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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 3/10/2026 is acknowledged.
In light of the search of the claimed invention, the examiner has withdrawn the restriction requirement and has rejoined all previously withdrawn claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/17/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for an embodiment in which a monitored parameter is pressure, does not reasonably provide enablement for embodiments in which a monitored parameter is not pressure. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The instant invention is a fluid system (e.g. a liquid chromatography system) that creates a vacuum bubble within the liquid of the fluid system and then measures how long it takes to refill the vacuum bubble with liquid from the liquid. This measurement enables the fluid system to determine whether or not a blockage exists within the fluid system. As part of the function of determining the existence of a blockage, claims 1 and 13 recite the step of “determining a period of time between generating the vacuum bubble and until the volume has been substantially filled with the liquid” in lines 6-7 of claim 1 and lines 5-6 of claim 13. The instant specification and claims suggest that the scope of the determining step includes the step of determining by monitoring a value or a variation of a value of a parameter in the liquid (for example, see claim 4). The instant specification and claims further suggest that the scope of the parameter of the liquid includes a pressure, a flow rate, a density, a temperature, a force acting on a piston, a parameter suitable to determine a pressure difference or a flow rate difference, an electric conductivity, an electric capacitance, and a velocity of sound propagation (for example, see claim 5).
The prior art includes U.S. Patent 11,079,402 issued to Fukushi et al. (“Fukushi”) and U.S. Patent 8,800,365 issued to Streit et al. (“Streit”). Fukushi discloses an invention similar to the instant invention in which a fluid system creates a vacuum and then the filling of the vacuum is monitored to determine whether or not a blockage exists in the fluid system. Streit also discloses an invention similar to the instant invention in which a fluid system creates a vacuum and then the filling of the vacuum is monitored to determine whether or not a blockage exists in the fluid system. Both Fukushi and Streit disclose that the pressure is monitored (using a pressure gauge) to determine the creation of the vacuum and the filling of the vacuum. Fukushi and Streit do not disclose how to use any other parameter to monitor the creation and filling of a vacuum. Both Fukushi and Streit disclose where a pressure gauge is placed with respect to the location of the vacuum and how to analyze the pressure data from the pressure gauge to determine the whether or not a blockage exists. Similarly, the instant specification discloses where a pressure gauge is placed with respect to the location of the vacuum and how to analyze the pressure data from the pressure gauge to determine the whether or not a blockage exists. However, the instant specification (and also the prior art) does not disclose how any of the other parameters listed in claim 5, besides the pressure, can be measured and related to the existence of a blockage.
Based on the evidence provided by the prior art and the instant application, the examiner has determined that an undue experimentation would be required to make and use the entire scope of the invention of claims 1 and 13.
Claims 2-12, 14 and 15 depend on claims 1 or 13 and are rejected for inheriting the same problems.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth below.
The following analysis is performed in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter 2019 PEG), as set forth in MPEP §2106.
Step 1
Step 1 of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are directed to a machine or manufacture. Claim 14 is directed toward a process.
Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The examiner has identified the following judicial exceptions in the claims:
Claim 1 recites “determining a period of time between generating the vacuum bubble and until the volume has been substantially filled with the liquid” in lines 6-7 and “concluding on the restriction based on the determined period of time” in line 8.
These claim limitations are judicial exceptions of a mental processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mental process limitations in the mind and/or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic computer (i.e. the control unit). Other than reciting a generic control unit that facilitates the mental process steps, nothing in the claim precludes any of the mental process steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. Claim 1 therefore recites abstract ideas.
Claim 13 recites a similar limitation in lines 5-6 and therefore recites abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two
Step 2A Prong Two of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 13 recite generating a vacuum bubble within the liquid network, wherein the vacuum bubble represents a volume where the liquid has been substantially removed and also a control unit.
The additional element of generating the vacuum bubble generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). The control unit is disclosed to be a processor. The control unit is recited so generically that is represents nothing more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Accordingly, the additional element of the control unit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 13 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 1 and 13 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 2 and 3 recite details of the step of generating the vacuum bubble that generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 2 and 3 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 2 and 3 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites details of the step of determining the period of time that generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the details of claim 4 are also directed toward the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 4 fails to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 4 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 5 recites details of that are directed toward the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 5 fails to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 5 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites details of the step of concluding on the restriction that generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claim 6 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 6 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claims 7-12 and 15 recite details of the apparatus that performs the judicial exception that generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional elements of claims 7-12 and 15 fail to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claims 7-12 and 15 are therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium that represents nothing more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Accordingly, the additional elements of the storage and the life predicting unit comprising a processor do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Whether viewed separately or in combination, the additional element of claim 14 fails to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, and claim 14 is therefore directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Step 2B of the 2019 PEG asks whether the claim provides an inventive concept; i.e., whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the additional element of generating the vacuum bubble generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h). The control unit is disclosed to be a processor. The control unit is recited so generically that is represents nothing more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Accordingly, the additional element of the control unit does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of generating the vacuum bubble generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the additional element of the control unit amounts to no more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exceptions cannot integrate a judicial exceptions into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 13 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claims 1 and 13 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 2-12, 14 and 15 recites details of the steps that generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as set forth in MPEP §2106.05 (h); are directed toward the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exceptions as set forth in MPEP §2106.05(g).; or represent nothing more than a generic structure with instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, these additional elements cannot integrate a judicial exceptions into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements of claims 4-12, 14 and 15 fail to provide an inventive concept that makes the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, and claims 2-12, 14 and 15 are therefore ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 11,079,402 issued to Fukushi et al. (“Fukushi”) is cited for all that it discloses including a fluid system that creates a vacuum and then monitors the filling of the vacuum to determine whether or not a blockage exists in the fluid system.
U.S. Patent 8,800,365 issued to Streit et al. (“Streit”) is cited for all that it discloses including a fluid system that creates a vacuum and then monitors the filling of the vacuum to determine whether or not a blockage exists in the fluid system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
