CTNF 18/033,575 CTNF 76988 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to applicant’s “Remarks/Arguments”, filed February 24, 2026. The amendments therein have been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn. New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are discussed below. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The instant amendments provide sufficient showing that the claim limitations referenced as items a-e in the previous Official action, mailed December 18, 2025 now recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: 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 . 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 recite “an automatic analyzer”, respectively, and therefore the answer is "yes". With regard to (2A), Prong One, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the instant claims recite claim control steps or method steps directed to the judicial exception that is an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of “mental process” or math (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)) because at least one claimed controller step inherently performs a mental process or mathematical calculation as it requires at least one calculation using gathered liquid level data in tanks, which is observable by an operator and using the data to compare/determine/calculate whether to permit starting analysis based on the elapsed time and liquid level sensor indications to avoid overflow in the waste tanks. These calculations can be reasonably performed by humans, but for the recitation of liquid level sensors and a general purpose computer (which inherently includes a timer). Said recited judicial exception steps are by a control unit which is nothing different than a generic computer (control unit i.e., “host computer” see para [0025] of ‘200), and performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). It is important to note that MPEP in 2106.04(a)(2)III states: “ 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 implicitly rely on a computer (controller unit) as a tool to perform the abstract idea MPEP 21604(a)(2) III C. In this case, the claims are directed towards detecting from a first level sensor in the waste fluid tank and sending the date to controller to use the data to compare/determine/calculate whether to permit starting analysis based on the elapsed time and liquid level sensor indications in order to avoid overflow in the waste tanks. These calculations can be reasonably performed by humans, but for the recitation of liquid level sensors and a general purpose computer (which inherently includes a timer). 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) After the abstract idea of determining is performed, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no particular practical application of the abstract idea. (b) The claim does recite a waste tank and a fluid liquid level sensor. However, these are used to gather data that is then used in the abstract determining step. Note that data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, because the analyzer apparatus is recited at such a high degree of generality, it is just generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.). (c) The abstract idea is performed by the control unit, which is just a general purpose computer. A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.). 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 additional elements herein amount to no more than automatic analyzer that includes generic computer elements, which do not provide an inventive concept as a generic automated analysis apparatus with a computer/processor is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC). As evidenced in applicant’s Reply/Arguments filed February 24, 2026, applicant states that it is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art of automatic analyzers and laboratory instrumentation to use structural elements including liquid level sensors positioned within waste tanks, a timer configured to start counting time in response to a sensor indication, and a controller to cooperate to determine whether to permit starting analysis based on the elapsed time and liquid level sensor indications (see page 7 et seq.) Applicant also states that it is well understood that when a start instruction is received by a user input control this will trigger to start instruction (presumably start the control process, see page 9). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the (1) waste fluid tank and (2) liquid level sensors are being used in their ordinary capacity and are merely tools to execute the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, an automatic analyzer configured to analyze a sample using a waste fluid tank and liquid level sensors is considered WURC as evidenced by reference Rajagopal et al., (US 2008/0154543). Rajagopal teaches a waste fluid housing unit 308 configured to house a waste fluid produced by a process of analyzing the sample (see figure 4; para [0039] et seq.) and a fluid level sensor (detecting unit 368) positioned to sense a liquid level in the waste tank, which further indicate the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Dependent claims 9-11 amount to no more than performing more calculations based on sensed liquid levels in a tank, and comparing information which are intangible abstract ideas under step 2A prong one. Under step 2A prong 2, the claims recite issuing an alarm which is insignificant post-solution activity, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook , and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Specifically, MPEP in 2106.04(a)(2) (III) states: “ 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.” Also, under step 2a prong 2, performing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b) (I). Lastly, MPEP 2106.04(a) details that the claims must reflect the disclosed improvement. Specifically MPEP 2106.05(a), 4 th paragraph states the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Applicant states at beginning at page 12 of the above referenced Remarks/ Arguments, the disclosed improvement presented in the claims include starting a timer upon detecting a reference waste fluid amount and elapsed time as a condition for permitting (continued analysis?) while prohibiting the initiation of new analysis. The proposed claim recitations do not reflect any disclosed improvement. Thus, in light of the above considerations the claims remain non-statutory, and are thus not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-3 and 8-12 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. Claim 1 now recites in response to receiving, from a user input control, an instruction to start analysis, selectively permit starting analysis based on whether an elapsed time of the time count has reached a predetermined reference time”. It is not clear what process applicant considers the “start” of analysis and/or automatic analyzer since process of analysis and state of the automatic analyzer are not defined. In addition, it is not clear what is meant that when the controller receives an input (presumably from the operator) the controller then “selectively permit” starting an analysis based on whether an elapsed time of the time count has reached a predetermined reference time. The “selectively permitting starting analysis” based on whether an elapsed time of a time count, which is started when the liquid level reaches a predetermined level corresponding to a predetermined reference amount of waste in the waste tank. It is not clear how the time count starts if the liquid level of the waste produced during analysis is not produced since the controller selectively uses this data to determine whether to start analysis. In other words, it appears that the determining of whether to start analysis depends on parameters that can only be measuring during analysis (i.e., when the waste produced by analysis reaches a predetermined level “corresponding to a predetermined reference amount”). In addition, it not clear what applicant means by the sensor provides an indication when the liquid level reaches a predetermined reference amount of the waste fluid. This is confusing and indefinite. Similar deficiencies were found in claims 2 Claim 3 now recites “thick waste fluid” and “thin waste fluid”. The terms “thick” and “thin” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “thick” and “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear relative how the waste fluid properties determined. Also, claim 3 now recites a first and second tank, but it unclear how these tanks are related to the “waste fluid tank” in claim 1. This is confusing since the first level sensor is previous recited as positioned to sense the liquid level and provides a first indication when the liquid level in the waste tank . Now claim 3 recites the same first liquid level sensor is positioned to sense a liquid level in a second waste tank to provide the first indication . It is not clear if the second waste tank is referring to the previously recited waste tank of claim 1 or is it an additional waste tank somehow providing the same first indication. Similar confusing language is found in claim 9. Claim 3 now recites the instructions further cause the controller to determine whether to permit starting analysis based on at least one of the second indication from the second liquid level sensor, and the elapsed time of the time count after the first indication from the first liquid level sensor. It is not clear what “instructions” the controller is using. Claim 1 has been amended to include a memory storing instructions that are executed cause controller to perform the determining/comparing steps, but it not clear if these are referring to the same instructions and which part of the instructions that obvious previously stored in memory and would not require controller perform determining and comparting steps. This is confusing and indefinite. Claim 9 recites a third liquid level sensor positioned to sense a liquid level in the waste fluid tank (claim 1) and configured to provide a third indication. However, claim 1 requires a “first indication”, whereas claim 9 recites a “third indication” which implies a second indication not recited in these claims. Claim 11 recites “the instructions”. Again, it is not clear what “instructions” cause the controller activates an alarm when the instructions are previously saved process control steps stored in memory. Also, what does applicant mean by “during startup of the automatic analyzer”. It is not clear if “startup” means starting the analysis process. What steps are involved in startup and how would those steps relate to an instruction to start analysis received by the user and selectively permit starting analysis as defined in claim 1. Prior art Claim 1-3 and 8-12 are not being treated with prior art. MPEP 2173.06(II) states, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” However, if in response applicant clarifies the claims to a degree that a reasonable determination as to what is being claimed then known or to date unknown prior art may be applied and the based on those amendments or clarification, the case can be then made final. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has applied new rejections after reconsidering the amendments provided and applicant’s outstanding argument are not germane to the new rejections set forth above . Conclusion No claims are allowed. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: a. JP 2001-83676 discloses a device which is easily attachable and detachable to and from a waste liquid tank and can maintain reliability for a long period by integrally assembling an attaching and detaching means to and from a commercially marketed container for recovering a waste liquid, a sensor for detecting the arrival of a waste liquid level at a set level and a control means for outputting a detection signal and monitoring the waste liquid level in the container. b. JP 3261020 discloses observing the state of each part of the chemical analyzer main body, the remaining amount of the bottle of the reagent or the eluent and/or the amount of the waste liquid in the waste liquid bottle is displayed. Therefore, these can be clearly recognized, and the state of the liquid in each bottle can be surely grasped. Also, when the start of analysis is instructed, a predetermined warning is displayed if the waste liquid bottle is predicted to be full during the analysis, so if the waste liquid bottle is full during the analysis, it is possible to take measures such as discarding the waste liquid currently in the waste liquid bottle prior to the analysis, so that the waste liquid bottle is not full during the analysis and does not panic 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 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 3 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 5 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 7 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 8 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 9 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 10 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 11 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 12 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/033,575 Page 13 Art Unit: 1798
Prosecution Insights