Pos 2213; Rack 2218; Pos 2219) and displays a blank in a field of a standard sample in a row of an in-rack position number in which the standard sample is not to be provided (ID 2214; ID 2220; par.[0147], fig. 22, for example). Further, with respect to claim 11, Mimura discloses a screen including the request list displays a plurality of icons that blink according to a state of the analyzers, and each of the plurality of icons corresponds to one of the plurality of analyzers (pars.[0070-0074], for example), and displays within display block 402 in the display area 400 flickers/blinks when the is an analysis item whose calibration time interval ends/elapses, and the calibration failed block 403 on display area 400 when there is an analysis item in which a failure of calibration has occurred (pars.[0072,0073], for example),and the calibration routine decides whether reagent shortage occurs and if it is necessary to add a reagent bottle or not (pars.[0112,0131,0135], for example).
With regard to claim 12, Mimura discloses that the display is configured to further display a result list including result information related to a result obtained by executing at least one of the calibration and the quality control in response to the request (working information button 434, par.[0079].
With regard to claims 13 and 14, Mimura discloses the display device is configured to display the preparation list of at least one of the calibration and the quality control, and wherein the preparation list further includes a code and a lot number of the standard sample (field of ID 2214, ID 2220; Lot 2221; par.[0147], fig. 22, for example).
With regards to claims 15 and 16, Mimura disclose that the request list of the calibration includes an item name of the calibration, a position where a reagent used for the calibration is provided, an execution method of the calibration, and a usage status of the reagent, and wherein the request list of the quality control includes an item name of the quality control, a position where a reagent used for the quality control is provided, and a factor of the request (Test 411’ A. Unit 412; Blank 413; Z Points 415; Full 416, pars.[0075,0076], fig. 4; Test 511; A. Unit 512; Control 513; Type 514; Time Out 516, par.[0088], fig. 5.).
Examiner additionally notes the above discussions of Mimura to the display providing functionality to the claimed information and lists displayed to its display, the manner in which the present claims are constructed is such that the displayed information and lists are merely drawn to capabilities of the claimed display.
Herein, the prior art of Mimura provides a commensurately structured and arranged display (i.e. CRT) and the present claims are absent a particularly-configured controller and/or particularly encoded software that actively provide for the sought display functionality and information/lists displayed as recited herein.
If Applicant desires patentable weight beyond the capability of the display to such displaying and information, then Applicant needs to claim the integrated, particularly-configured controller and/or encoded software programming that affords such.
To this end, while Mimura does not explicitly disclose the request list/result list as in claims 11-18, these recitations are drawn to back to the capability of the display to display and related to information, wherein neither the display nor the information are positively claimed elements of the system, and Mimura discloses a commensurately structured and arranged display that is fully capable of displaying such information/lists in as much as recited and required herein.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Shibuya et al. (US 2020/0049724), hereafter Shibuya.
Mimura has been discussed above.
Mimura does not specifically disclose that the display is a mobile terminal as in claim 19 (Examiner notes that the “carrying and used” aspect is drawn to a process/intended use recitation), and does not disclose a mobile terminal configured to display a button for selecting any analyzer as in claim 20.
Shibuya discloses an automated analyzer system 101 that is coupled to the operation PC 111 and a tablet terminal 114 and including a device button corresponding to each of the coupled automated devices (Examiner further notes that the “for selecting…” is drawn to a functional recitation, wherein the button 603 of Shibuya is fully capable of such in as much as recited and required herein) (pars.[0040,0043,0111,0119], figs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mimura to utilize a display as in a mobile terminal configured to display a button as claimed such as suggested by Shibuya in order to provide an obvious alternative form of display to the CRT that affords a high degree of flexibility and portability to the user in interacting with the automatic analysis system.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Bjerke et al. (US 2014/0252079), hereafter Bjerke.
Mimura has been discussed above.
Mimura does not specifically disclose that the display is a mobile terminal as in claim 19 (Examiner notes that the “carrying and used” aspect is drawn to a process/intended use recitation), and does not disclose a mobile terminal configured to display a button for selecting any analyzer as in claim 20.
Bjerke discloses automatic analyzers and assays therewith in which the user interface may be the touchscreen display of a tablet computer (mobile terminal, and implicitly having a button (Examiner further notes that the “for selecting any analyzer…” is drawn to a functional recitation, wherein the button 603 of Shibuya is fully capable of such in as much as recited and required herein)(pars.[0002,0051,0055,0114], figs., for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mimura to utilize a display as in a mobile terminal configured to display a button as claimed such as suggested by Bjerke in order to provide an obvious alternative form of display to the CRT that affords a high degree of flexibility and portability to the user in interacting with the automatic analysis system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further, with regards to claims 11-18 rejected under 35 USC 102a1 as being anticipated by Mimura, Applicant traverses the rejection.
Examiner reiterates those remarks as provided in the Office Action mailed on August 21st, 2025.
Applicant asserts that Mimura does not disclose “the display device displays, with request list…” as amended herein.
Examiner asserts that such recitation is drawn to a process recitation that is not afforded patentable weight, and as previously discussed, the manner in which the present claims are constructed is such that the displayed information and lists are merely drawn to capabilities of the claimed display.
Herein, the prior art of Mimura provides a commensurately structured and arranged display (i.e. CRT) and the present claims are absent a particularly-configured controller and/or particularly encoded software that actively provide for the sought display functionality and information/lists displayed as recited herein.
If Applicant desires patentable weight beyond the capability of the display to such displaying and information, then Applicant needs to claim the integrated, particularly-configured controller and/or encoded software programming that affords such.
To this end, while Mimura does not explicitly disclose displaying the request list/result list as in claims 11-18, these recitations are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight and also drawn back to the capability of the display to display and related to information, wherein the active processes to carrying out an assay/operation and coincident assessment for an abnormality in the analyzers, an assay/operation and coincident assessment for reagent shortage, and assay/operation defining particular active steps to a calibration/quality control protocol and its assessment for an endpoint and display therewith, as well as actively provided operation/procedure for “an emergency sample” and its display therewith are not positively provided to the claim and remain generally drawn to a capability of displaying information by a display.
As discussed above, Mimura discloses a commensurately structured and arranged display that is fully capable of displaying such information/lists in as much as recited and required herein.
Examiner further notes with respect to the amended recitations of claim 11 that Mimura discloses that the display within display block 402 in the display area 400 flickers/blinks when the is an analysis item whose calibration time interval ends/elapses, and the calibration failed block 403 on display area 400 when there is an analysis item in which a failure of calibration has occurred (pars.[0072,0073], for example),and the calibration routine decides whether reagent shortage occurs and if it is necessary to add a reagent bottle or not (pars.[0112,0131,0135], for example).
And as discussed, while not explicitly drawn to the amended step of “the display device displays, with the request list….” such recitation is not afforded patentable weight as discussed above and wherein it is drawn to a process not attributed patentable weight, and the various conditions recited therein are without positive provisions within the analyzer to carrying out various active procedures coincident with correlated display actions therewith.
Furthermore to the above and with respect to the recited display and its amended “displays, with the request list…” Examiner asserts that such recitation is drawn to a process recitation not afforded patentable weight and wherein the prior art of Mimura provides a commensurately structured and arranged automatic analysis system (including a plurality of analyzers 3A-G, as amended) and a commensurately structured and arranged display that is fully capable of displaying in as much as recited herein.
Examiner asserts that the claims do not necessitate any particular active programming of the display, let alone coincident with active process steps in the operation of the analyzers and assessing various states therein. This is likewise seen with respect to programming of particularly displayed data correlated with “measurement related to the calibration or the quality control is ended,” wherein the claims are absent any positive provision to any such measurement coincident with an actively-provided calibration protocol or quality control protocol and particular assessment of its end and coincident display operation therewith. This is likewise seen with respect to “an emergency sample,” wherein the claim does not necessitate positive measurement and coincidently-programmed display operations therewith a sample let alone particular discussion and provision to a measurement protocol with an “emergency sample” and particular, programmed display operations therewith.
By this, as there are no such deficiencies with respect to Mimura in claim 11, the remaining claims 12-20 are maintained rejected over the cited art provided in the body of the action for the reasons discussed above and therein the body of the action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571 272-1267. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798