DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Based on the claim amendments, filed on 8/21/26, the previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
The previous interpretations under 112(f) describing the structures through which 112(f) was not invoked remain as previously applied. Based on the claim amendments, the previous claim interpretation of “gap estimation unit” under 112(f) has been modified.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, filed on 8/21/26, some of the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, some remain as applicants did not provide a response against the 112(b) rejection or provide claim amendments.
As to the amended claims and remarks, the previous 101 rejection remains with modifications to address the claim amendments.
Based on the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection is maintained.
Claim Status
Claims 11-18 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
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 use the word “means” (or an equivalent thereof) or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the conveyed body” in claims 11 and 15; “a current detection unit configured to detect a current” in claims 11 and 15; “a mass information acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding a mass” of claims 13 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner is interpreting “a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the conveyed body” in claims 11 and 15 broadly because there is enough function to connote structure. In this case, the claims will be interpreted as a physical position detector.
The examiner is interpreting “a current detection unit configured to detect a current” in claims 11 and 15 broadly because there is enough function to connote structure. In this case, the claims will be interpreted as a current detector.
The examiner is interpreting “a mass information acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding a mass” in claims 13 and 17 broadly because there is enough function to connote structure. In this case, the claims will be interpreted as any structure that acquires mass such as a computer that can obtain mass, or a mass/weight detector.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap” in claims 11 and 15; “an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality” in claims 11 and 15 (and also claims 12-14, 16-18).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes “an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap” as recited in claims 11 and 15. As an arithmetic control unit (see [20, 47, 54] of the instant specification). The specification describes the arithmetic control unit as configured by a computer which performs arithmetic (see [20] of the instant specification) and also shows the arithmetic control unit as a black control box in the figures. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the abnormality determination unit to be the arithmetic control unit which is part of a computer or control program.
The specification describes “an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality” in claims 11 and 15 (and also claims 12-14, 16-18) as an arithmetic control unit (See [47] of the instant specification). The specification describes the arithmetic control unit as configured by a computer which performs arithmetic (see [20] of the instant specification) and also shows the arithmetic control unit as a black control box in the figures. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the abnormality determination unit to be the arithmetic control unit which is part of a computer or control program.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected based on the following analysis:
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
Claims 11 and 15 recite the abstract ideas of estimating and determining, which are either mental processes and/or math.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. In claims 11 and 15, after the determination of an abnormality is made then the claims ends and therefore there is no action is taken (nor is there an application, reliance on, or usage). Therefore, there is no particular practical application.
The clam also recites storing the data. However, storing is just insignificant post solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g), and also is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
The claims recite a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer in claim 15), a magnetic circuit, a position detection unit, and a current detection unit which are used to provide the information that is then used in the estimation and determination. However, this is just using the conveyor to gather data to be used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
The abstract ideas are performed by a computer/controller/processor, but performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
The claims recite the additional elements of a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer in claim 15), a magnetic circuit, a position detection unit, and a current detection unit. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Tamakoshi et al (US 20220252628; hereinafter “Tamakoshi”; already of record), or Aoyama et al (US 20220144556; hereinafter “Aoyama”; already of record), or Oosterbroek et al (US 20230093550; hereinafter “Oosterbroek”; already of record), or Sinz, A (US 20170363608; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record). Tamakoshi discloses a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer) (Tamakoshi teaches a conveyance system with a transport plane/surface for an analyzer; [1, 30], Fig. 1-8), a magnetic circuit (Tamakoshi teaches a magnetic circuit 25 to move container; [30], Fig. 1, 2), a position detection unit (Tamakoshi teaches a position detector 30; [39], Fig. 1, 2), and a current detection unit (Tamakoshi teaches a current detector; [108, 111-112, 122, 136], Fig. 1, 2). Aoyama discloses a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer) (Aoyama teaches a conveyance system with a transport plane/surface for an analyzer; [48, 154], Fig. 1-10), a magnetic circuit (Aoyama teaches a magnetic circuit 25 to move container; [44-45], Fig. 1, 2), a position detection unit (Aoyama teaches a position detector 60; [53], Fig. 1, 2), and a current detection unit (Aoyama teaches a current detector; [55, 94], Fig. 1, 2). Oosterbroek discloses a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer) (Oosterbroek; [42, 188, 189], Fig. 1), a magnetic circuit (Oosterbroek; [35, 36, 185]), a position detection unit (Oosterbroek; [64, 214]), and a current detection unit (Oosterbroek; [64, 214). Sinz discloses a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer) (Sinz; [42-46], Fig. 1), a magnetic circuit (Sinz; [35, 36, 37, 185]), a position detection unit (Sinz teaches position sensors; [19, 64]), and a current detection unit (Sinz teaches current sensors; [47, 48]. Sinz also teaches that the current sensors can be used in conjunction with the position sensors; [79]). Additionally, data gathering in conjunction with the abstract ideas (mental processes and mathematical concepts) is not enough to transform the nature of the claim into "significantly more" than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 12-14, 16-18 undergo a similar analysis and do not appear to resolve any of the above issues, and are therefore similarly rejected. Claims 12, 14, 16, 18 all recite determinations, which are just mental steps and/or math under Step 2A Prong One, with no particular practical application under step 2A Prong Two, and no additional elements under Step 2B. Claims 13 and 17 further recite a mass acquisition which could be a mental step under Step 2A Prong One with no application under Step 2A Prong Two, or alternatively which is used under Step 2A Prong Two to gather data that is then used in the determination under Step 2A Prong One, which is not a particular practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
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.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to lines 7-8 of claim 11, it is unclear how a gap is formed, and it is unclear what direction applicants are describing as a perpendicular direction between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface. What is a perpendicular direction to the conveyed body and conveyance surface? Is this a distance between them as a vertical distance, or is this a horizontal distance? Applicants have recited that the conveyed body is conveyed along the conveyance surface (line 2 of claim 11), and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the conveyed body of the claims is translating along the conveyed surface such that the conveyed body is in contact with the conveyed surface. In line 2, since the conveyed body is being conveyed “along” the conveyance surface, this language would be interpreted as “contacting” the surface. Without clarification, if this is a vertical distance, then it is unclear how a gap can be formed between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface since these two components are in contact with each other. Is the gap the horizontal distance? For purposes of examination, and to expedite prosecution, the examiner will interpret the gap to be either the horizontal or vertical distance. Claim 15 recites similar limitations and is rejected similarly.
Claims 12-14, 16-18 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12, 14-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Oosterbroek et al (US 20230093550; hereinafter “Oosterbroek”; already of record).
As to claims 11 and 15, Oosterbroek teaches a specimen analysis system (Oosterbroek; [42, 188, 189], Fig. 1) comprising:
an analysis unit configured to be injected with a specimen from a conveyed body and to analyze the specimen (Oosterbroek; [42, 188, 189], Fig. 1); and
a conveyance device (Oosterbroek; Fig. 1) configured to convey the conveyed body toward the analysis unit, wherein the conveyance device includes:
a conveyance plate that can convey the conveyed body along a conveyance surface (Oosterbroek teaches a transport plane with a top surface; [34, 63, 98, 185, 196, 262], Fig. 1);
a magnetic circuit unit arranged on an opposite side of the conveyance surface of the conveyance plate and having a winding wound around teeth (Oosterbroek teaches electromagnetic coils under the transport plane, which would be formed by teeth actuators that have a magnetic winding coils around them to form the electromagnetic actuator; [35, 36, 185]);
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the conveyed body (Oosterbroek teaches positioning systems; Fig. 1, [64, 214]);
a current detection unit configured to detect a current in the winding (Oosterbroek teaches current sensors; Fig. 1, [64, 214]);
an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap that is a distance in a perpendicular direction between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface (Oosterbroek teaches a modeling system which can model/estimate a gap; [222]);
a data storage unit configured to store data indicating a relationship among a position on a conveyance surface of the conveyance plate, a current flowing through the winding, a force applied to the conveyed body, and a size of the gap (Oosterbroek teaches a memory; [104, 216]); and
an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality regarding conveyance of the conveyed body including deterioration or abnormality of the conveyance surface based on the gap estimated by the gap estimation unit, the position detected by the position detection unit, the current detected by the current detection unit, and the data (Oosterbroek teaches determining abnormalities, where these abnormalities are determined based on the position/current/gap; [46, 47, 98, 104, 214, 216, 222, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
As to claims 12 and 16, Oosterbroek teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine, in accordance with the data, a thrust for moving the conveyed body along the conveyance surface and a perpendicular force acting on the conveyed body in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance surface based on the position detected by the position detection unit and the current detected by the current detection unit, and further configured to determine the abnormality by performing arithmetic operation of a friction coefficient of the conveyance surface based on the perpendicular force (Oosterbroek teaches a modeling system which can model/estimate various conditions such as velocity due to friction; [53, 63, 86, 121, 222-224, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13).
As to claims 14 and 18, Oosterbroek teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to execute determination of the abnormality by moving the conveyed body having a known mass on the conveyance surface (Oosterbroek teaches determining abnormalities; [46, 47, 98, 104, 214, 216, 222, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13. The conveyed body would have a mass. Oosterbroek teaches a modeling system which can model/estimate various conditions such as velocity due to friction; [63, 86, 121, 222-224, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oosterbroek et al (US 20230093550; hereinafter “Oosterbroek”; already of record) in view of Sinz et al (US 20170184622; hereinafter “Sinz II”; already of record).
As to claims 13 and 17, modified Oosterbroek teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine an abnormality regarding conveyance of the conveyed body including deterioration or abnormality of the conveyance surface based on the position detected by the position detection unit, the current detected by the current detection unit, the data (Oosterbroek teaches determining abnormalities, where these abnormalities are determined based on the position/current/gap; [46, 47, 98, 104, 214, 216, 222, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13).
Modified Oosterbroek does not specifically teach a mass information acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding a mass of the conveyed body, wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine an abnormality based on the mass. However, Sinz II teaches the analogous art of an electromagnetic based laboratory conveyor system, with sensors for positioning (Sinz II; [31-38], Fig. 1) with an abnormality determination unit that determines an abnormality or deterioration of the conveyance surface based the current (Sinz II teaches that current can vary, and that magnetic field and current deviation help to determine abnormalities or deteriorations in the conveyance surface such as wear or damage; [13]) and where the device is calibrated to compensate for the deviations (Sinz II; [12-16, 24, 51]. Sinz II also teaches that the calibration can be based on containers with different weights, thereby showing that weight is a variable that affects the positioning). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device which detects positioning and abnormalities of Oosterbroek to have also detected the weight as suggested by Sinz II because Sinz II teaches that it is important know the weight of containers when detecting deviation (Sinz II; [24]) and that using the weight and calibration helps to compensate for deviations of the laboratory components (Sinz II; [24, 51]) and helps distinguish which components may need to be replaced soon or helps identify if the device is not running optimally or is unreliable (Sinz II; [13, 24]).
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinz, A (US 20170363608; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record) in view of Tanotra et al (US 20220018868; hereinafter “Tanotra”; already of record) in view of Sinz et al (US 20170184622; hereinafter “Sinz II”; already of record).
As to claims 11 and 15, Sinz teaches a specimen analysis system (Sinz; [42-46], Fig. 1-6) comprising:
an analysis unit configured to be injected with a specimen from a conveyed body and to analyze the specimen (Sinz; [42-46], Fig. 1-6); and
a conveyance device (Sinz; Fig. 1-6) configured to convey the conveyed body toward the analysis unit, wherein the conveyance device includes:
a conveyance plate that can convey the conveyed body along a conveyance surface (Sinz teaches conveyance plate 110; [64, 66, 68, 73, 76], Fig. 1-6);
a magnetic circuit unit arranged on an opposite side of the conveyance surface of the conveyance plate and having a winding wound around teeth (Sinz teaches electromagnetic actuators 120 which would be formed by teeth as the ferromagnetic core and have a magnetic winding coils around them to form the electromagnetic actuator; [35, 36, 37, 185]);
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of the conveyed body (Sinz teaches position sensors; [19, 64]);
a current detection unit configured to detect a current in the winding (Sinz teaches current sensors; [47, 48]. Sinz also teaches that the current sensors can be used in conjunction with the position sensors; [79]);
a data storage unit configured to store data indicating a relationship among a position on a conveyance surface of the conveyance plate, a current flowing through the winding, a force applied to the conveyed body (Sinz teaches a control device to control the entire system, which is automated; [67]. Sinz teaches that the force, current, and position are all sensed and controlled where some type of memory would be required in order to control and sense these parameters; [19, 37, 47, 48, 64, 79]); and
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Sinz does not teach an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap that is a distance in a perpendicular direction between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface, or storage of the gap size. However, Tanotra teaches the analogous art of an electromagnetic based laboratory conveyor system, which current/inductor sensors for positioning (Tanotra; [6, 37, 129, 131, 145-149], Fig. 1, 3) with an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap that is a distance in a perpendicular direction between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface, or storage of the gap size, and an abnormality determination unit determining an abnormality regarding the conveyance based on the gap and the position (Tanotra teaches that a horizontal and vertical gap is determined which helps to calibrate the position signals since the position signals are based on the gap/distance; [136], Fig. 5, 6, 13-15. Tanotra teaches calibrating the device, which would require storage of the results in order to standardize the sensing. Because Tanotra teaches calibration, then it would determine sensed values and correct them or standardize them, thereby determining a deviation and then correcting it through calibration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device which detects positioning of Sinz to have also calibrated the device based on the estimated gap as in Tanotra because Tanotra teaches that sensing the gap via calibration helps to standardize the sensors to enhance position detection (Tanotra; [136]).
Modified Sinz does not teach an abnormality determination unit configured to determine an abnormality regarding conveyance of the conveyed body including deterioration or abnormality of the conveyance surface based on the current detected by the current detection unit. However, Sinz II teaches the analogous art of an electromagnetic based laboratory conveyor system, with sensors for positioning (Sinz II; [31-38], Fig. 1) with an abnormality determination unit that determines an abnormality or deterioration of the conveyance surface based the current (Sinz II teaches that current can vary, and that magnetic field and current deviation help to determine abnormalities or deteriorations in the conveyance surface such as wear or damage; [13]) and where the device is calibrated to compensate for the deviations (Sinz II; [12-16, 24, 51]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device which detects positioning and calibrates based on the positioning of modified Sinz to have also calibrated based on the deviations that included determining conveyance surface abnormalities as in Sinz II because Sinz II teaches that this technique helps to compensate for deviations of the laboratory components (Sinz II; [51]) and helps distinguish which components may need to be replaced soon or helps identify if the device is not running optimally or is unreliable (Sinz II; [13]).
As to claims 12 and 16, modified Sinz teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine, in accordance with the data, a thrust for moving the conveyed body along the conveyance surface and a perpendicular force acting on the conveyed body in a direction perpendicular to the conveyance surface based on the position detected by the position detection unit and the current detected by the current detection unit, and further configured to determine the abnormality by performing arithmetic operation of a friction coefficient of the conveyance surface based on the perpendicular force (Sinz teaches that the force, current, and position are all sensed and controlled where some type of memory would be required in order to control and sense these parameters; [19, 37, 47, 48, 64, 79]. The modification of the device which detects positioning and calibrates based on the positioning of modified Sinz to have also calibrated based on the deviations that included determining conveyance surface abnormalities as in Sinz II. Sinz II teaches wear and abrasion can cause the abnormalities due to different driving strength by the electromagnetic actuators where the determination of a wear or abrasion of the surface via the driving force/strength would involve relying on changes in friction since a worn or abraded surface would create more friction and need to be replaced; [13]).
As to claims 13 and 17, modified Sinz teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), further comprising a mass information acquisition unit configured to acquire information regarding a mass of the conveyed body, wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to determine an abnormality regarding conveyance of the conveyed body including deterioration or abnormality of the conveyance surface based on the position detected by the position detection unit, the current detected by the current detection unit, the data, and the information regarding the mass (The modification of the device which detects positioning and calibrates based on the positioning of modified Sinz to have also calibrated based on the deviations that included determining conveyance surface abnormalities as in Sinz II. Sinz II teaches the calibration can be based on different containers with different weights, whereby the determination of whether the container was empty serves as mass information; [24]).
As to claims 14 and 18, modified Sinz teaches the conveyance device according to claim 11 and the specimen analysis system according to claim 15 (see above), wherein the abnormality determination unit is configured to execute determination of the abnormality by moving the conveyed body having a known mass on the conveyance surface (The modification of the device which detects positioning and calibrates based on the positioning of modified Sinz to have also calibrated based on the deviations that included determining conveyance surface abnormalities as in Sinz II. Sinz II teaches the calibration can be based on different containers with different weights; [24]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Pedain, C (US 20170131309; hereinafter “Pedain”; already of record) teaches that position can be measured via sensor and/or current; [31].
Sinz et al (US 20160069715; hereinafter “Sinz III”; already of record) teaches vertical calibration [27-29] and a magnetic hall sensor [32]. Sinz III is cited by Tanotra in [136].
Denninger et al (US 20140231217; hereinafter “Denninger”; already of record) teaches detecting defective actuators [74], and where a camera [77] or a light sensor [78] can be used to detect error conditions. Denninger teaches that additional sensors can be used to determine positioning; [79].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/21/26 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 6-7 of their remarks that the “estimating” and “determining” in the claims are not abstract ideas (i.e. judicial exceptions) because the analysis focuses on the limitations in isolation and not the claim as a whole, and also because the steps cannot be performed mentally by a human. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the “estimating” and “determining” steps are abstract ideas (mental processes or math). Step 2A prong One does not require the entirety of the claim to be directed to an abstract idea, but merely requires that an abstract idea is recited in the claims. In this case, the “estimating” and “determining” are abstract ideas. Second, the “estimating” and “determining” can be performed by a human and/or computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea.
Applicants argue on pages 7-8 of their remarks that argue that the claims are integrated into a particular practical application. Applicants argue that after the determination of an abnormality is made that there is a particular practical application. Applicants state that the claims do not need to recite a remedial action and that the claim is integrated if it “applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception”, and then states that the determination is not an abstract concept and provides actionable information. The examiner respectfully disagrees. After the determination of an abnormality is made then the claim ends, and then no action is taken (nor is there an application, reliance on, or usage) and therefore, there is no particular practical application.
Applicants argue on page 8 of their remarks that the claims are integrated into a particular practical application because the determination is a concrete, practical and specific technical result. This argument is not persuasive because the determination step is the abstract idea itself and cannot be the application of the abstract idea under step 2A prong Two. Further, the practical application or alleged improvement cannot be the abstract idea but must be in a particular technology (See paragraphs 4-7 of MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicants argue on pages 8-9 of their remarks that eh claims are integrated into a particular practical application and state that the data gathering steps are not merely used in the abstract idea as insignificant extra solution activity. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer in claim 15), a magnetic circuit, a position detection unit, and a current detection unit which are used to provide the information that is then used in the estimation and determination. However, this is just using the conveyor to gather data to be used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications.
Applicants argue on page 9 of their remarks that the additional elements in the claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC), and then states that the Office Action did not provide clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the abnormality determination is WURC. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner did provide evidence with citations to several references showing that the additional elements are WURC. The claims recite the additional elements of a conveyance plate (and also an analyzer in claim 15), a magnetic circuit, a position detection unit, and a current detection unit. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Tamakoshi et al (US 20220252628; hereinafter “Tamakoshi”; already of record), or Aoyama et al (US 20220144556; hereinafter “Aoyama”; already of record), or Oosterbroek et al (US 20230093550; hereinafter “Oosterbroek”; already of record), or Sinz, A (US 20170363608; hereinafter “Sinz”; already of record) (see step 2B of the 101 rejection above). Applicants have not provided any actual arguments against any of the cited references to rebut the WURC analysis provided previously. Second, in step 2B, the additional elements (aside from the judicial exception) are evaluated. The determination of abnormality is not part of the analysis in step 2B, and is not considered an additional element because the determination of abnormality is the abstract idea (judicial exception) itself. Additionally, data gathering in conjunction with the abstract ideas (mental processes and mathematical concepts) is not enough to transform the nature of the claim into "significantly more" than the judicial exception.
Applicants argue on pages 10-12 of their remarks that Oosterbroek does not teach estimating a gap or a data storage that stores a data indicating a relationship between a position, current, force and gap size. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Oosterbroek teaches storing information on the current and position, where that inforatmion is used determine abnoramalities in the surface which known to be correlated with the gap size (Oosterbroek; [46, 47, 98, 104, 214, 216, 222, 262], Fig. 2, 3, 13). Therefore because the gap size is known to change and effect whether there is an abnormality, then Oosterbroek teaches estimating the gap based on the current and position since the gap is correlated to the determination of abnormality. Oosterbroek teaches storing information that helps determine an abnormality, where the information is indicated by a relationship of these factors (i.e. a position, current, force and gap size) since Oosterbroek clearly states that these factors are known to correlate to an abnormality and there is information stored that helps determine whether or not there is an abnormality.
Appilcants argue on pages 12-13 of their remarks that Tanotra does not teach gap estimation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tanotra teaches the analogous art of an electromagnetic based laboratory conveyor system, which current/inductor sensors for positioning (Tanotra; [6, 37, 129, 131, 145-149], Fig. 1, 3) with an arithmetic control unit configured to estimate a gap that is a distance in a perpendicular direction between the conveyed body and the conveyance surface, or storage of the gap size, and an abnormality determination unit determining an abnormality regarding the conveyance based on the gap and the position (Tanotra teaches that a horizontal and vertical gap is determined which helps to calibrate the position signals since the position signals are based on the gap/distance; [136], Fig. 5, 6, 13-15. Tanotra teaches calibrating the device, which would require storage of the results in order to standardize the sensing. Because Tanotra teaches calibration, then it would determine sensed values and correct them or standardize them, thereby determining a deviation and then correcting it through calibration). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device which detects positioning of Sinz to have also calibrated the device based on the estimated gap as in Tanotra because Tanotra teaches that sensing the gap via calibration helps to standardize the sensors to enhance position detection (Tanotra; [136]). Additionally, the modification with Sinz II addresses the determination in surface abnormality.
Applicants argue on page 13 of their remarks that the combination of references does not teach storing position, current, force and gap size. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The modification of the references in the rejection above addresses each of these.
Applicants argue on page 13 of their remarks that there is no motivation to combine the references and that the rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner has provided rationale from the references to explain the motivation/rationale (see rejection above). Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner notes that the rejections above provide rationale for the modifications.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights