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. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A copy of Japanese Application JP2022-155530 has been filed with a priority date of 28 September 2022. 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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5: Step 1: Claims 1-5 are directed toward a process and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (see MPEP 2106.03 I. The Four Categories). Step 2A Prong 1: Independent, instant claim 1 recites the limitation “reading management information regarding the accuracy management substance from an information recording medium; selecting a treatment adapted to the read management information”, wherein both reading and selecting, under their broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the mind, falling under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, and thus the claim recites a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(a) III. Mental Processes). Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because, while following the reading and selecting steps, there is a step of “executing the selected treatment” and “updating the management information in the information recording medium according to the executed treatment”, these are mere instructions to apply the exceptions in a general way without any meaningful limitations that result in providing a technical solution to a technical problem as these limitations are extremely broad (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception). The MPEP holds that the abstract idea must be applied in a meaningful way so as to be more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) ) and merely using a computer to perform it is not deemed to be enough ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)) ) . Additionally, the updating of the information is seen as an insignificant post solution activity as it amounts to mere data gathering ( see MPEP 2105.05(g)). Dependent claims 2-3 merely further limit the judicial exceptions themselves and claims 4-5 merely introduce additional abstract ideas and thus fail to integrate the judicial exceptions of claim 1 into a practical application. These amount to considerations that don’t seem to rise above the level of a particular practical application. These seem to be just the generic use of a computer-based system to apply the abstract idea. Step 2B: The method of claim 1 is considered well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidence by primary reference JP 2015-135282 and, per MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More, using the judicial exception with what is WURC cannot qualify as significantly more. Dependent claims 2-7 fail to provide additional steps/structure that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 1-5 are not considered patent eligible. Claim 9 : Step 1: Claim 9 is directed toward a device and thus fall s within one of the four statutory categories of invention (see MPEP 2106.03 I. The Four Categories). Step 2A Prong 1: Independent, instant claim 9 recites the device performs a method reciting the limitation “reading management information regarding the accuracy management substance from an information recording medium; selecting a treatment adapted to the read management information”, wherein both reading and selecting, under their broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the mind, falling under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, and thus the claim recites a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(a) III. Mental Processes). Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions of claim 9 are not integrated into a practical application because, while following the reading and selecting steps, there is a step of “executing the selected treatment” and “updating the management information in the information recording medium according to the executed treatment”, these are mere instructions to apply the exceptions in a general way without any meaningful limitations that result in providing a technical solution to a technical problem as these limitations are extremely broad (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception). The MPEP holds that the abstract idea must be applied in a meaningful way so as to be more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) ) and merely using a computer to perform it is not deemed to be enough ( see MPEP 2106.05(f)) ) . Additionally, the updating of the information is seen as an insignificant post solution activity as it amounts to mere data gathering ( see MPEP 2105.05(g)). While Claim 9 indicates that these method steps are carried out using a holding tool of the device, its involvement is an extra-solution activit y , because the holder contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method ( i.e., in a data gathering step ) and therefore does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine). Step 2B: The device of claim 9 is considered well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidence by primary reference JP 2015-135282 and, per MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More, using the judicial exception with what is WURC cannot qualify as significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015-135282 to Hoshi et al. (herein Hoshi) as cited on the 2/23/2024 IDS (see machine translation provided) . Regarding claim 1 , Hoshi discloses an automated analyzer for performing accuracy control on analysis of samples, such as blood or urine, using quality control samples (see [0001, 0011-0012]) (i.e., “an accuracy management method for executing accuracy management by using an accuracy management substance in a measurement device that measures a biological specimen”), the method comprising: reading identification information (i.e., management information) regarding the quality control samples (i.e., accuracy management substance) from RF tags based on RFID (i.e., information recording medium) (see [0017-0019]); performing preparation processing, transferring, reacting with a reagent, and measurement of the accuracy measurement substance to be analyzed (see [0025-0028]) (i.e., “selecting a treatment adapted to the read management information”); adding a pretreatment solution to the accuracy management substance (see [0025]) (i.e., “executing the selected treatment”); and updating the management information recording medium according to the executed treatment (see [0019]). Regarding claim 2 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 1, and Hoshi discloses the pretreatment solution is a dissolving solution added to the accuracy measurement substance (see [0025]) based on the preparation protocol (i.e., usage information) provided by the management information (see [0023-0025]), which reads on “the management information includes a dissolving state and usage information of the accuracy management substance, and the treatment is selected based on at least one of the dissolving state or the usage information” as recited in the instant claim. Regarding claim 3 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 1, and Hoshi discloses a dissolving solution is added to the accuracy measurement substance that has been stored in a lyophilized state using a storage unit (i.e., container) to create a dissolved sample (see [0025]); transferring the accuracy measurement substance in the dissolved state to an analysis unit (see [0025]); diluting the dissolved accuracy measurement substance with a reagent (i.e., dilutant) to create a third state of the accuracy measurement substance in the measurement device (see [0028]); and performing analysis (i.e., measurement treatment) on the accuracy measurement substance in the third state (see [0028]). Regarding claim 4 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 3, and Hoshi discloses determining an expiration date and usage information included in the management information, wherein the selecting is stopped in a case in which it is determined the expiration date has passed or a usage status (i.e., usage count) has been reached (see [0023-0025, 0047, 0052-0053, 0058]). Regarding claim 5 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 4, and Hoshi discloses an expiration date (i.e., second expiration date) of the accuracy management substance that has been submitted for processing, which includes the second state, and a separate expiration notification (i.e., first expiration date) when a stored sample is two weeks from their second expiration date. Regarding claim 6 , Hoshi discloses a sample rack loading section 1 (i.e., a holding tool) comprising: sample containers 17 that accommodates quality control substances (i.e., accuracy measurement substances) used for quality control (i.e., accuracy management) of an automatic analyzer (i.e., measurement device) that measures a biological specimen; sample racks 18 (i.e., a holder) that accommodates the containers; and barcodes and/or RF tags (i.e., information recording medium) in which management information regarding the accuracy management substances is recorded, wherein the information recording medium is provided by the holders and/or the containers, the management information includes variable information of the accuracy management substances; and the variable information is updated according information regarding preparation processing (i.e., treatment) executed on the accuracy measurement substances by the measurement device (see [0015-0019]; Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 6, and Hoshi discloses the information recording medium includes barcodes (i.e., fixed recording section) and RF tags 17a, 8a (i.e., variable recording section), and the variable information includes generated information and information changed during a processing step (i.e., treatment) executed on the accuracy measurement substances by the measurement device (see [0018-0019]; Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8 , Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 7, and Hoshi discloses the variable information includes a dissolving state (see [0025]) and usage state (see [0058]). Regarding claim 9 , Hoshi discloses an automatic analyzer (i.e., measurement device) that measures a biological sample and executes a quality control method (i.e., accuracy management method) for executing quality control (i.e., accuracy management) by using quality control samples (i.e., accuracy measurement substances) in the measurement device, the accuracy management method comprising: reading management information regarding the accuracy measurement samples from barcodes and/or RF tags 17a, 18a; ]); performing preparation processing, transferring, reacting with a reagent, and measurement of the accuracy measurement substances to be analyzed (i.e., “selecting a treatment adapted to the read management information”); adding a pretreatment solution to the accuracy management substance (i.e., “executing the selected treatment”); and updating the management information recording medium according to the executed treatment, by using a sample rack loading section 1 (i.e., a holding tool) comprising: sample containers 17 that accommodates quality control substances (i.e., accuracy measurement substances) used for quality control (i.e., accuracy management) of an automatic analyzer (i.e., measurement device) that measures a biological specimen; sample racks 18 (i.e., a holder) that accommodates the containers; and barcodes and/or RF tags (i.e., information recording medium) in which management information regarding the accuracy management substances is recorded, wherein the information recording medium is provided by the holders and/or the containers, the management information includes variable information of the accuracy management substances; and the variable information is updated according information regarding preparation processing (i.e., treatment) executed on the accuracy measurement substances by the measurement device (see [0015-0028]; Fig. 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHRYN E LIMBAUGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0787 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1254 . 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. /KATHRYN ELIZABETH LIMBAUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797