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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 4/7/2026.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 states that “the cutting line is configured to increase a resistance,” however, nowhere in the specification discusses what the cutting line does other than saying that the electrical measurement value of the measurement point changes based on the shape of the cutting line. Therefore, the specification does not provide support that the cutting line increases a resistance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2007/0110615, hereinafter Neel.
Regarding claim 1, Neel teaches a testing implement (item 80) utilized in a state of attachment to a measuring device that performs computing using information values representing a measurement target component within a sample based on information for computing, the testing implement being configured to output the information for computing to the measuring device (paragraph [0078]), the testing implement comprising: a substrate made of a non-conductive material (paragraphs [0011] and [0081]); a component measurement region (item 100) disposed on the substrate, for measuring the measurement target component (paragraph [0084]); a conductive region (item 110) insulated from the component measurement region (figure 9A), formed of a conductive material (paragraph [0080]), and disposed on the substrate (figure 9A), the conductive region including: a voltage application point (item 120) to which a predetermined voltage is applied (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), an earth connection point (item 96) configured to be connected to ground potential (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), and at least one measurement point (item 92) for measuring an electrical measurement (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)); and a resistance prescription region (item 102) that prescribes a ratio between a first resistance value at the conductive region between the voltage application point and the earth connection point (there would be a resistance between these points), and a second resistance value at the conductive region between the voltage application point or the earth connection point, and the measurement point (there would be a resistance between these points), wherein the resistance prescription region (item 102) is a non-conductive region located within the conductive region between the voltage application point and the earth connection point (paragraph [0080]), wherein the non-conductive region (item 102) includes a non-conductive cutting line (item 102) that partially surrounds a periphery of the measurement point (figure 9A), and wherein the conductive region is not disconnected by the cutting line and remains conductive as a whole (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 2, Neel teaches the resistance prescription region prescribes the ratio between the first resistance value and the second resistance value by prescribing a distance between the voltage application point and the earth connection point (there is a distance between the voltage application point and the earth connection point and therefore would define the ratio), and a distance between either the voltage application point and the measurement point or the earth connection point and the measurement point (there is a distance between either the voltage application point and the measurement point or the earth connection point and the measurement point therefore would define the ratio).
Regarding claim 3, Neel teaches the resistance prescription region has the cutting line that partially surrounds the periphery of the measurement point (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 4, Neel teaches the cutting line partially surrounds the periphery of the measurement point in a rectangular shape (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 5, Neel teaches the cutting line is disconnected at a position in a vicinity of the measurement point (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 6, Neel teaches the resistance prescription region prescribes the ratio between the first resistance value and the second resistance value by prescribing a length and a width between the voltage application point and the earth connection point (there is a length and a width between the voltage application point and the earth connection point and therefore would define the ratio), and a length and a width between either the voltage application point and the measurement point or the earth connection point and the measurement point (there is a length and a width between either the voltage application point and the measurement point or the earth connection point and the measurement point therefore would define the ratio).
Regarding claim 11, these limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Neel and the apparatus of Neel is capable of working on a sample which is blood, plasma, urine, or saliva, or a liquid for inspecting water quality. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Neel (see MPEP §2115). Further, this limitation is taught in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are directed to the material worked upon by the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Neel and the apparatus of Neel is capable of working on a sample which is blood and measuring glucose or lactate. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Neel (see MPEP §2115). Further, this limitation is taught in paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Neel teaches the voltage application point and the earth connection point are positioned closer to respective sides of the insulating substrate than the at least one measurement point (figure 9A), the at least one measurement point being positioned between the voltage application point and the earth connection point (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 14, Neel teaches the conductive region is electrically insulated from the component measurement region by a border line (the line formed between the cross hatch and non-cross hatched area), and the at least one measurement point is located closer to the border line than the voltage application point and the earth connection point (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 15, Neel teaches the voltage application point and the earth connection point are aligned in a line orthogonal to the respective sides (figure 9A).
Regarding claim 16, Neel teaches the cutting line partially surrounds the periphery of the measurement point in a rectangular shape (figure 9A, the portion of item 102 within item 110), and is partially disconnected at one of the sides of the rectangular shape (figure 9A, the portion of item 102 within item 110).
Regarding claim 17, Neel teaches the cutting line surrounds three sides of the rectangular shape (figure 9A, the portion of item 102 within item 110) and is disconnected at a remaining side of the rectangular shape (figure 9A, the portion of item 102 within item 110).
Regarding claim 18, Neel teaches the cutting line is disposed closer to the measurement point than to the voltage application point and the earth connection point (there is a portion of item 102 which is disposed closer to the measurement point than to the voltage application point and the earth connection point).
Regarding claim 19, Neel teaches the cutting line is configured to increase a resistance between the at least one measurement point and the voltage application point or the earth connection point while maintaining electrical continuity of the conductive region (paragraph [0080]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Neel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights