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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, please amend “the number of times” to “[the] a number of times”.
Claim 16, please amend “the number of times” to “[the] a number of times”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to a display method that “calculating a required amount of the reagent for the electrophoresis process based on the information” and “calculating a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number”, which are abstract concepts that can be done mentally. The additional method steps such as an “displaying an amount of a reagent”, “acquiring information of an electrophoresis process to be performed by the electrophoresis apparatus”, “displaying the preparation amount of the reagent” are known as evidenced by the prior art of MultiNA in the prior art rejection of claim 1 below, and are conventional process previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to acquire information/data on the electrophoretic process and display the analysis results. Furthermore, the additional processes are used to gather data and analyzing/classifying data and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 1 is directed to a display method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites: “calculating a required amount of the reagent for the electrophoresis process based on the information” and “calculating a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number”, which are abstract ideas since the display method just does mathematical calculations to determine the amount of reagent needed, thus is a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “calculating a required amount of the reagent for the electrophoresis process based on the information” and “calculating a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number” are not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 1 recites the additional element(s): “displaying an amount of a reagent”, “acquiring information of an electrophoresis process to be performed by the electrophoresis apparatus”, “displaying the preparation amount of the reagent”, which are just routine and conventional processes previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to acquire information for an electrophoretic run and electrophoresis apparatus instrument, by an arithmetic device such as CPU executing software based on the mathematical equation(s). Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Therefore, claim 1 does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 2-17, claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 2-17 depend on the independent claim 1, therefore, have the abstract idea of claim 1 and also have the routine and conventional structures above of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “measuring an amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus” and “display the measured amount of the reagent”, measuring the amount of reagent is taught by the prior art (see Claim 2 rejection below) displaying the measured amount is just a way of displaying the data and not used in a practical application. Furthermore, measuring an amount of reagent is data gathering to be used in the abstract idea, and is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application.
Claim 3 recites “notifying a warning when the measured amount of the reagent is less than the required amount of the reagent”. Outputting error signal and displaying abnormality detection indication are not a practical application, which is more like the alarm in Parker V. Flook.
Claim 4 recites “the reagent includes a first separation buffer and a second separation buffer different in type from the first separation buffer” and “the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus…display manner different…for an amount of the first separation buffer”, which are just reagents commonly used in electrophoresis (see Claim 4 rejection below), and a way to display the data. In addition, “displaying the amount of the reagent…” is more like the displaying in Parker V. Flook.
Claim 5, recites “the reagent includes a first marker solution and a second marker solution different in type from the first marker solution” and “the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus…display manner different…for an amount of the first marker solution”, which are just reagents commonly used in electrophoresis (see Claim 5 rejection below), and a way to display the data.
Claim 6 recites “displaying the required amount of the reagent when the measured amount of the reagent is equal to or more than the required amount of the reagent” is just a way to further display and organize the data. In addition, “displaying the required amount of the reagent…: is not a practical application and is more like displaying in Parker V. Flook.
Claim 7 recites “the reagent includes a first separation buffer and a second separation buffer different in type from the first separation buffer”, which are just reagents commonly used in electrophoresis (see Claim 7 rejection below), and also recites ways to display the data.
Claim 8 recites “the reagent includes a first marker solution and a second marker solution different in type from the first marker solution”, which are just reagents commonly used in electrophoresis (see Claim 8 rejection below), and also recites ways to display the data.
Claim 9 recites “the reagent includes at least one of a separation buffer and a marker solution”, which are reagents commonly used in electrophoresis (see Claim 9 rejection below).
Claim 10 recites “wherein the calculating the preparation amount of the reagent includes setting a minimum value that is an integral multiple of a specific value and that is more than the required amount of the reagent”, which is just arithmetic and also taught by the prior art (see Claim 10 rejection below).
Claim 11 recites “the reagent includes a separation buffer and a marker solution”, which are commonly used reagents in electrophoresis (see Claim 11 rejection below), and also recites “the specific value includes a first specific value for the separation buffer and a second specific value for the marker solution, and the second specific value is less than the first specific value”, which is arithmetic and using less marker solution compared to the separation buffer is also common in the prior art (see Claim 11 rejection below).
Claim 12 recites “the regent includes a first separation buffer and a second separation buffer different in type from the first separation buffer”, which are known reagents in the prior art (see Claim 12 rejection below). Claim 12 also recites “the displaying the preparation amount of the reagent includes displaying a preparation amount of the second separation buffer in a display manner different from a display manner for a preparation amount of the first separation buffer”, which is just another way to organize and display the data.
Claim 13 recites “the regent includes a first marker solution and a second marker solution different in type from the first marker solution”, which are known reagents in the prior art (see Claim 13 rejection below). Claim 13 also recites “the displaying the preparation amount of the reagent includes displaying a preparation amount of the second marker solution in a display manner different from a display manner for a preparation amount of the first marker solution”, which is just another way to organize and display the data.
Claim 14 recites “a separation buffer…pre-preparation separation buffer and a fluorescent dye solution at a specific ratio…displaying the mixed amount of the pre-preparation separation buffer and the mixed amount of the fluorescent dye solution”, which are known in the prior art and a way to display the data. Claim 14 also recites “calculating, based on the specific ratio, a mixed amount of the pre-preparation separation buffer and mixed amount of the fluorescent dye solution in the preparation amount of the reagent”, which is arithmetic and also taught by the prior art (see Claim 14 rejection below).
Claim 15 recites “the reagent includes a separation buffer and a marker solution”, which are known reagent components in the prior art (see Claim 15 rejection below). Claim 15 also recites “the information includes “a type of the separation buffe…a type of the marker solution…a mixing mode of the marker solution…the number of times of performing the electrophoresis”, which are ways to organize and display the data.
Claim 16 recites “the reagent includes a separation buffer, a marker solution, and a cleaning liquid”, which are known reagent components in the prior art (see Claim 15 rejection below). Claim 15 also recites “the information includes “a type of the separation buffe…a type of the marker solution…a mixing mode of the marker solution…the number of times of performing the electrophoresis…a cleaning method to be performed using the cleaning liquid”, which are ways to organize and display the data.
Claim 17 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium in which a program is recorded” and “executing the program by a processor of a controller”, using a computer with a CPU, hard drive, and software to store and use a program is known in the prior art (see Claim 17 rejection below).
In summary, dependent claims 2-17 do not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Independent Claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 18 is directed to an electrophoresis system that “the calculation unit calculates a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number”, which are abstract concepts that can be done mentally. The additional apparatus such as “an electrophoresis mechanism…a control device…a display device…a calculation unit…an interface…a reagent” are known as evidenced by the prior art of MultiNA in the prior art rejection of claim 18 below, and are conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to acquire information on the electrophoretic process and display the analysis results. Furthermore, the additional elements are used to gather data and analyzing/classifying data and are insignificant. Section 2106.04(a)(2) of MPEP states: “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including managing relationships and legal obligations, advertising and marketing, managing human behavior, and collecting, analyzing, classifying, and storing data” is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 18 is directed to an electrophoresis system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., an apparatus (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 18 recites: “the calculation unit calculates a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number”, which are abstract ideas since the calculation unit just does mathematical calculations to determine the amount of reagent needed, thus is a mental step. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): the abstract idea related to “the calculation unit calculates a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number” are not used into a practical application, and do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field since nothing is done after the mental step. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Consequently, the aforesaid abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, and/or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit, thus, monopolizing the steps (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 18 recites the additional element(s): “an electrophoresis mechanism…a control device…a display device…a calculation unit…an interface…a reagent”, which are just routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to perform, acquire information for an electrophoretic run and electrophoresis apparatus instrument. Therefore, claim 18 does not include additional element(s) significantly more, and/or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MultiNA (Microchip Electrophoresis System for DNA/RNA Analysis MCE-202 MultiNA Instruction Manual, 2013).
Regarding Claim 1, teaches a display method for displaying an amount of a reagent to be prepared by a user in an electrophoretic apparatus (window displays volume of separation buffer, marker solution, and chip cleaning solution required for analysis of unanalyzed samples in the analysis schedule [first para. page 77]; also see window display on page 77), the display method comprising:
acquiring information of an electrophoresis process to be performed by the electrophoresis apparatus (amount of reagent is determined by the amount required for the unanalyzed samples in analysis schedule [first para. page 77]);
calculating a required amount of the reagent for the electrophoresis process based on the information (amount of reagent is calculated based on analysis schedule [first para. page 77]);
calculating a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent (amount calculated is the amount required for the unanalyzed samples [first para. page 77]), the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number (amount of reagent is displayed on computer window as illustrated in window display on page 77 is a round number); and
displaying the preparation amount of the reagent (amount of reagent is displayed on computer window as illustrated in window display on page 77).
Multi-NA does not explicitly teach for all embodiments the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent.
However, in some embodiments, Multi-NA teaches the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent (dispense marker solution in excess of the required volume shown [Section 5 on page 49]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Multi-NA to display the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, as taught by Multi-NA, as preparing more solution is standard for operation of the electrophoresis instrument (Section 5, page 49).
Regarding Claim 2, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches measuring an amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus (electrophoresis system measures the amount of reagents remaining in instrument as No. 8 as calculated from sample sheet [page 77]); and
displaying the measured amount of the reagent (amount of reagent is display in window, shown as No. 8 in manual [page 77]).
Regarding Claim 3, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches further comprising notifying a warning when the measured amount of the reagent is less than the required amount of the reagent (displayed color indicates status of reagent; a color of red indicates insufficient reagent [page 77]).
Regarding Claim 4, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches the reagent includes a first separation buffer (first separation buffer can be DNA-500, see separation buffers in reagent holder on bottom left of page 11) and a second separation buffer (second separation buffer can be DNA-1000 in reagent holder [page 11]) different in type from the first separation buffer (DNA-500 and DNA-1000 are different types of separation buffers [page 11]), and
the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes displaying an amount of the second separation buffer accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus in a display manner different from a display manner for an amount of the first separation buffer accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each separation buffer is displayed in a different color).
Regarding Claim 5, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches the reagent includes a first marker solution (first marker solution can be the marker solution associated with DNA-500, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) and a second marker solution (second marker solution can be the marker solution associated with RNA/DNA-12000, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) different in type from the first marker solution (markers associated with their respective separation buffers are different [reagents and apparatus used table, page 47 and first para. page 20]), and
the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes displaying an amount of the second marker solution accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus in a display manner different from a display manner for an amount of the first marker solution accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each marker solution is displayed in a different color).
Regarding Claim 6, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 2.
MultiNA teaches further comprising displaying the required amount of the reagent when the measured amount of reagent is equal to or more than the required amount of reagent (as illustrated in the display window on page 77, required amount is displayed when the remaining amount is higher than the required amount).
Regarding Claim 7, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 6, wherein
the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes a first separation buffer (first separation buffer can be DNA-500, see separation buffers in reagent holder on bottom left of page 11) and a second separation buffer (second separation buffer can be DNA-1000 in reagent holder [page 11]) different in type from the first separation buffer (DNA-500 and DNA-1000 are different types of separation buffers [page 11]), and
the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes displaying an amount of the second separation buffer accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus from a display manner different from a display manner for an amount of the first separation buffer accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each separation buffer is displayed in a different color); and
displaying a required amount of the second separation buffer in a display manner different from a display manner for a required amount of the first separation buffer (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each required separation buffer is displayed with a different color).
Regarding Claim 8, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 6.
MultiNA teaches the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes a first marker solution (first marker solution can be the marker solution associated with DNA-500, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) and a second marker solution (second marker solution can be the marker solution associated with RNA/DNA-12000, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) different in type from the first marker solution (markers associated with their respective separation buffers are different [reagents and apparatus used table, page 47 and first para. page 20]), and
the displaying the amount of the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes displaying an amount of the second marker solution accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus in a display manner different from a display manner for an amount of the first marker solution accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each marker solution is displayed in a different color); and
displaying a required amount of the second marker solution in a display manner different from a display manner for a required amount of the first marker solution (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each required separation buffer is displayed with a different color).
Regarding Claim 9, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1, wherein the reagent includes at least one of a separation buffer (separation buffer can be DNA-500 in reagent holder [page 11]) and a marker solution (marker solution can be marker solution associated with separation buffer DNA-500 [page 11]).
Regarding Claim 10, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1.
MultiNA does not explicitly teach wherein the calculating the preparation amount of the reagent includes setting a minimum value that is an integral multiple of a specific value and that is more than the required amount of the reagent.
However, in some embodiments, MultiNA teaches wherein the calculating the preparation amount of the reagent includes setting a minimum value (for separations using a DNA ladder for multiple analyses per well, volume of prepared solution is 3 x (Number of analysis +1) µL [Table for premix, page 48]) that is an integral multiple of a specific value (specific value is (Number of analyses+1) µL [Table for premix, page 48]) and that is more than the required amount of the reagent (dispense an excess amount of the volume displayed in Reagent Information [Section 5, page 49]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calculating the preparation amount of the reagent of modified MultiNA to includes setting a minimum value that is an integral multiple of a specific value and that is more than the required amount of the reagent, as taught by MultiNA, as this method allows for multiple analyses of the sample (MultiNA, [page 48]).
Regarding Claim 11, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 10.
MultiNA teaches the reagent includes a separation buffer (separation buffer can be DNA-500 in reagent holder [page 11]) and a marker solution (marker solution can be marker solution associated with separation buffer DNA-500 [page 11]).,
the specific value includes a first specific value for the separation buffer (volume of prepared solution is 3 x (Number of analysis +1) µL [Table for premix, page 48]) and a second specific value for the marker solution (volume of prepared solution is 2 x (Number of analysis +1) µL [Table for premix, page 48]), and
the second specific value is less than the first specific value (second specific value is less than the first specific value).
Regarding Claim 12, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes a first separation buffer (first separation buffer can be DNA-500, see separation buffers in reagent holder on bottom left of page 11) and a second separation buffer (second separation buffer can be DNA-1000 in reagent holder [page 11]) different in type from the first separation buffer (DNA-500 and DNA-1000 are different types of separation buffers [page 11]), and
the displaying the preparation amount of the reagent includes displaying a preparation amount of the second separation buffer in a display manner different from a display manner for a preparation amount of the first separation buffer (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each separation buffer is displayed in a different color).
Regarding Claim 13, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches the reagent accommodated in the electrophoresis apparatus includes a first marker solution (first marker solution can be the marker solution associated with DNA-500, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) and a second marker solution (second marker solution can be the marker solution associated with RNA/DNA-12000, as illustrated in reagent holder stand on page 11) different in type from the first marker solution (markers associated with their respective separation buffers are different [reagents and apparatus used table, page 47 and first para. page 20]), and
the displaying the preparation amount of the reagent includes displaying a preparation amount of the second marker solution in a display manner different from a display manner for a preparation amount of the first marker buffer (as illustrated in display window on page 77, each separation buffer is displayed in a different color).
Regarding Claim 14, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1.
MultiNA teaches wherein the reagent includes a separation buffer (separation buffer for DNA separations [Table on bottom of page 45]),
the separation buffer is obtained by mixing a pre-preparation separation buffer and a fluorescent dye solution at a specific ratio (diluted dye solution and TE buffer are mixed at a ratio of 199:1 [step 3, page 45]),
the display method further comprising:
calculating, based on the specific ratio, a mixed amount of the pre-preparation separation buffer and a mixed amount of the fluorescent dye solution in the preparation amount of the reagent (total amount of separation buffer and diluted dye solution calculated based on number of analyses using the specific ratio of separation buffer and diluted dye solution of 199:1 [see Table in step 3, page 45]); and
displaying the mixed amount of the pre-preparation separation buffer (required amount of separation buffer can be displayed [see display window No. 8, page 77]).
MultiNA is silent on displaying the mixed amount of the fluorescent dye solution.
However, as MultiNA teaches the calculation method to prepare the mixed amount of fluorescent dye solution and also displays other required amounts of reagents including separation buffer and marker solution, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display window of MultiNA to include displaying the mixed amount of the fluorescent dye solution. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Regarding Claim 15, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1, wherein
the reagent includes a separation buffer (separation buffer can be DNA-500 in reagent holder [page 11]) and a marker solution (marker solution can be marker solution associated with separation buffer DNA-500 [page 11]), and
the information includes at least one of
a type of separation buffer (type of separation buffer is selected, see step 4 to configure conditions [bottom table, page 36]).
Regarding Claim 16, MultiNA teaches the display method according to claim 1, wherein
the reagent includes a separation buffer (separation buffer can be DNA-500 in reagent holder [page 11]), a marker solution (marker solution can be marker solution associated with separation buffer DNA-500 [page 11]), and a cleaning liquid (chip cleaning solution [Section 3.5.5, page 50]), and
the information includes at least one of
a type of separation buffer (type of separation buffer is selected, see step 4 to configure conditions [bottom table, page 36]).
Regarding Claim 17, MultiNA teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium in which a program is recorded (MultiNA Control Software on 40 GB HDD [PC Requirement Table, page 5 and Step 4, page 23), wherein by executing the program by a processor of a controller (CPU, such as Intel Pentium III processor or equivalent [PC Requirement Table, page 5]), the program causes the controller to perform the display method according to claim 1 (computer screen displays required amounts of separation buffer and marker solution using the MultiNA Control Software [display window top of page 77]).
Regarding Claim 18, MultiNA teaches an electrophoresis system (MCE-202 MultiNA microchip electrophoresis system [first sentence page i]) comprising: an electrophoresis mechanism (MultiNA electrophoresis system, see photos of system on page 8);
a control device that controls the electrophoresis mechanism (PC which includes a CPU, Memory, HDD, and Display [page 5], the PC controls the MultiNA instrument [see generally Section 3.2 Startup, pages 22-25]); and
a display device (computer screen display [PC requirement, page 5]), wherein
the control device includes a calculation unit (CPU [PC requirement, page 5]), and an interface (computer screen displays MutliNA Control Software interface, see example screen on page 14]),
the calculation unit calculates a required amount of the reagent for the electrophoresis process based on the information acquired via the interface (amount of reagent is calculated based on analysis schedule [first para. page 77]);
a preparation amount of the reagent based on the required amount of the reagent (amount calculated is the amount required for the unanalyzed samples [first para. page 77]), the preparation amount of the reagent being a round number (amount of reagent is displayed on computer window as illustrated in window display on page 77 is a round number).
Multi-NA is silent on the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent.
However, Multi-NA teaches dispensing marker solution in excess of the required volume shown [Section 5 on page 49].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Multi-NA to have the preparation amount of the reagent being more than the required amount of the reagent, as taught by Multi-NA, as preparing more solution is standard for operation of the electrophoresis instrument (Section 5, page 49).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795