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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/26/24 and 8/14/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected based on the following analysis:
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
The claims recite the abstract idea of “determines” whether to perform analysis which is a mental process.
Determining is an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and 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. After the determination then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no particular practical application.
The claims also recite an automatic analysis device with a holding unit, a sample dispenser, a reagent dispenser, and a measurement unit. However, this is just using the analyzer 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 is not a particular practical application.
The abstract idea is 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 an automatic analysis device with a holding unit, a sample dispenser, a reagent dispenser, and a measurement 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 Capresta (Translation of “Special feature: Current situation of automated analyzer for clotting test", Features and availability of fully-automated coagulation analyzer "CAPRESTA 2000", Biological Sample Analysis Vol. 32, No. 5 (2009) translation includes pages 1-12; already of record with translation filed on 4/1/20 in parent application 15/554276; hereinafter “Capresta”) or Makino et al (WO 2013187210 where US 20150104351 is used as corresponding document; hereinafter “Makino”; already of record). Makino teaches an automatic analysis device (Makino; Figures 1, 2, 4) comprising: a specimen container holding unit (Makino; 20 [65]); a specimen dispensing mechanism (Makino; 22 [79] Figs. 4); a reagent dispensing mechanism (Makino; 34a/b or 66 [80, 81]); a measurement unit (Makino; 61 [79-81, 108]). Capresta teaches an automatic analysis device (Capresta teaches the CP2000 measurement system; p. 1, 5, Fig. 4) comprising: a specimen container holding unit (Capresta teaches a sample rack which can hold sample cups; p. 5, 10, Fig. 4); a specimen dispensing mechanism (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10. Capresta teaches that test plasma, normal plasma, and a ratio of the two can be dispensed; p. 9, 10, 11, 12, Fig. 5.); a reagent dispensing mechanism (Capresta teaches a reagent probe; p. 4, 5. The reagent probe dispensing to the cuvette with the samples; p. 3, 5.); a measurement unit (Capresta teaches a light detection unit for detecting scattered light from a light source to determine coagulation times; p. 1, 2, 10.).
The dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 undergo a similar analysis and do not appear to resolve any of the above issues, and are therefore similarly rejected. Claims 2 and 5 discuss details of the determination which is just the abstract idea under step 2A prong one and then discusses the measurement which is data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A prong 2. Claims and 6 recite displaying an alarm when exceeding a number, but the implicit comparison of numbers is just the abstract idea under step 2A prong one and sending a notification does not integrate the exception into a practical application because notifying is insignificant post-solution activity and not a particular practical application, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
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 1-6 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 claim 1, it is unclear what “the reagent remaining tests” is attempting to recite in the last line of the claim since neither a singular nor a plural reagent remaining test has been previously recited. Therefore, this limitation has insufficient antecedent basis and is unclear. Further, what is a reagent remaining test? How is only a reagent tested, how is the remaining tests related to a reagent, and how is this determined? Claim 1 also recites “the number of the mixed blood plasma” in the second to last line where it is also unclear what is attempting to be recited. Specifically, what is the number of mixed blood plasma? Previously, only one mixed plasma is required (at least one mixing ratio) and it is unclear if there are now multiples being required. Claim 4 recites similar limitations and is correspondingly rejected. Further, claims 3 and 6 also recite “the reagent remaining tests” and “the number of the reagent remaining tests” which are unclear as discussed above.
As to lines 4-7 of claim 1, it is unclear if the plurality of containers are different containers or the same containers as either the specimen containers in lines 2-3 or the reaction containers in lines 8-13. Therefore, it is unclear what the containers that are dispensed to by dispensing mechanism that dispenses to containers are referring to? Are the containers of line 7 the same as the reaction containers or different? Claim 4 recites similar limitations and is correspondingly rejected.
As to lines 8-13 of claim 1, the language is ambiguous and contradictory to the language recited in lines 3-7. Previously, in lines 3-7, only dispensing subject plasma or normal plasma is required in the alternative. However, lines 8-13 appear to state that there are multiple different dispensing functions being required, including dispensing subject plasma, normal plasma, and mixed subject-normal plasma. Because the language in the claims is contradictory, it is unclear which functions are taking place or are not required. Is the specimen dispensing mechanism dispensing three separate plasmas as implied by lines 8-13? Claim 4 recites similar limitations and is correspondingly rejected.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected based on further claim dependency
With respect to the immediate and delayed “type” recited in claim 2, it is unclear what applicants are attempting to define. It is unclear what “type” is intending to convey where these limitations are rendered indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(b)). Claim 5 recites similar limitations and is correspondingly rejected.
As to claim 4, it is unclear in lines 15-17 how the reaction container is caused to contain the mixed plasma that is already in the specimen container as recited in the previous clause. This language is ambiguous and it is unclear how a container can cause the plasma to change containers. Is the dispensing mechanism dispensing between the containers?
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Capresta (Translation of “Special feature: Current situation of automated analyzer for clotting test", Features and availability of fully-automated coagulation analyzer "CAPRESTA 2000", Biological Sample Analysis Vol. 32, No. 5 (2009) translation includes pages 1-12; already of record with translation filed on 4/1/20 in parent application 15/554276; hereinafter “Capresta”).
As to claim 1, Capresta teaches an automatic analysis device (Capresta teaches the CP2000 measurement system; p. 1, 5, Fig. 4) comprising: a specimen container holding unit that accommodates and holds a plurality of specimen containers (Capresta teaches a sample rack which can hold sample cups; p. 5, 10, Fig. 4. The examiner notes that the function of the reagent dispensing mechanism does not further define the structure of the device.); a specimen dispensing mechanism that dispenses subject blood plasma and/or normal blood plasma to be added to correct a coagulation time of the subject blood plasma, to a plurality of containers (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10. Capresta teaches that test plasma, normal plasma, and a ratio of the two can be dispensed; p. 9, 10, 11, 12, Fig. 5. The examiner notes that the function of the reagent dispensing mechanism does not further define the structure of the device.); a reagent dispensing mechanism that dispenses a reagent to a reaction container containing the subject blood plasma alone, a reaction container containing the normal blood plasma alone, and a reaction container containing the mixed blood plasma in which the subject blood plasma and the normal blood plasma are mixed at least at one mixing ratio (Capresta teaches a reagent probe; p. 4, 5. The reagent probe dispensing to the cuvette with the samples; p. 3, 5. The examiner notes that the function of the reagent dispensing mechanism does not further define the structure of the device.); a measurement unit that irradiates each of the plurality of reaction containers with light emitted from a light source, and that measures a plurality of coagulation times, respectively, based on obtained scattered light and/or transmitted light (Capresta teaches a light detection unit for detecting scattered light from a light source to determine coagulation times; p. 1, 2, 10. The examiner notes that the function of the reagent dispensing mechanism does not further define the structure of the device.); and a control unit that determines whether to perform the analysis based on the number of the mixed blood plasma and the number of the reagent remaining tests (Capresta teaches a computer; p. 2. Capresta also teaches that the analyzer is automatic which means that it would be run by a computer/controller to automate the device; p. 4, 5, 9, 12. Capresta teaches that a set number of automated tests per hour can be completed, where if another analysis after an initial analysis is possible then it would be performed in the automated number of tests; p. 3, 4. Capresta also teaches that when the reagent runs out that the reagent can then be processed from another vial; p. 8).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “that…”, “configured to…”, etc…). 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 claim 2, Capresta teaches the automatic analysis device according to Claim 1, wherein the measurement unit measures immediate-type coagulation time or delayed-type coagulation time, and the control unit determines whether to perform the analysis when the immediate-type analysis request is received (As best understood, Capresta teaches immediate or delayed tests, and in automatically performing those tests the device is making a determination to perform the test; p. 10, 11).
As to claim 3, Capresta teaches the automatic analysis device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display unit that displays an alarm when the number of the mixed blood plasma exceeds the number of the reagent remaining tests (Capresta teaches a display which is capable of displaying anything; p. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12. The examiner notes that what is displayed is a matter of function/intended use).
As to claim 4, Capresta teaches an automatic analysis method of an automatic analysis device (Capresta teaches a method of operating the CP2000 measurement system; p. 1, 5, Fig. 4) which has at least a specimen container holding unit that accommodates and holds a plurality of specimen containers (Capresta teaches a sample rack which can hold sample cups; p. 5, 10, Fig. 4.), a specimen dispensing mechanism (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10. Capresta teaches that test plasma, normal plasma, and a ratio of the two can be dispensed; p. 9, 10, 11, 12, Fig. 5.), a reagent dispensing mechanism (Capresta teaches a reagent probe; p. 4, 5. The reagent probe dispensing to the cuvette with the samples; p. 3, 5.), a measurement unit (Capresta teaches a light detection unit for detecting scattered light from a light source to determine coagulation times; p. 1, 2, 10.), and a control unit (Capresta teaches a computer; p. 2. Capresta also teaches that the analyzer is automatic which means that it would be run by a computer/controller to automate the device; p. 4, 5, 9, 12.), the method comprising: causing the specimen dispensing mechanism to dispense subject blood plasma and/or normal blood plasma to be added to correct a coagulation time of the subject blood plasma, to a plurality of specimen containers accommodated in the specimen container holding unit (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10. Capresta teaches that test plasma, normal plasma, and a ratio of the two can be dispensed; p. 9, 10, 11, 12, Fig. 5.); preparing mixed blood plasma obtained by mixing the subject blood plasma and the normal blood plasma at least at one mixing ratio, inside the specimen containers (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10. Capresta teaches that test plasma, normal plasma, and a ratio of the two can be dispensed; p. 9, 10, 11, 12, Fig. 5.); causing a reaction container to contain the mixed blood plasma which are prepared (Capresta teaches a sample probe which dispenses into a cuvette; p. 4, 5, 9, 10.), and causing the reagent dispensing mechanism to dispense a reagent to the reaction container (Capresta teaches a reagent probe; p. 4, 5. The reagent probe dispensing to the cuvette with the samples; p. 3, 5.); causing the measurement unit to irradiate the mixed blood plasma to which the reagent has been added in the reaction container with light emitted from a light source, and measure the coagulation time, based on obtained scattered light and/or transmitted light (Capresta teaches a light detection unit for detecting scattered light from a light source to determine coagulation times; p. 1, 2, 10.); and causing the control unit to determine whether to perform the analysis based on the number of the mixed blood plasma and the number of the reagent remaining tests (Capresta teaches that a set number of automated tests per hour can be completed, where if another analysis after an initial analysis is possible then it would be performed in the automated number of tests; p. 3, 4. Capresta also teaches that when the reagent runs out that the reagent can then be processed from another vial; p. 8).
As to claim 5, Capresta teaches the automatic analysis method according to Claim 4, further comprising: causing the measurement unit to measure immediate-type coagulation time or delayed-type coagulation time and causing the control unit to determine whether to perform the analysis when the immediate-type analysis request is received (As best understood, Capresta teaches immediate or delayed tests, and in automatically performing those tests the device is making a determination to perform the test; p. 10, 11).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capresta (Translation of “Special feature: Current situation of automated analyzer for clotting test", Features and availability of fully-automated coagulation analyzer "CAPRESTA 2000", Biological Sample Analysis Vol. 32, No. 5 (2009) translation includes pages 1-12; already of record with translation filed on 4/1/20 in parent application 15/554276; hereinafter “Capresta”) in view of Kaneko et al (US 20120239676; hereinafter “Kaneko”; already of record).
As to claim 6, Capresta teaches the automatic analysis method according to Claim 4, with a display unit (Capresta teaches a display which is capable of displaying anything; p. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12.) and the number of mixed blood plasma (see above).
Capresta does not teach causing a display unit to display an alarm when the number of the mixed blood plasma exceeds the number of the reagent remaining tests. However, Kaneko teaches the analogous art of automated analysis (Kaneko; Title) with a display unit to display an alarm when the number of the tests exceeds the number of the reagent remaining tests (Kaneko teaches determining whether there is necessary and sufficient reagents to perform analysis and displays a notification of insufficient reagent; Fig. 9, 10, [38, 39, 41]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display unit and the testing of the mixed blood plasma and reagents of Capresta to have displayed an alarm when the number of tests to be performed would exceed the amount of reagent (ie. that remaining reagent is insufficient) as in Kaneko because Kaneko teaches that providing an alert of insufficient reagetns ensures that expendables are replaced prior to analysis thereby saving time and wasted analysis and preventing failure in analysis by shortages (Kaneko; Fig. 9, 10, [38, 39, 40, 41]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Kojima, K (US 20100001854; hereinafter “Kojima”; already of record) teaches a reagent insufficient screen; Fig. 3, 4.
Yabutani et al (WO2015098473 where 20160274133 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Yabutani”) teaches a similar structure to the instantly claimed device; Fig. 1.
Applicants can overcome the Yabutani reference as a 102(a)(1) rejection by providing a certified translation of the foreign application. Further, the Yabutani reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Although the instant application is a Divisional that the instant claims have been amended such that they are not the same as the claims filed in the parent application, and thus are not consonant with the restriction made in the parent case (see MPEP 804.01 Ex: B, C, F).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10746748 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an automatic analysis device (claim 1 of ‘748) comprising: a specimen container holding unit that accommodates and holds a plurality of specimen containers (claim 1 of ‘748); a specimen dispensing mechanism that dispenses subject blood plasma and/or normal blood plasma to be added to correct a coagulation time of the subject blood plasma, to a plurality of containers (claim 1 of ‘748); a reagent dispensing mechanism that dispenses a reagent to a reaction container containing the subject blood plasma alone, a reaction container containing the normal blood plasma alone, and a reaction container containing the mixed blood plasma in which the subject blood plasma and the normal blood plasma are mixed at least at one mixing ratio (claim 1 of ‘748); a measurement unit that irradiates each of the plurality of reaction containers with light emitted from a light source, and that measures a plurality of coagulation times, respectively, based on obtained scattered light and/or transmitted light (claim 1 of ‘748); and a control unit (claim 1 of ‘748). Although the claims do not teach determining whether to perform the analysis based on the number of the mixed blood plasma and the number of the reagent remaining tests, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claim 1 of ‘748 to have determined whether to perform analysis based on the number of samples and remaining tests because if the number of remaining tests were too large then the analyzer would not have enough reagent to perform the analysis. Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 10746748.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11946941 B2. A Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an automatic analysis device (claim 1 of ‘941) comprising: a specimen container holding unit that accommodates and holds a plurality of specimen containers (claim 1 of ‘941); a specimen dispensing mechanism that dispenses subject blood plasma and/or normal blood plasma to be added to correct a coagulation time of the subject blood plasma, to a plurality of containers (claim 1 of ‘941); a reagent dispensing mechanism that dispenses a reagent to a reaction container containing the subject blood plasma alone, a reaction container containing the normal blood plasma alone, and a reaction container containing the mixed blood plasma in which the subject blood plasma and the normal blood plasma are mixed at least at one mixing ratio (claim 1 of ‘941); a measurement unit that irradiates each of the plurality of reaction containers with light emitted from a light source, and that measures a plurality of coagulation times, respectively, based on obtained scattered light and/or transmitted light (claim 1 of ‘941); and a control unit (claim 1 of ‘941) . Although the claims do not teach determining whether to perform the analysis based on the number of the mixed blood plasma and the number of the reagent remaining tests, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claim 1 of ‘941 to have determined whether to perform analysis based on the number of samples and remaining tests because if the number of remaining tests were too large then the analyzer would not have enough reagent to perform the analysis. Thus, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 11946941.
Conclusion
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