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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 22nd, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 9-11 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
All 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are essentially maintained and modified only in response to Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, please amend “an operation unit accepting the input operation” to “an operation unit accepting [[the]] an input operation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding Claim 11, for the limitation “the operation unit accepting the input operation”, as both “the operation unit” and “the input operation” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-9 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to an electrophoresis system with an analysis apparatus that “analyzes a component of the at least one the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value of the object-to-be-measured that is measured by the measurement unit”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. The additional structural limitations such as an “electrophoresis system”, “electrophoresis apparatus”, “analysis apparatus”, “operation unit”, and “a display unit” are known as evidenced by the prior art of MultiNA (Microchip Electrophoresis System for DNA/RNA Analysis: Instruction Manual; 2013) in the prior art rejection of claim 1 below, and are conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to obtain the measured values of electrophoresis signals, analysis of the measured signals, and display the analysis results. Furthermore, the additional elements are used to gather data and display the data (i.e., a plurality of result check displays, a gel image, switching between a detailed display state and an enlarged display state, and changing the ratio of the gel image and interval between band patterns when switching between the detailed display state and enlarged display state) and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to an electrophoresis system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., an apparatus (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites: “an analysis apparatus configured to analyze a component of the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value of the object-to-be-measured that is measured by the measurement unit”, which is an abstract idea since the analysis apparatus just uses measured values, such as signals from an electrophoresis run, does not use the analyzed components in any meaningful way (only the way the data is displayed), thus is a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “analyzes a component of the at least one object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value of the object-to-be-measured that is measured by the measurement unit“, is not used into a practical application, and does not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Furthermore, displaying analysis results is not a practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites the additional element(s): “an electrophoresis system, an electrophoresis apparatus, a channel, a separation channel, an analysis apparatus, an operation unit, and a display unit”, which are just routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to obtain measurement signals from an electrophoretic run and electrophoresis apparatus instrument parameters, which are used to determine if the electrophoresis signal and/or apparatus system parameters are operating normally, by an arithmetic device such as CPU executing software based on the mathematical equation(s). Therefore, claim 1 does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 2-9 depend on the independent claim 1, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 1 and also have the routine and conventional structures above of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the analysis apparatus is configured to reduce and thin out a number of displayed numerical values…and make a degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different from each other, in the detailed display state and the enlarged state” is just a different way to display the data and is not a practical application.
Claim 3 recites “the analysis apparatus is configured to display the numerical values in a common display size…and make the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different from each other such that the number of displayed numerical values in the enlarged display state is larger than in the detailed display state”, which further describes ways to display the data, and is not used in a practical application.
Claim 4 recites “the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to measure a plurality of the objects-to-be-measured”, which is known in the prior art as electrophoresis systems can use, for example, a capillary array measuring multiple samples simultaneously (see claim 4 rejection below). Furthermore, data gathering and displaying to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 5 recites “the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate, by electrophoresis, the object-to-be-measured mixed with an internal standard marker substance that is a reference in analysis of the component of the object-to-be-measured”, which is known in the prior art as electrophoresis apparatus can separate a sample of, for example, unknown DNA lengths with ladder references (see claim 5 rejection below). Furthermore, data gathering and displaying to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 6 recites “the analysis apparatus is configured to, in a state where a bias in display intervals of the numerical values in the gel image display is reduced, make the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different in the detailed display state and the enlarged display state”, which is simply data gathering and displaying to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 7 recites “the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate, by electrophoresis, each of a reference sample that is the object-to-be-measured with known components and a sample-to-be-measured that is the object-to-be-measured with unknown components”, which is known in the prior art as electrophoresis apparatus can separate multiple samples such as a reference sample and an unknown sample (see claim 7 rejection below). Furthermore, data gathering and displaying to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 8 recites “the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured by electrophoresis”, which is known in the prior art as electrophoresis apparatus can separate multiple samples simultaneously using multiple capillaries (see claim 8 rejection below). Furthermore, data gathering and displaying to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 9 recites additional data gathering and displaying steps, which are insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
In summary, dependent claims 2-9 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 is directed to an electrophoresis analysis method, the method comprising: “a step of analyzing a component of an object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value obtained by measuring the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis in a channel including a separation channel for separating the object-to-be-measured”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. Furthermore, the additional steps are used to simply gather data and display the data (i.e., a step of switching between a detailed display state…and an enlarged state, a plurality of analysis result check displays including at least a gel image display, step of switching between the detailed display state and the enlarged display state includes increasing an interval between the plurality of band patterns) and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 11 is directed to an electrophoresis analysis method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method/process (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 11 recites: “a step of analyzing a component of an object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value”, which is an abstract idea in the form of a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract ideas related to “a step of analyzing a component of an object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis, based on a measurement value obtained by measuring the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis in a channel including a separation channel for separating the object-to-be-measured” are not used into a practical application, and does not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Displaying data is not a practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional step or steps in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 11 recites the additional step(s): “a measurement value obtained by measuring the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis in a channel including a separation channel for separating the object-to-be-measured”, which is known to one of or new skill that only serves to collect/gather the data (i.e., gather the electropherogram signal/run), which is not used further aside from displaying the data to the user. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional steps of data collecting, “analyzing a component…separated by electrophoresis” and “switching between the detailed display state and the enlarged display state”, does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MultiNA (Microchip Electrophoresis System for DNA/RNA Analysis: Instruction Manual; 2013) in view of Gel Analyzer (GelAnalyzer 19.1, 2020). Gel Analyzer Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51iXjgpN5g, 2020) is used as an evidence reference for software functions for claims 1-11.
Regarding Claim 1, MutliNA teaches an electrophoresis system (MCE-202 MultNA electrophoresis system including electrophoresis instrument [pages 5 and 8] and associated computer, keyboard, and mouse [page 5 and Section Connection, page 269]) comprising: an electrophoresis apparatus (MCE-202 MultNA [page 8]) including a measurement unit (fluorescence detection system [Hardware, page 5]), a channel (channel provided in microfluidic chip [Channel Pattern Design, page 11]) including a separation channel (separation channel is in microfluidic chip [Channel Pattern Design, page 11]); the limitations “configured to measure at least one object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis” and “for separating the at least one object-to-be-measured” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, a DNA sample (an object-to-be-measured) is separated by the electrophoresis device (see for example gel image and corresponding electropherogram on page 63]. Thus, the MCE-202 MutliNA electrophoresis system is capable of performing the claimed functions above;
an analysis apparatus (analysis apparatus includes CPU for control, a keyboard and mouse for operation, and a monitor for display, along with Software including Data Analysis Software [page 5 and Section Connection, page 269]) configured to analyze components of the at least one object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis (Data Analysis software analyzes each gel image by showing electropherogram and peak table [see data analysis viewer on page 63]), based on a measurement value of the at least one object-to-be-measured that is measured by the measurement unit (sequence is determined based on DNA peak height and sized by base pair length [page 63]); and
a display unit (a display [PC Requirement, page 5]) configured to display, in a result display area, a plurality of analysis result check displays including at least a gel image display showing a distribution of the components of the at least one object-to-be-measured analyzed by the analysis apparatus (as illustrated on page 63, DNA ladder is separated and shows a plurality of results including electropherogram and base pair length table for each sample [page 63]),
an operation unit (keyboard and mouse [9.4.1 Connection on page 269]) configured to accept an input operation by an operator (for example, keyboard and mouse can be used to navigate the MultiNA electrophoresis menus and software [for example, generally page 128]);
the analysis apparatus is configured to switch, in response to the operation unit accepting the input operation (inputs by the user are provided to interface with software [see for Example 3.8.1 Displaying Data, page 62]), between;
a detailed display state (detailed display state corresponds to MultiNA Viewer Window [page 125]) in which another analysis result check display (another result window can be the table listing the lengths of detected DNA [see MultiNA Viewer Window, page 125]) different from the gel image display is displayed in the result display area (both base pair length table and gel image are displayed in results area [page 125]), and the gel image display is displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a first ratio of the result display area (gel image and base pair table occupies a given ratio [page 125]); and
the gel image display includes a plurality of band patterns indicating sizes of the components of the object-to-be-measured (get image in MultiNA Viewer Window shows the plurality of band patterns [page 125]).
MultiNA is silent on an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, wherein
the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
Gel Analyzer teaches a desktop app that analyzes electrophoretic separations (title of page 1), and an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio (as illustrated in the figure on page 2, gel image occupies a first ratio, and then, as evidenced at 6:35-6:45 of Gel Analyzer Video, which shows expanding the window of the gel image so it occupies a second ratio larger than the first ratio).
MutliNA and Gel Analyzer are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of software/display setups for electrophoresis analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of MultiNA to provide an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, as taught by Gel Analyzer, as information of the display can be adjusted and viewed based on the user’s needs (Gel Analyzer, Figure 2 on page 2).
Modified MultiNA is silent on the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
However, MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns (gel image can be zoomed in, which increases the interval between the gel bands [see Zooming of Gel Images, page 132]).
As zooming in on the gel image can be done at any time (either in the enlarged state of the detailed display state, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of Modified MultiNA to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state, as taught by MultiNA, as zooming in on a gel image allows for easier discernment of gel bands that are close together in separation (see MultiNA gel images on page 132]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 1.
MutltiNa teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to reduce or thin out a number of displayed numerical values corresponding to scales in the gel image display such that the numerical values are not overlapped with each other (gel image displays are shown in Zooming of [Gel Image] on page 132 have display y-axis scale in which the numbers do not overlap), and make a degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different from each other, in the detailed state and the enlarged display state (gel image displays are shown in Zooming of [Gel Image] on page 132; as shown from the unzoomed gel image on the left and the zoomed in selection on the right, the label thinning on the y-axis is different upon enlarging the gel image).
Regarding Claim 3, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 2.
MutltiNa teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to display the numerical values in a common display size, in the detailed display state and the enlarged display state (as illustrated on page 132, numerical values for y-axis are the same for both the regular gel image and the enlarged gel image), and make the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different from each other such that the number of displayed numerical values in the enlarged display state is larger than in the detailed display state (9 y-axis number labels are shown for the regular gel image and 12 y-axis number labels are shown for the enlarged gel image [page 132]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system of claim 2.
MultiNA teaches wherein the at least one object-to-be-measured comprises a plurality of objects-to-be-measured (each sample can contain DNA base pairs of varying lengths, see MultiNA Viewer window [page 125]),
the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured by electrophoresis (as illustrated in electropherogram on page 125, a plurality of varying DNA lengths are separated), and
the analysis apparatus is configured to display, in the result display area of the display unit, the gel image display in which a plurality of analysis results showing the distribution of components of each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured are displayed side by side (gel image display on page 132 shows multiple samples separated in a side by side display), and set a display size in an arrangement direction (arrangement in this example is vertical [page 132]) of each of the plurality of analysis results to a common size in the detailed display state and the enlarged display state such that more analysis results are displayed in the enlarged display state than in the detailed display state (as shown in the unzoomed gel image [left] versus zoomed gel image [right], a common size for the axis is used and more analysis results are shown on the y-axis).
Regarding Claim 5, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to display, in the gel image display, an indication indicating a reference value corresponding to the internal standard marker substance (upper marker and lower marker are represented in gel image display on page 132), in the detailed display state, regardless of the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values (upper marker and lower marker are present in the detailed display state [page 132]).
Modified MultiNA is silent on an indication indicating a reference value corresponding to the internal standard marker substance, in the enlarged state, regardless of the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values.
Gel Analyzer teaches an enlarged display, and, as evidenced by Gel Analyzer Video at the 4:52 timestamp, no numbers or markers are lost upon enlarging the gel image. Note that MultiNA teaches reference values can be displayed on the gel electropherogram (MultiNA, page 132).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of modified MultiNA to indicate a reference value corresponding to the internal standard marker substance, in the enlarged state, regardless of the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values, as taught by combined Gel Analyzer and MultiNA, as enlarging the gel image displays allows for more precise determination of DNA basepair lengths and allows for user preference (Gel Analyzer, page 2).
Regarding Claim 6, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to, in a state where a bias in display intervals of the numerical values in the gel image display is reduced, make the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values different in the detailed display state and the enlarged display state (bias is reduced for zoomed in gel image on page 132, and the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values is different for the unzoomed versus zoomed gel images on page 132).
Regarding Claim 7, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches wherein the at least one object-to-be-measured comprises a plurality of objects-to-be-measured (each sample can contain DNA base pairs of varying lengths, see MultiNA Viewer window [page 125]), the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate, by electrophoresis, each of a reference sample that is the object-to-be-measured with known components and a sample-to-be-measured that is the object-to-be-measured with unknown components (as illustrated on gel images on page 132, upper marker [UM] and lower marker [LM] are separated with unknown DNA sample base pair lengths), and the analysis apparatus is configured to acquire the numerical values based on analysis of the components of the reference sample (y-axis is generated using the upper and lower markers in gel images on page 132), and make the degree of thinning of the number of displayed numerical values acquired based on the analysis of the components of the reference sample difference from each other, in the detailed display state and the enlarged display state (numerical thinning is different in unzoomed {left} versus zoomed {right} gel images [page 132]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches wherein the at least one object-to-be-measured comprises a plurality of objects-to-be-measured (each sample can contain DNA base pairs of varying lengths, see MultiNA Viewer window [page 125]);
the limitation “wherein the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to separate each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured by electrophoresis” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the MultiNA instrument is capable of running multiple samples containing multiple DNA of varying length for each sample (see MultiNA Viewer Window, page 125). Thus, the MultiNA electrophoresis apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function above;
and the analysis apparatus is configured to, in the detailed display state, display the plurality of analysis result check displays including a measurement waveform display showing time-series values of the measurement values (electropherogram for a given capillary electrophoresis sample with size is shown in MultiNA Viewer on page 125), a well position display showing a position of each of a plurality of wells in which each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured is placed (well grid illustrated in MultiNA Viewer on page 125), and the gel image display in which a plurality of analysis results showing a distribution of a component of each of the plurality of objects-to-be-measured are displayed side-by-side, in the result display area of the display unit (electropherogram displays are shown side by side on the bottom of MultiNA Viewer on page 125).
MultiNA is silent on in the enlarged display state, enlarge and display only the gel image display among the plurality of analysis result check displays, in the result display area of the display unit, without displaying the measurement waveform display and the well position display.
Gel Analyzer teaches on in the enlarged display state, enlarge and display only the gel image display among the plurality of analysis result check displays, in the result display area of the display unit, without displaying the measurement waveform display and the well position display (gel image display can be maximized without displaying other panes, such as the measurement waveform electropherogram [page 2]; in addition evidence for an enlarged mode can be found at 4:52 in Gel Analyzer Video, which shows how to utilize the Gel Analyzer software).
Modified MultiNA and Gel Analyzer are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of software programs for electrophoresis analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of modified MultiNA to in the enlarged display state, enlarge and display only the gel image display among the plurality of analysis result check displays, in the result display area of the display unit, without displaying the measurement waveform display and the well position display, as taught by Gel Analyzer, as information of the display can be adjusted and viewed based on the user’s needs, such as enlarging the gel image for more precise viewing (Gel Analyzer, Figure 2 on page 2).
Regarding Claim 9, modified MultiNA teaches the electrophoresis system according to claim 8.
MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured, in the detailed display state, display the plurality of analysis result check displays including the gel image display in which the plurality of analysis results are displayed side by side (electropherogram displays are shown side by side on the bottom of MultiNA Viewer on page 125), and the measurement waveform display corresponding to the one analysis result selected from among the plurality of analysis result selected from among the plurality of analysis results in the gel image display based on the operation received by the operation unit, in the result display area of the display unit (user can select which capillary electropherogram to view a given electropherogram waveform by selecting the capillary in the well grid as illustrated in MultiNA Viewer Window, and selected capillary electropherogram is shown on the display [page 125]).
Modified MultiNA is silent on and is configured to switch between the detailed display state and the enlarged display state, based on the operation received by the operation unit.
Gel Analyzer teaches to switch between the detailed display state and the enlarged display state, based on the operation received by the operation unit (user can switch to the enlarged display state by clicking the maximize icon on the gel image pane [page 2]; also shown at 4:52 in Gel Analyzer Video).
Modified MultiNA and Gel Analyzer are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of software programs for electrophoresis analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of modified MultiNA to switch between the detailed display state and the enlarged display state, based on the operation received by the operation unit, as taught by Gel Analyzer, as information of the display can be adjusted and viewed based on the user’s needs (Gel Analyzer, Figure 2 on page 2).
Regarding Claim 10, MutliNA teaches an electrophoresis apparatus (MCE-202 MultNA electrophoresis system including electrophoresis instrument [pages 5 and 8]) including a measurement unit (fluorescence detection system [Hardware, page 5]), a channel (channel provided in microfluidic chip [Channel Pattern Design, page 11]) including a separation channel (separation channel is in microfluidic chip [Channel Pattern Design, page 11]); the limitations “configured to measure at least one object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis” and “for separating the at least one object-to-be-measured” are functional recitations. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, a DNA sample (an object-to-be-measured) is separated by the electrophoresis device (see for example gel image and corresponding electropherogram on page 63]. Thus, the MCE-202 MutliNA electrophoresis system is capable of performing the claimed functions above;
the electrophoresis apparatus is configured to switch, in response to the operation unit accepting the input operation (inputs by the user are provided to interface with software [see for Example 3.8.1 Displaying Data, page 62]), between;
a detailed display state (detailed display state corresponds to MultiNA Viewer Window [page 125]) in which another analysis result check display (another result window can be the table listing the lengths of detected DNA [see MultiNA Viewer Window, page 125]) different from the gel image display is displayed in the result display area (both base pair length table and gel image are displayed in results area [page 125]), and the gel image display is displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a first ratio of the result display area (gel image and base pair table occupies a given ratio [page 125]); and
the gel image display includes a plurality of band patterns indicating sizes of the components of the object-to-be-measured (get image in MultiNA Viewer Window shows the plurality of band patterns [page 125]).
MultiNA is silent on an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, wherein
the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
Gel Analyzer is a desktop app that analyzes electrophoretic separations (title of page 1), and an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio (as illustrated in the figure on page 2, gel image occupies a first ratio, and then, as evidenced at 6:35-6:45 of Gel Analyzer Video, which shows expanding the window of the gel image so it occupies a second ratio larger than the first ratio).
MutliNA and Gel Analyzer are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of software/display setups for electrophoresis analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of MultiNA to provide an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, as taught by Gel Analyzer, as information of the display can be adjusted and viewed based on the user’s needs (Gel Analyzer, Figure 2 on page 2).
Modified MultiNA is silent on the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
However, MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns (gel image can be zoomed in, which increases the interval between the gel bands [see Zooming of Gel Images, page 132]).
As zooming in on the gel image can be done at any time (either in the enlarged state of the detailed display state, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of Modified MultiNA to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state, as taught by MultiNA, as zooming in on a gel image allows for easier discernment of gel bands that are close together in separation (see MultiNA gel images on page 132]).
Regarding Claim 11, MutliNA teaches an electrophoresis analysis method (MCE-202 MultNA electrophoresis system for electrophoresis analysis [Section 3.8 Data Analysis, page 62]) comprising:
a step of analyzing a component of an object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis (Data Analysis software analyzes each gel image by showing electropherogram and peak table [see data analysis viewer on page 63]), based on a measurement value obtained by measuring the object-to-be-measured separated by electrophoresis (sequence is determined based on DNA peak height and sized by base pair length [page 63]) in a channel including a separation channel for separating the object-to-be-measured (channel provided in microfluidic chip [Channel Pattern Design, page 11]); and
a step of switching, in response to the operation unit accepting the input operation (keyboard and mouse [9.4.1 Connection on page 269], which can be used to navigate the MultiNA electrophoresis menus and software [for example, generally page 128), between:
a detailed display state (detailed display state corresponds to MultiNA Viewer Window [page 125]) in which another analysis result check display (another result window can be the table listing the lengths of detected DNA [see MultiNA Viewer Window, page 125]) different from the gel image display is displayed in the result display area (both base pair length table and gel image are displayed in results area [page 125]), and the gel image display is displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a first ratio of the result display area (gel image and base pair table occupies a given ratio [page 125]); and
the gel image display includes a plurality of band patterns indicating sizes of the components of the object-to-be-measured (get image in MultiNA Viewer Window shows the plurality of band patterns [page 125]), and wherein
MultiNA is silent on an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, wherein
the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
Gel Analyzer is a desktop app that analyzes electrophoretic separations (title of page 1), and an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio (as illustrated in the figure on page 2, gel image occupies a first ratio, and then, as evidenced at 6:35-6:45 of Gel Analyzer Video, which shows expanding the window of the gel image so it occupies a second ratio larger than the first ratio).
MutliNA and Gel Analyzer are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of software/display setups for electrophoresis analysis. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of MultiNA to provide an enlarged display state in which the gel image display is enlarged and displayed in the result display area such that the gel image display occupies a second ratio of the result display area, the second ratio being larger than the first ratio, as taught by Gel Analyzer, as information of the display can be adjusted and viewed based on the user’s needs (Gel Analyzer, Figure 2 on page 2).
Modified MultiNA is silent on the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state.
However, MultiNA teaches the analysis apparatus is configured to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns (gel image can be zoomed in, which increases the interval between the gel bands [see Zooming of Gel Images, page 132]).
As zooming in on the gel image can be done at any time (either in the enlarged state of the detailed display state, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis apparatus of Modified MultiNA to increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the enlarged display state compared to an interval between the plurality of band patterns in the detailed display state when the detailed display state is switched to the enlarged display state, as taught by MultiNA, as zooming in on a gel image allows for easier discernment of gel bands that are close together in separation (see MultiNA gel images on page 132]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 11-18, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections and amended claims have been fully considered.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues on pages 11-18 in Remarks dated 12/22/2025 that the amended limitations for independent claims 1 and 10-11 such as “the analysis apparatus increase an interval between the plurality of band patterns” are not taught by the prior art, and there is a lack of motivation to combine the prior art references of ABI 3130xL, Gel Analyzer, and MultiNA. In addition, claim 1 now incorporates significant additional elements to improve visibility of closely separated components to overcome the 101 rejection.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. In addition, Examiner notes that there is motivation and it is appropriate to combine references MultiNA and Gel Analyzer, as they are analogous references relating to capillary/gel electrophoresis and the software/analysis associated with electrophoresis. Regarding the 101 rejection, emphasis on Prong 2 of Step 2A, data gathering used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not used in a particular practical application. Although the enlarged display state changes the interval distance of the band interval in the electrophoresis display, expanding the distance between data points for better clarity is not specific to electrophoresis data gathering. Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/SHIZHI QIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1795