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 JP2021-136584 has been filed with a priority date of 24 August 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed toward a process which falls under one of the four statutory categories of invention (see MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 recites the limitation “determining whether a value of the amplitude of the current at the timing when position detection of the conveying container is started is within a threshold and determining deterioration of whether there is a scrape on the conveying surface” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation can be performed in the mind and thus falls under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and thus recites a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Mental Processes).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the amplitude is compared to a threshold and it is determined whether or not the conveying surface has a scrape, nothing else is done (See MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into a Practical Application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a sample conveying method including a conveying container that includes magnetic material and contains a sample, and a conveyance unit in which a plurality of magnetic poles, each of which includes a core and a coil, are arranged and the conveying container is moved on a conveying surface, controlling a voltage applied to the plurality of magnetic poles, detecting a position of the conveying container on the conveying surface, and controlling movement of the conveying container, the method comprising detecting an amplitude of a current flowing through the coil of each of the plurality of magnetic poles when the conveying container approaches each of the plurality of magnetic poles and determining deterioration, such as a scrape, is on the conveying surface is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art as evidenced by JP 2021010254 to Hoshi et al. (herein Hoshi) as cited on the 01/17/24 IDS (see machine translation provided). While “determining whether a value of the amplitude of the current at the timing when position detection of the conveying container is started is within a threshold” is not taught by the cited prior art, the abstract idea itself cannot be the reason for an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More).
Therefore, claim 7 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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication JP 2021010254 to Hoshi et al. (herein Hoshi) as cited on the 01/17/2024 IDS (see machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshi discloses a transport device 1 (i.e., sample conveying device) (see [0013]; Fig. 1) comprising: a transport container (i.e., conveying container) equipped with magnetic material and contains a sample (see [0013, 0034]); a conveyance unit in which a plurality of magnetic poles 25, each of which includes a core 22 and coil 21, are arranged and the conveying container is moved on a transport plane (i.e., conveying surface) (see [0013]; Figs. 1-2); and a position detection unit/drive unit/calculation unit (i.e., control unit) configured to control a voltage applied to the plurality of magnetic poles, detect a position of the conveying container on the conveying surface, and control movement of the conveying container (see [0013]), wherein the control unit detects an amplitude of a current flowing through the coil of each of the plurality of magnetic poles when the conveying container approaches the plurality of the magnetic poles (see [0130-0131]; Fig. 10), and determines deterioration of the conveying surface (see [0036]). Hoshi fails to explicitly disclose “the control unit … determines whether a value of the amplitude of the current at the timing when position detection of the conveying container is started with within a threshold”, however, as Hoshi discloses all the structural limitations of instant application, it must be capable of performing said function. Recommend amending claim 1 to recite the control unit is either “configured to” or “programmed to” to perform the recited functions of the claim to make it clear the control unit is in some way structurally designed to perform said functions (see MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations and MPEP 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 1 and Hoshi discloses the control unit includes a calculation unit (i.e., operation unit) that calculates the conveyance speed of the conveyance container based on the position of the conveyance container on the conveyance plane and the time it passes over that position, and detects the surface state of the conveying surface based on the calculated conveyance speed of the conveyance container (see [0013]). Hoshi discloses the operation unit uses deviations from the average transport speed and acceleration to detect abnormalities of the conveying container (see [0071]). As Hoshi discloses the calculation unit acquires the time required for an actual conveyance of the conveying container (see [0031]), the calculation unit also reads on the moving time calculation unit as recited in the instant claim. Hoshi fails to explicitly disclose “when it is determined that the conveying surface is deteriorated, determines that the conveying surface, where it is determined that there is the deterioration, is not usable, and excludes the conveying surface from conveyance paths of the conveying container, thereby excluding the magnetic pole arranged at a position corresponding to the conveying surface, where it is determined that there is the deterioration, and the magnetic pol arranged upstream thereof from the conveyance path of the conveying container” as recited in the instant claim. However, as Hoshi discloses all the structural limitations of claims 1 and 3, the device of Hoshi must be capable of performing said function. Recommend amending claim 3 to recite the operation unit and/or moving time calculation unit is either “configured to” or “programmed to” to perform the recited functions of the claim to make it clear the units are in some way structurally designed to perform said functions (see MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations and MPEP 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 1 and Hoshi discloses the control unit includes a calculation unit (i.e., operation unit) that calculates the conveyance speed of the conveyance container based on the position of the conveyance container on the conveyance plane and the time it passes over that position, and detects the surface state of the conveying surface based on the calculated conveyance speed of the conveyance container (see [0013]). Hoshi discloses the operation unit uses deviations from the average transport speed and acceleration to detect abnormalities of the conveying container (see [0071]). As Hoshi discloses the calculation unit acquires the time required for an actual conveyance of the conveying container (see [0031]), the calculation unit also reads on the moving time calculation unit as recited in the instant claim. Hoshi discloses if the current value of the magnetic pole at a particular position exceeds a predetermined threshold, the change in the surface condition of the conveying surface can be promptly notified to the user or system administrator by displaying it on the display device of a monitoring system that shows changes in the surface condition of the conveying surface (see [0103]). In other words, if the display device displays the conveying surface is absent of defects, then the paths on said conveying surface would not be excluded from conveying a conveying container.
Regarding claim 5, Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 3 and Hoshi discloses if the current value of the magnetic pole at a particular position exceeds a predetermined threshold, the change in the surface condition of the conveying surface can be promptly notified to the user or system administrator by displaying it on the display device of a monitoring system that shows changes in the surface condition of the conveying surface (see [0103]). Hoshi discloses analytical processing capacity of a sample analysis system is an important factor in specimen analysis in the medical field (see [00004]). Hoshi fails to explicitly disclose “the operation unit calculates the conveyance path of the conveying container by excluding the conveyance path, where it is determined that there is the deterioration, calculates a processing capacity of the conveying container according to the calculated conveyance path, determines whether the calculated processing capacity is equal to or higher than a threshold, and when it is determined that the processing capacity is equal to or higher than the threshold, displays on the display unit that an upper surface of the conveying surface of the conveyance path, where it determined that there is deterioration, is to be replaced” as recited in the instant claim. However, as Hoshi discloses all the structural limitations of the instant invention, it would be capable of performing any functions of said structures. Recommend amending claim 5 to recite the operation unit is either “configured to” or “programmed to” to perform the recited functions of the claim to make it clear the unit is in some way structurally designed to perform said functions (see MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations and MPEP 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material).
Regarding claim 6, Hoshi discloses the invention of claim 4 and Hoshi discloses the deterioration of the conveying surface could be due to dirt (i.e., an obstacle) (see [0042]). However, Hoshi fails to disclose “when it is determined that the conveying surface is not deteriorated, determines whether the conveyance paths for which the moving time is longer than the estimated conveyance time include the conveyance path that cannot be excluded from the conveyance path for conveying the conveying container, and when it is determined that the conveyance path that cannot be excluded is not included, determines the abnormality is due to the presence of an obstacle on the conveying surface, and displays on the display unit that the conveyance path is to be changed” as recited in the instant claim. However, as Hoshi discloses all the structural limitations of the instant invention, Hoshi is capable of performing the same functions as the instant invention. Recommend amending claim 5 to recite the operation unit is either “configured to” or “programmed to” to perform the recited functions of the claim to make it clear the unit is in some way structurally designed to perform said functions (see MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations and MPEP 2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E LIMBAUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-0787. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights