DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 11/22/2023, Claims 1-5 are pending. The claim set submitted on 11/22/2023 is considered because this is the most recent claim set. Claims 1-4 are considered in the current office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on11/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/12/2026. Group I, Claims 1-4 is considered on the merits below.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims have been analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. All claims are directed to statutory categories, i.e., Apparatus (Claims 1-4) (Step 1: YES).
Analysis:
Claim 1: Ineligible.
Step 1:
The claim recites a device, including “automatic analysis device”. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “calculate a liquid level height in a reaction tube, based on a scheduled dispensing amount of liquid to be dispensed into the reaction tube (mental step), and detect whether there is an abnormality in a dispensing operation in which liquid is dispensed into the reaction tube, based on a measured liquid level height in the reaction tube and a calculated liquid level height in the reaction tube.” (mental step)”, See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea, and more specifically to the abstract idea group of a math or mental process since claim 1 relates to using a processor to perform the math and mental steps
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III states that using a processor/computer to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Once the determination is done, No further action takes place, much less a particular practical application.
The recited processor is implicitly a computer and a general purpose computer is not a particular machine – MPEP 2106.05(b). (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the courts have found that limitations adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, such as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, are limitations found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of the Federal Register dated December 16, 2014; and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Note that mere data gathering is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, there are no additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea in independent claim 1. The claimed “processor” appears to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the field of in the field of liquid level detectors, as evidenced by Sugiyama et al. (JP2016027309A, submitted in IDS 11/22/2023). (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. In addition, the limitations of Claims 2-4 do not solve the issues of Claim 1.
Claim 2: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claim 2 recites “detects the abnormality in the dispensing operation…” is still just an abstract idea. No further action takes place.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 2 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 2.
Claim 3: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claim 3 recites “detected by a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a detector …” is still just an abstract idea. No further action takes place.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claim 4 further defines the abstract idea of claim 2. The claims do not provide any practical application
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claim 4 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (JP2016027309A, submitted in IDS 11/22/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama teaches an automatic analysis device, comprising:
a processor (referred to as liquid level height calculation means [Para 0032]) , wherein
the processor (referred to as liquid level height calculation means [Para 0032]) is configured to calculate (See Para 0050…H O is calculated after the liquid dispensing operation, but the timing of this calculation may be any timing as long as H O can be calculated) a liquid level height (‘liquid level’) in a reaction tube (‘container’) (See Para 0035… The initial value H O of the liquid level in the container), based on a scheduled dispensing amount of liquid (‘a predetermined amount of liquid’) to be dispensed into the reaction tube (‘container’) (See Para 0046…aspirate a predetermined amount of liquid (suction operation), and dispense the liquid into a predetermined container (dispensing position) (dispensing operation), and
detect whether there is an abnormality in a dispensing operation (‘suction operation’) in which liquid is dispensed into the reaction tube (‘container’) (See Para 0047…when the results of the analysis performed using the liquid sampled by this suction operation are displayed on the information display section 30, A warning to the effect that bubbles may have been generated may be displayed. The operator can then recognize that the reliability of the analysis results is questionable), based on a measured liquid level height (See Para 0050…the liquid level height H 1 detected during the probe lowering operation and the intake amount condition) in the reaction tube and a calculated liquid level height in the reaction tube (See Para 0050… theoretical value H O of the liquid level after the current suction operation is calculated).
In addition, Claim 1 recites a processor and a reaction tube and then recites how these structures function. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugiyama teaches that the processor (referred to as liquid level height calculation means [Para 0032]) detects an abnormality in the dispensing operation (See Para 0013…The warning display means is configured to detect the presence of foam when the value is equal to or less than the threshold value), when the measured liquid level height (See Para 0014…the liquid level height actually detected during the current probe lowering operation) in the reaction tube (See Para 0002…reaction container) does not match (See Para 0014…The difference from the liquid level height is calculated, and the difference exceeds the first threshold value set as the maximum allowable error preset on the device side) with the calculated liquid level height (See Para 0014… liquid level height after the suction operation obtained by calculation) in the reaction tube (See Para 0002…reaction container).
In addition, Claim 2 recites a processor and a reaction tube and then recites how these structures function. Claim 2 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugiyama teaches that a liquid level in the reaction tube (See Para 0022… and dispenses the sample into a reaction container; Under BRI, the sample has a level) into which the liquid has been dispensed (See Para 0025…since the reagent dispensing mechanism is composed of the liquid sampling device of the present invention, bubbles are generated on the liquid surface in the reagent container containing the reagent to be added to the specimen. If there is, it can be detected and the operator can recognize) is detected by a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a detector (See Para 0028…The liquid level sensor 8 is a capacitance sensor) provided on a reagent dispensing probe for dispensing reagent (See Para 0023… reagent dispensing mechanism, thereby teaching “a reagent dispensing probe for dispensing reagent”) comes close to or comes into contact with the liquid level in the reaction tube ((See Para 0022… reaction container))into which the liquid has been dispensed. (See Para 0028…The liquid level sensor 8 is a capacitance sensor, and detects contact of the tip of the probe 2 with the liquid surface by detecting a change in capacitance when the tip of the probe 2 contacts the liquid surface; See Para 0030…The sensor substrate 8 detects a change in capacitance between the tip of the probe 2 and the liquid surface when the tip of the probe 2 contacts the liquid surface).
In addition, Claim 3 recites a processor, a reaction tube and detector, then recites how these structures function. Claim 3 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugiyama teaches that upon detecting an abnormality in the dispensing operation, the processor (referred to as liquid level height calculation means [Para 0032] ; Also see that The arithmetic control unit 10 includes probe operation control means 12, liquid level detection means 14, liquid level height calculation means 16 after inhalation, difference calculation means 18, foam detection means 20, warning display means 22, and liquid level storage section. 24 , a first threshold holding unit 25 and a second threshold holding unit 26) notifies the abnormality in the dispensing operation (See Para 0013…The warning display means is configured to detect the presence of foam when the value is equal to or less than the threshold value, and the warning display means indicates the presence of foam in a manner recognizable by the operator when the foam detection means detects the presence of foam).
In addition, Claim 4 recites a processor, then recites how this structure function. Claim 4 is an apparatus claim and MPEP 2114 recites that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights