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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed June 13th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are currently examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are essentially maintained and modified only into response to amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112b are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
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 1 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 1, the limitation “setting the specified range by converting the predetermined threshold and the size of the first peak” is unclear as to how the predetermined threshold is converted. The Examiner interprets the above limitation as the predetermined threshold is converted to a size threshold using the size of the first peak, but based on the current wording if this interpretation is correct. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
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 1-7 are 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 a display method, the method comprising: “determining, for the second data, whether or not the second peak is included in the specified range by the at least one processor” and “determining a size of the first peak based on the conversion of the migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into the corresponding size”, which are abstract concepts that can be done mentally. 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 a 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 1 recites: “determining, for the second data, whether or not the second peak is included in the specified range” and “determining a size of the first peak based on the conversion of the migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into the corresponding size”, 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 “determining, for the second data, whether or not the second peak is included in the specified range” and “determining a size of the first peak based on the conversion of the migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into the corresponding size” are not used in a practical application, and does not belong to a particular technological environment. Determining whether an electrophoretic peak is in a specified range can be done mentally, and no additional steps are performed after displaying the second peak. 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 1 recites the additional step(s): “displaying a plurality of pieces of data respectively obtained by electrophoretic separation for a plurality of samples”; “acquiring the plurality of pieces of data”; “detecting the first peak and the second peak respectively from the first data and the second data”; “setting a range included within a predetermined threshold from the first peak as a specified range”; “displaying specifically the second peak, when the second peak is in the specified range”, which are known to one of ordinary skill that only serves to collect/gather the data (i.e., gather the electropherogram signal/run), which is then used to perform the mental step of “determining…whether or not the second peak is included in the specified range”. 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 step of data collecting, “determining…whether or not the second peak is included in the specified range”, and data displaying 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 2-5, claims 2-5 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 2-5 depend on the independent claim 1, therefore, have the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “calculating a number of base pairs corresponding to the first peak in the first data, based on the third data”, which can be done mentally, and is another way to display the data. In addition, calculating a number of base pair using a known ladder is common among capillary electrophoresis (as evidenced by as evidenced by MultiNA in the claim 2 rejection below).
Claim 3 recites “displaying specifically further includes displaying an electropherogram based on the second data” and “displaying an electropherogram includes displaying a different visual representation, when the second peak is including in the specified range, as compared with a case where the second peak is out of the specified range”; displaying electropherograms is common among capillary electrophoresis methods (see claim 3 rejection below) and using a different visual representation is just a different way of classifying the data.
Claim 4 recites “the displaying a different visual representation includes displaying the second peak included in the specified range with a marker in the electropherogram” is just a different way of classifying the data by using a marker.
Claim 5 recites “the displaying specifically further includes displaying a peak table based on the second data, the peak table includes a value corresponding to the second peak, only when the second peak is included in the specified range”, which is just a different way to display an electropherogram’s data, and displaying the second peak only in specified range is another way of classifying the data.
In summary, dependent claims 2-5 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Independent Claim 6, claim 6 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 6 is directed to an analyzer that “analyzes a plurality of pieces of data respectively obtained by electrophoretic separation for a plurality of samples”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. The additional structural limitations such as an “a memory”, “a processor”, and “a display unit” are known as evidenced by the prior art of MultiNA in the prior art rejection of claim 6 below, and are conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to store 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., the plurality of pieces of data, the second peak) 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 6 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 6 is directed to an analyzer, 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 6 recites: “analyzes a plurality of pieces of data respectively obtained by electrophoretic separation for a plurality of samples”, which is an abstract idea since the analysis apparatus just uses measured values, such as signals from an electrophoresis run, and does not use the analyzed components in any meaningful way (only 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 plurality of pieces of data respectively obtained by electrophoretic separation for a plurality of samples”, 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 6 recites the additional element(s): “a memory”, “a processor”, and “a display unit”, which are just routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to store and process measurement signals from an electrophoretic run, by an arithmetic device such as CPU executing software based on the mathematical equation(s) and displayed using a display such as a monitor. Therefore, claim 6 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 Independent Claim 7, claim 7 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 7 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium and a computer, causing the computer “to perform the display method according to claim 1”, which is an abstract concept that can be done mentally. The additional structural limitations such as an “a computer-readable storage” are known as evidenced by the prior art of MultiNA in the prior art rejection of claim 7 below, and is a conventional structure previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to store the measured values of electrophoresis signals. 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 7 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 7 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, 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 7 recites: “perform the display method according to claim 1”, which is an abstract idea since, as outlined in the 101 rejection above for claim 1, determining whether an electrophoretic peak is in a specified range and determining a size of the first peak based on the conversion of the migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into the corresponding size can be done mentally and 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 “perform the display method according to claim 1”, 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 7 does not recite any additional element(s) other than the structural elements in claim 1, which are just routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to store, detect, and display measurement signals from an electrophoretic run, which are used to process/analyze electrophoretic data, by an arithmetic device such as CPU executing software based on the mathematical equation(s). Therefore, claim 7 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 1-7 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 Agilent OpenLAB (Agilent OpenLab CDS; 2016) and DNA Fragment Sizing (DNA Fragment Analysis by Capillary Electrophoresis; 2014).
Regarding Claim 1, MultiNA teaches a method (a method is created to analyze multiple samples using methods [See Section 3.4.1 pages 35-41; specifically, as detailed in creating the sample list on page 40, sample and type of sample is identified for electrophoresis) controlling an analyzer (computer that includes analysis software [PC Requirement and Software Sections, page 5]) including a memory (Memory, [PC Requirement, page 5]), at least one processor (CPU [PC Requirement, page 5]), a display (display, [PC Requirement, page 5]) and an input unit (a keyboard and a mouse, [page 269]), comprising:
receiving a method setting from a user via the input unit (user selects the specified wells along with the corresponding program for the sample being measured, such as Ladder (STD), illustrated in the well status display on page 39), and displaying a setting screen on the display based on the method setting (method selected for each well is displayed in well status display [page 39]);
receiving a setting of an analysis order of a plurality of samples from the user via the input unit (as illustrated on page 42, user has inputted an analysis order for multiple samples such as DNA ladders and unknown samples [well display grid bottom of page 42]), the plurality of samples comprising a known sample (known sample can be a DNA ladder [page 42]) and an unknown sample (unknown sample can be any of the samples tested [page 42]);
analyzing the plurality of samples using an electrophoresis device (plurality of samples are analyzed using electrophoresis [see Figure on page 15 that includes the gel image and electropherogram]);
acquiring a plurality of pieces of data based on electrophoretic separation of the plurality of samples via the electrophoresis device (as illustrated in display results on page 64, a plurality of gel electropherograms are obtained along with the ability to show individual electropherogram lanes [page 64]), the plurality of pieces of data comprising first data corresponding to the known sample (known sample can be the DNA ladder shown in the lane 1 electropherogram on page 64) and second data corresponding to the unknown sample (unknown can be any sample lane with an undetermined basepair length, such as the sample in well A1 [page 64]);
detecting a first peak and a second peak respectively from the first data (first peak can be a DNA ladder length, such as on page 64) and the second data (second data can be an unknown DNA sample length, such as in sample A1 on page 64) by the at least one processor (data collected is done using a computer that contains a CPU [PC Requirements, page 5]), the first peak corresponding to a separated component of the known sample (first peak can be a peak in the DNA ladder used on page 64 is of known length) and the second peak corresponding to a separated components of the unknown sample (an unknown DNA sample length, such as in sample A1 on page 64, is of unknown length)
converting of a migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into a corresponding size (analysis data is obtained based on the migration time [Gel Image Displays Comparable to Those for Agarose Gel Electrophoresis, page 2], which is then converted in the corresponding basepair length [1.5.2 Analysis and Data Processing, page 7]);
determining a size of the first peak based on the conversion of the migration time of the plurality of pieces of data into the corresponding size (as described in Section 1.5.2, a DNA ladder of known length has its size determined based on migration time [entire Section of 1.5.2 Analysis and Data Processing. Page 7]);
MultiNA is silent on automatically setting a range included within a predetermined threshold from the first peak as a specified range by the at least one processor; determining, for the second data, whether or not the peak is included in the specified range by the at least one processor; and displaying, specifically the second peak, when the second peak is in the specified range by the display, wherein the setting the specified range comprises: setting the specified range by converting the predetermined threshold and the size of the first peak.
Agilent OpenLAB teaches a software for processing data for chromatographic separations (page 11), and teaches automatically setting a range included within a predetermined threshold from the first peak as a specified range by the at least one processor (as outlined in Chapter 4: Peak Identification, peak identification can be performed using data from a reference component of interest and data from a sample peak, which is specified by the method [entire text of page 82]; a specific range may be designated from the reference peak, such as +/- 10% [Evaluation of Retention Time Window, page 83]); setting a range included within a predetermined threshold from the first peak as a specified range (a specific range may be designated from the known peaks expected elution time, [Evaluation of Retention Time Window, Figure 74 on page 83]); determining, for the second data, whether or not the peak is included in the specified range by the at least one processor (sample peak is identified based using reference peak range [see chromatogram in Evaluation of the Retention Time Window, page 83], an error can be given if no peak is detected in peak identification range [last sentence of page 84]).
MultiNA and Agilent OpenLAB are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of method to display/process chromatograms. 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 method of MultiNA to automatically setting a range included within a predetermined threshold from the first peak as a specified range by the at least one processor; determining, for the second data, whether or not the peak is included in the specified range by the at least one processor, as taught by Agilent OpenLAB, as using a reference sample allows for accurate identification of chromatogram peaks (Agilent OpenLAB, [first para. page 82]). In addition, as migration time and sample length are equivalent ways to define a sample peak (see MultiNA page 7), 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 method of modified MutliNA to setting the specified range by converting the predetermined threshold and the size of the first peak, as taught by MultiNA, as using either migration time or sample size to describe a sample is a design choice.
Modified MultiNA is silent on displaying specifically the second peak, when the second peak is in the specified range.
DNA Fragment Sizing teaches software for analyzing DNA electropherograms, and teaches displaying specific peaks, when the peak is in the specified range (for example, as described on page 98 and illustrated on page 99, when using a ladder to generate a sizing curve, Genemapper software ignores peaks that are not within the expected range of the DNA lengths; for example, the smaller anomalous peak on page 99 is not plotted in the electrophoresis plot).
Modified MultuNA and DNA Fragment Analysis are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of method to display/process chromatograms. 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 display method of MultiNA to displaying specifically the second peak, when the second peak is in the specified range, as taught by DNA Fragment Analysis, as ignoring extraneous peaks allows for proper identification of peaks (DNA Fragment Analysis, [page 99]). Note that, in the case of DNA Fragment Analysis, the specified peaks are displayed on a base pair vs data point plot, peaks in the specified range could also be equivalently displayed using an electropherogram. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 2, modified MultiNA teaches the method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches wherein the known sample and the unknown sample each include DNA or RNA (the known sample can be a DNA ladder [page 66] and the unknown sample can be DNA [page 69]),
the plurality of samples include a reference sample (samples can include markers, an internal standard substance along with the DNA reference ladder [first para. of page 20 and shown in standard ladder on page 65]) for defining a separated component by a number of base pairs (lower and upper markers can be added to a DNA ladder sample to determine DNA fragments have correct basepair lengths [page 64]),
the plurality of pieces of data include third data corresponding to the reference sample (DNA ladder with lower and upper markers can serve as a third data, such as on page 64), and
the setting includes:
calculating a number of base pairs corresponding to the first peak in the first data, based on the third data (DNA ladder peak basepairs are calculated/confirmed using a size calibration curve based on the other lengths of the DNA ladder [pages 7]).
MultiNA is silent on setting the specified range according to the number of base pairs. However, MultiNA does teach that the DNA base pair length corresponds to a specific elution time, as seen in DNA lengths in the two DNA ladders on page 65.
Agilent OpenLAB teaches a software for processing/displaying data for chromatographic separations, and although Agilent OpenLAB does not explicitly teach setting the specified range according to the number of base pairs, a specific range may be designated for a sample peak, such as +/- 10% based on elution time [Evaluation of Retention Time Window, page 83]).
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 display method of modified MultiNA to setting the specified range according to the number of base pairs, as taught by combined MultiNA and Agilent OpenLAB, as a specified range based on elution time is equivalent to setting a specified range based on DNA basepair length, and both can be used to correctly identify DNA fragment lengths (MultiNA, reference DNA ladders [page 65]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified MultiNA teaches the method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches the displaying specifically further includes displaying an electropherogram based on the second data (specific electropherograms from a plurality of samples can be displayed, as illustrated in the figure on page 63 where the electropherogram for the red outlined gel image is displayed).
MultiNA is silent on displaying an electropherogram includes displaying a different visual representation, when the second peak is included in the specified range, as compared with a case where the second peak is out of the specified range.
However, MultiNA does teach that for some samples, when a DNA length falls outside of the expected range, the size value is displayed in red in the peak table (last bullet on page 133 and shown in bottom left figure on page 133).
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 display of modified MultiNA to displaying an electropherogram includes displaying a different visual representation, when the second peak is included in the specified range, as compared with a case where the second peak is out of the specified range, as changing the color from black to red, for example, allows the user to easily visualize any peaks outside of an expected range (MultiNA, [page 133]). Note that in the case of MultiNA, the peak table is a different way to visualize/analyze electrophoresis data, and rearranging the color change to be associated with the electropherogram is an equivalent design choice for highlighting a peak out of expected range. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 4, modified MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 3.
Although MultiNA does not explicitly teach wherein the displaying a different visual representation includes displaying the second peak included in the specified range with a marker in the electropherogram, MultiNA does teach markers can be used in the electropherogram (as illustrated in the display figure on page 64, the slab gel image and the selected sample electropherogram include magenta and blue markers for the lower and upper marker, respectively).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the display method of modified MutliNA to wherein the displaying a different visual representation includes displaying the second peak included in the specified range with a marker in the electropherogram, as markers can be used to identify peaks of importance in an electropherogram (MultiNA, [page 64]). Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 5, modified MultiNA teaches the method according to claim 3.
MultiNA teaches wherein the displaying specifically further includes displaying a peak table based on the second data (display includes a peak table for unknown sample electropherograms [page 69]).
MultiNA is silent to the peak table includes a value corresponding to the second peak only when the second peak is included in the specified range.
DNA Fragment Sizing teaches software for analyzing DNA electropherograms, and teaches displaying specific peaks, when the peak is in the specified range (for example, as described on page 98 and illustrated on page 99, when using a ladder to generate a sizing curve, Genemapper software ignores peaks that are not within the expected range of the DNA lengths; for example, the smaller anomalous peak on page 99 is not plotted in the electrophoresis plot).
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 display method of MultiNA wherein the peak table includes a value corresponding to the second peak only when the second peak is included in the specified range, as taught by DNA Fragment Analysis, as ignoring extraneous peaks allows for proper identification of peaks (DNA Fragment Analysis, [page 99]). Note that, in the case of DNA Fragment Analysis, the specified peaks are displayed on a base pair vs data point plot, peaks in the specified range could also be equivalently displayed using a peak table. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 6, MultiNA teaches an analyzer (a computer with a CPU [page 5]) that analyzes a plurality of pieces of data respectively obtained by electrophoretic separation for a plurality of samples (shown in Section 5.7.3, a plurality of samples from electrophoretic separation are analyzed [pages 189-192]), the analyzer comprising:
a memory (RAM Memory and HDD memory [page 5]) that stores the plurality of pieces of data (analysis results are saved in data files [last bullet of page x]);
a processor (CPU [page 5]); and
a display unit (a display [page 5]).
MultiNA is silent on a processor that that executes the method according to claim 1; and a display that displays specifically the second peak included in the specified range.
However, as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, modified MultiNA (MultiNA in view of Agilent OpenLAB and DNA Fragment Sizing) teaches the display method according to claim 1.
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 processor of MultiNA to execute the display method according to claim 1 and to modify the display unit of MultiNA to displays specifically the second peak included in the specified range, as taught by modified MultiNA, as ignoring extraneous peaks allows for proper identification of peaks (DNA Fragment Analysis, [page 99]).
Regarding Claim 7, MultiNA teaches a computer-readable storage medium (an HDD [page 5]) that records a program executed by a computer (a personal computer with required specifications [page 5])
MultiNA is silent on a computer to cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1.
However, as outlined in the claim 1 rejection above, modified MultiNA (MultiNA in view of Agilent OpenLAB and DNA Fragment Sizing) teaches the method according to claim 1.
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 computer-readable storage medium of MultiNA to records a program executed by a computer to perform the display method according to claim 1, as taught by modified MultiNA, as ignoring extraneous peaks using the allows for proper identification of peaks (DNA Fragment Analysis, [page 99]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pgs. 6-10, filed 06/13/2025, 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 traverses the prior art 35 U.S.C 101, as claim 1 has been amended to recite a method for controlling an analyzer, noting the amended limitation “analyzing the plurality of samples using an electrophoresis device” and “acquiring a plurality of pieces of data based on electrophoretic separation of the plurality of samples via the electrophoresis device, the plurality of pieces of data comprising first data corresponding to the known sample and second data corresponding to the unknown sample” cannot be performed by the human mind. In addition, the collection of data in claim 1 is not recited “at a high level of generality” because the plurality of samples are analyzed using an electrophoresis device. In addition, as the range is automatically set by the analyzer instead of the user, the detection range does not need to be changed which increases the processing and efficiency. The Applicant also cites CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2020) as an example case that was determined to be patent eligible and only recited general structure features.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. First, the Examiner argues that although the instant application is directed towards displaying electrophoretic gel images, this does not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step, and similar proposed technological improvements could be made for other system that display data, such as chromatograms or any other application that would display data in such a manner. Although the Applicant’s uses CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2020) for their argument, the Examiner argues that as the data collected from the electrophoresis is only modified in terms of how it is collected and displayed to the user (determining a predetermined threshold for identifying a peak in a specified range), this amounts to collecting, analyzing, classifying, and displaying the data. 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.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues on page 9 that the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is patentable as the amended limitation of claim 1 now recites the following limitation not disclosed in any of the applied references:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but is not persuasive in view of the 103 rejection of claim 1 above to capture the amended limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:00 CST.
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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795