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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 are rejected.
Claims 9 is objected to.
Priority
The instant application is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2023/014606 filed 10 April 2023 and claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2022-068370, filed 18 April 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of claims 1-11 is 18 Apr 2022.
For any intervening prior art before the international filing date but after foreign priority date, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome a 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103 rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Applicant may provide an accurate English translation of the certified copy of the foreign application to perfect priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07 July 2023 and is compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. A signed copy of list of references cited from each IDS is included with this Office Action.
The information disclosure statement filed 31 July 2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Patent reference International Search Report of PCT/JP2023/01406 has no English translation or a concise explanation of the relevance has not been provided.
See MPEP 609.01 (B)(3) cited below:
(3) For non-English documents that are cited, the following must be provided:
(a) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, unless a complete translation is provided; and/or
(b) A written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, if it is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c).
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not
been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any
item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any
missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with
the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification
requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 9, which recites a nucleoside phosphoramidite concentration of 25 mM or lower, no prior art was found for this range of concentrations. TriLink Technologies® teaches an oligosynthesis method using as low as 50 mM phosphoramidites (https://www.trilinkbiotech.com/resources/docs/use-of-custom-synthesized-phosphoramidite-reagents). Applicants’ specification recites a Comparative Example (¶151-153) that suggests that identification of phosphoramidites at concentrations of 25 mM or less have high erroneous identification, but have found experimentally that their identification method, which uses cosine similarities, improves upon previous identification methods that use partial least squares (PLS) discrimination for classification of vibrational spectra. Prior art from Rydzak (Rydzak et al. 2015 Organic process research and development 19 pgs. 203-214) teaches PLS for quantification of compounds; and prior art from Khan (Khan and Madden 2012 Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 112 pgs. 99-108) teaches use of cosine similarity for identification in spectral search for Raman spectroscopy. However, while both elements are present and cosine similarity has been used for spectral identification in Raman and IR spectroscopy, the combination of prior art elements would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing in order to improve upon identification of phosphoramidites at concentrations 25 mM or lower in order to reduce the amount of reagent needed for oligosynthesis.
Claim Interpretation
For examination purposes, references to the specification cite the PgPub document US 2024/0242778 A1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“memory unit configured to,” “detecting unit configured to,” and “identifying unit configured to” in claim 1
“liquid delivery unit configured to,” and “synthesizing unit configured to” in claim 2
“input unit configured to,” and “checking unit configured to” in claim 5
“display unit configured to” in claim 6
“control unit configured to” in claim 7
“control unit configured to” in claim 8
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The following limitations are:
Claim 1 limitations “memory unit configured to,” “detecting unit configured to,” and identifying unit configured to” (¶70-86).
Claim 5 limitations “input unit configured to,” and “checking unit configured to” (¶’s 64 and 83, respectively).
Claim 6 limitation “display unit configured to” (¶85).
Claims 7 and 8 limitation “control unit configured to” (¶’s 115 and 134, respectively).
These limitations are computer-implemented claim limitations and therefore the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function (see MPEP §2181(II)(B)). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Considerations
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1 : YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon:
Claim 1 recites a nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system comprising units to store spectra, detect spectra, and identify nucleoside phosphoramidites.
Claims 3 and 4 further limit the detection of spectra.
Claim 5 recites checking sequence and identification results.
Claims 10 and 11 recite storing spectra, detecting spectra, and identifying nucleoside phosphoramidites.
Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. While claims 10 and 11 recite performing some aspects of the analysis “computer executed” or by “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” there are no additional limitations that indicate that this identification system requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental process or mathematical concept in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-11 recite an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1 : YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2 Considerations
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a computer medium and/or use of a hardware processor. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2 recites a liquid delivery unit and claim 5 recites an input unit (data gathering).
Claim 2 recites a synthesizing unit and claim 6 recites a display unit (insignificant extra solution activity).
Claim 10 recites computer execution of a method.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed system, method or storage medium require anything other than generic computing systems. Claims 2, 5 and 6 recite additional elements which equate to mere data gathering that indicates a field of use or technological environment (see Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data) and MPEP §2106.05(h)). As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not meaningfully limit the claim or integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(h)). As such, claims 1-11 are directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2 : NO).
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed system and method requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The limitation for use of a computer-implemented system, computer execution, or non-transitory computer readable storage medium amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic way because the executable steps are so generically recited. MPEP 2106.05(d) discloses that a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B : No). As such, claims 1-11 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydzak (Rydzak et al. 2015 Organic process research and development 19 pgs. 203-214) in view of Khan (Khan and Madden 2012 Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 112 pgs. 99-108).
Claims 1, 10 and 11 all recite computer-implemented methods or executions of a nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system, comprising: a memory unit configured to store spectra of solutions of a plurality of different nucleoside phosphoramidites; a detecting unit configured to detect a spectrum of a solution of a nucleoside phosphoramidite; and an identifying unit configured to identify the nucleoside phosphoramidite based on cosine similarity between the spectra stored in the memory unit and the spectrum detected by the detecting unit.
Rydzak teaches a nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system comprising storage of spectra and a detecting unit for those spectra (see §Direct monitoring with spectroscopy and Figs. 9 and 10 resultant chromatograms). Rydzak does not specifically teach use of cosine similarity to classify spectra.
Khan teaches cosine similarity algorithms in Raman spectral identification (see Table 1 and §4.3.1 Spectral similarity algorithms).
Taken together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rydzak and Khan in order to apply cosine similarity as a preferred algorithm for phosphoramidite identification as a standard option for similarity metrics used in spectral library search.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydzak and Khan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rydzak.
Claim 2 recites the nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system according to claim 1, further comprising: a liquid delivery unit configured to deliver the solutions of the nucleoside phosphoramidites; and a synthesizing unit configured to react the nucleoside phosphoramidites, to synthesize an oligonucleotide, wherein the detecting unit detects the spectrum from the solution of the nucleoside phosphoramidite delivered by the liquid delivery unit. Khan does not teach a liquid delivery unit. Rydzak teaches a liquid delivery unit, a synthesizing unit and spectral detection from the liquid detection unit (see Figs 2 and 3, pumps, column and IR/Raman flow cells and conductivity detectors).
Claim 3 recites the nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system according to claim 2, wherein the detecting unit detects the spectrum of the solution of the nucleoside phosphoramidite delivered between the liquid delivery unit and the synthesizing unit. Khan does not teach a detecting unit. Rydzak teaches calibration spectra of the nucleoside phosphoramidites and detection of solutions delivered between liquid delivery and synthesizing (see §3.2 Direct Monitoring with Spectroscopy 1st ¶ and Fig. 8).
Claim 4 recites the nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system according to wherein the claim 3, wherein the detecting unit detects the spectrum of the solution of the nucleoside phosphoramidite by infrared spectroscopy or Raman spectroscopy. Khan does not teach aa detection unit. Rydzak teaches detecting spectra by IR and/or Raman spectroscopy (see Figs. 2, 3 and 9).
Taken together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rydzak and Khan to include a liquid delivery unit, synthesizing unit and detection unit on an oligosynthesizer to transfer phosphoramidites to the synthesizing unit and detect the spectra as the reaction progresses; it would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include phosphoramidite detection for the solutions delivered to the synthesizing unit as the reaction progresses in order to monitor reaction progress; and finally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use either IR or Raman spectroscopy for phosphoramidite identification to measure reaction chemistry in real-time.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydzak and Khan as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of McElderry (McElderry et al. 2021 Organic Process Research & Development 25 pgs. 262-270, IDS entered 31 Jul 2023) .
Claim 5 recites the nucleoside phosphoramidite identifying system according to claim 2, further comprising an input unit configured to receive an input of sequence information of the oligonucleotide; and a checking unit configured to check the sequence information and an identification result of the identifying unit against each other. Khan does not teach input units. Rydzak teaches a PLS quantitative model containing the spectra of the target level reactant solution of each of the components used in the synthesis employed to confirm that the proper reactant is connected to the proper position on the synthesizer (see §3.2 Direct Monitoring with Spectroscopy). McElderry teaches an identification sensor that monitors the FTIR spectra of individual phosphoramidites in-line with an oligonucleotide synthesizer (see Fig. 1).
Claim 6 recites the system of claim 5, further comprising a display unit configured to display the identification result of the identifying unit and a checking result of the checking unit in association with each other. Khan does not teach display units for identifying and checking results. While Rydzak teaches a display unit for identifying and checking results based on the different IR band assignments from a model oligonucleotide synthesis (see Fig. 10), it teaches display of reaction progress (deprotection, coupling, oxidation and capping) rather than the spectra of the phosphoramidites themselves. McElderry teaches an identification sensor which includes display from the FTIR systems themselves (see §Material and Equipment) that monitors the FTIR spectra of individual phosphoramidites in-line with an oligonucleotide synthesizer (see Fig. 1).
Claim 7 recites the system of claim 6 and a control unit configured to pause liquid delivery when the checking result includes an error. Khan does not teach a liquid delivery unit. McElderry does not explicitly teach this feature in response to an error but rather relies on the existing SynTQ orchestration software to catch errors in real time. Rydzak built into their model a discriminate analysis model which mitigates risk connected to input of the incorrect reagent as well as multivariate statistical process control to enable informative analysis of the synthesis (see §3.2 Direct Monitoring with Spectroscopy and §3.3 Multivariate Statistical Process Control). However, they did not include a feature where the method pauses in response to these errors. While Rydzak does not explicitly teach a pause when checking results in an error, this is a feature of the UnicornTM software that the Akta Oligopilot 100 plus (the instrument used in this reference) uses for on-line monitoring in the UV-Vis spectrum (see §On-line monitoring and PAT in Cytiva Akta Oligopilot plus brochure, reference included).
Claim 8 recites the system of claim 6 and a control unit configured to deliver phosphoramidite solution to a discarding path when the checking result includes an error. Khan does not teach diversion of solutions in response to error. McElderry does not explicitly teach this feature in response to an error but rather relies on the existing SynTQ orchestration software to catch errors in real time. Rydzak built into their model a discriminate analysis model which mitigates risk connected to input of the incorrect reagent as well as multivariate statistical process control to enable informative analysis of the synthesis (see §3.2 Direct Monitoring with Spectroscopy and §3.3 Multivariate Statistical Process Control). However, they did not include a feature where the method diverts to waste in response to these errors. While Rydzak does not explicitly teach a diversion to waste when checking results in an error, this is a feature of the UnicornTM software that the Akta Oligopilot 100 plus (used in this reference) contains that can easily be written into the synthesis method for on-line monitoring in the UV-Vis spectrum (see §On-line monitoring and PAT in Cytiva Akta Oligopilot plus brochure, reference included).
Taken together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Khan, Rydzak and McElderry to incorporate an input unit and checking unit to confirm that the correct phosphoramidites are being added to the growing oligonucleotide; and to add a display unit to show the progress of the reaction in real-time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in combination with monitoring in the Raman and IR wavelengths, the error catching features of both SynTQ and UnicornTM software, and the error mitigation features built into Rydzak’s model, to include a pause and/or divert to waste feature in response to an error to avoid downstream processing costs and extraneous production planning.
Conclusion
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 and the three-pronged analysis, claims 7 and 8 are directed to significantly more than the judicial exception by integrating the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2) and therefore may be patent eligible according to 35 U.S.C. §101 if the claims are amended appropriately. Claims 7 and 8 currently depend from claim 6. Claims 7 and 8 recite control units which stop liquid delivery and discard solution (respectively) in response to an error. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine has been found by the courts to qualify as significantly more (see MPEP §2106.05(A)).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fu (Fu and Hopkins 2018 Journal of Physical Chemistry 122 pgs. 167-171); Yamakawa (Yamakawa et al. US 2003/0058799 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Maranda S Cantrell whose telephone number is (571)270-5651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30-4:30 pm.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. 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.
/M.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights