DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 03/26/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended; claims 2-3, 7-10, and 13-15 remain unchanged; claims 4-6 have been canceled; and no new claims have been added.
Claims 1-3 and 7-15 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 12/03/2021
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the claims reflect the technical problem and solution as outlined in the specification of providing measurement results and code information at a printing device of a blood apparatus to decrease the size of the blood analysis apparatus. Instead of presenting the results digitally and placing the burden of managing that information on a server, the present invention uses a printer to print the results locally without requiring increasing the size of the output device. Examiner however respectfully disagrees that the above nor the present claims reflect a technical solution to a technical problem. The solution to printing a lot information is to print a select amount of information. This is seen as an improvement, but an improvement to what is being printed, therefore it is an improvement directed towards the abstract idea itself (selecting the data and providing the data). Furthermore, it is unclear what the improvement to the system is here if the system cannot increase its size by having a larger printing device, but it still maintains a printing device. The present claims recites a printing device so the nexus between the specification and the claims is unclear as to what the improvement related to the size is. Printing less information allows for the printing device to be small, but is it actually small?
Applicant also states that the printing of the code information on paper allows the user to scan the code information when away from the blood analysis apparatus. What is the code information supposed to be to allow for this? Is the code is allowed to be scanned, but is it being scanned? Furthermore, what is unique about how the code works within the context of Applicant’s specification? Applicant’s specification discusses not having to provide a burden to a server, but what does mean for the code information and how that code is being used to access measurement data without burdening the server?
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues with respect to the amended limitations. These arguments have been deemed moot in view of the updated 103 rejection section which now relies on the Ogura reference to address these elements.
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 1-3 and 7-15 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 1-3, 7-10, and 13 are drawn to a device/apparatus, claims 11 and 14 are drawn to a method, and claims 12 and 15 are drawn to a medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3 and 7-15 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a blood analysis apparatus comprising:
a) a blood analysis device located within x) an apparatus body of the blood analysis apparatus and configured to 1) acquire measurement information, including a measurement result, from a blood sample; and
b) an output device located within x) the apparatus body and comprising:
b1) a processor configured to:
2) receive the measurement information;
3) generate code information by adding the measurement information to browsing destination information indicating a browsing destination at which to browse the measurement information; and
4) output the measurement information and the code information at least in part by:
4a) printing the measurement information and the code information on paper at a printing device included in the output device; and
4b) discharging, through c) a discharge port in x) the apparatus body, the paper on which the measurement information and the code information are printed.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) acquire measurement information, including a measurement result, from a blood sample, 2) receive the measurement information, 3) generate code information by adding the measurement information to browsing destination information indicating a browsing destination at which to browse the measurement information, and 4) output the measurement information and the code information at least in part by: 4a) printing the measurement information and the code information on paper, and 4b) discharging the paper on which the measurement information and the code information are printed. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the present claim is similar to person writing down and providing a select set of information for a sample. Independent claims 11-12 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-3, 7-10, and 13-15 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11-12, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 2 adds the additional step of “encrypt the measurement information and then add it to the browsing destination information”; claim 7 adds the additional steps of “check whether the measurement result included in the measurement information falls within a normal range”, “select, out of a plurality of flags, a flag corresponding to the measurement result if the measurement result falls outside the normal range”, “display, if the measurement result falls within the normal range, the measurement result and, if the measurement result falls outside the normal range, the measurement result along with the flag”, “receive an instruction input by a user”, and “switch display screens on the display device according to the input instruction, wherein when a display screen on the information display portion that displays at least the measurement result is taken as a first display screen, if an instruction requesting display of an explanation of the plurality of flag is input to the input portion, the display control portion switches from the first display screen to a second display screen that allows selection of one of the plurality of flags, and on the second display screen, the display device displays, out of the plurality of flags, the flag displayed on the first display screen with an appearance different from other flags”; claim 9 adds the additional step of “wherein after switching from the first display screen to the second display screen, on recognizing a predetermined flag to be selected on the input device, switch from the second display screen to a third display screen that displays an explanation of the predetermined flag selected”; and claim 10 adds the additional step of “read peripheral information attached to a sample container that holds the blood sample”. Additionally, the limitations of depending claims 3, 8, and 13-15 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 2-3, 7-10, and 13-15 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using x) an apparatus body of a blood analysis apparatus containing: a) a blood analysis device, b) an output device, with a printing device included in the output device comprising: b1) a processor, and c) a discharge port, and using d) a display device (from claims 7 and 9), e) an input device (from claim 7), and f) a bar code reader (from claim 10) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) blood analysis device located within an apparatus body of the blood analysis apparatus, d) input device, and e) bar code reader in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amount to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the x) an apparatus body of a blood analysis apparatus containing: b) output device located within the apparatus body, with a printing device included in the output device comprising: b1) a processor and c) a display device in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification for a lack of description of anything but what may be considered as generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using x) an apparatus body of a blood analysis apparatus containing: a) a blood analysis device, b) an output device, with a printing device included in the output device comprising: b1) a processor, and c) a discharge port, and using d) a display device, e) an input device, and f) a bar code reader to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity), a general linking to a particular technological field, or mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The a) blood analysis device located within an apparatus body of the blood analysis apparatus, d) input device, and e) bar code reader in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives user input data using the elements above, and transmits code data using an output portion over a network, for example the Internet.
Additionally, the current invention outputs a code by utilizing x) an apparatus body of a blood analysis apparatus containing b) an output device located within the apparatus body, with a printing device included in the output device comprising: b1) a processor and c) a display device, thus these portions are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-3 and 7-15 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0134338 to Chang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0400440 to Ogura.
As per claim 1, Chang et al. teaches a blood analysis apparatus comprising:
--a blood analysis device located within an apparatus body of the blood analysis apparatus and configured to acquire measurement information, including a measurement result, from a blood sample; (see: paragraph [0081] where there is an analysis device (240) for samples. Also see: paragraph [0046] the samples are blood samples. Therefore a blood analysis device (240) exists here and is located in an apparatus body of the blood analysis apparatus (100)) and
--an output device located within the apparatus body (see: paragraph [0098] where there is an output device (display output 116) located within the apparatus body of 100) and comprising:
--a processor (see: paragraph [0047] where there is a processor) configured to:
--receive the measurement information; (see: paragraph [0104] where there is a reception portion which is configured to receive measurement information of a test result for an assay (result on a sample, where the sample may be a blood sample as explained in paragraph [0046]))
--generate code information by adding the measurement information to browsing destination information indicating a browsing destination at which to browse the measurement information; (see: paragraph [0104] where there is a generation portion configured to generate code information by adding the test results (measurement info) to browsing destination information of a HTTP link) and
--output the code information at least in part by:
--printing the code information at a printing device included in the output device (see: paragraph [0104] where a QR code is generated).
Chang et al. may not further, specifically teach:
1) --output the measurement information at least in part by:
1a) --printing the measurement information on paper at a printing device included in the output device; and
1b) --discharging, through a discharge port in the apparatus body, the paper on which the measurement information and the code information are printed on.
Ogura teaches:
1) --output the measurement information at least in part by:
1a) --printing the measurement information on paper at a printing device included in the output device; (see: paragraph [0043] where there is a printing of measurement information on a paper using a printing device (printer) includes in the output device (outputter 44)) and
1b) --discharging, through a discharge port in the apparatus body, the paper on which the analyzed information are printed on (see: paragraph [0043] where there is discharging of a paper via printing of a paper. The information being printed here is the analyzed information. The analyzed information including measurement data is taught here, but the analyzed information including a QR code is taught using Chang et al.).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to 1) output the measurement information at least in part by: 1a) printing the measurement information on paper at a printing device included in the output device and 1b) discharging, through a discharge port in the apparatus body, the paper on which the measurement information and the code information are printed on as taught by Ogura in the device as taught by Chang et al. with the motivation(s) of providing/outputting the analyzed information (see: paragraph [0073] of Ogura).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the code information as taught by Chang et al. in the apparatus of Ogura since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case Ogura teaches of printing analyzed information and adding the code information as taught by Chang et al. would maintain the same functionality of Ogura, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
As per claim 3, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Chang et al. further teaches wherein the browsing destination information includes access destination information for access to an external site (see: paragraph [0104] where an external site is being accessed of a link that the QR code is associated with).
As per claim 11, claim 11 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner using Chang et al. and Ogura in combination.
As per claim 12, claim 12 is similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected in a similar manner using Chang et al. and Ogura in combination.
Claims 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0134338 to Chang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0400440 to Ogura as applied to claims 1, 11, and 12, and further in view of U.S. 2019/0257822 to Scherr.
As per claim 2, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the device of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to encrypt the measurement information and then add it to the browsing destination information.
Scherr teaches:
--wherein the processor is further configured to encrypt the measurement information and then add it to the browsing destination information (see: paragraph [0070] where there is encrypting of testing information before wireless transmission).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to output the measurement information at least in part by printing the measurement information at a printing device included in the output device as taught by Scherr in the apparatus as taught by Chang et al. and Ogura in combination with the motivation(s) of improving diagnostic technologies (see: paragraph [0003] of Scherr).
As per claim 13, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet.
Scherr teaches:
--wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet (see: FIG. 9 where there is a printing of browsing information of the code with the measurement information of the charts).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet as taught by Scherr in the apparatus as taught by Chang et al. and Ogura in combination with the motivation(s) of improving diagnostic technologies (see: paragraph [0003] of Scherr).
As per claim 14, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the method of claim 11, see discussion of claim 11. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet.
Scherr teaches:
--wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet (see: FIG. 9 where there is a printing of browsing information of the code with the measurement information of the charts).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet as taught by Scherr in the method as taught by Chang et al. and Ogura in combination with the motivation(s) of improving diagnostic technologies (see: paragraph [0003] of Scherr).
As per claim 15, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the medium of claim 12, see discussion of claim 12. The combination may not further, specifically teach wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet.
Scherr teaches:
--wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet (see: FIG. 9 where there is a printing of browsing information of the code with the measurement information of the charts).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have wherein the printing device prints the measurement information and the browsing destination information on a same sheet as taught by Scherr in the medium as taught by Chang et al. and Ogura in combination with the motivation(s) of improving diagnostic technologies (see: paragraph [0003] of Scherr).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0134338 to Chang et al. in view of U.S. 2023/0400440 to Ogura as applied to claim 1, and further in view of U.S. 2013/0283106 to King et al.
As per claim 7, Chang et al. and Ogura in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 1, see discussion of claim 1. Chang et al. further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
--check whether the measurement result included in the measurement information falls within a normal range; (see: paragraph [0100] where there is an evaluation of the status of the test where an error would indicate results outside of a normal range)
--select, out of a plurality of flags, a flag corresponding to the measurement result if the measurement result falls outside the normal range; (see: paragraph [0100] where there is a flagging of a test via an error that indicates results outside of a normal range of results that are not errors)
--via a display device, display, if the measurement result falls within the normal range, the measurement result and, if the measurement result falls outside the normal range, the measurement result along with the flag; (see: paragraph [0100] where the results including an error are being displayed)
--via an input device, receive an instruction input by a user; (see: paragraph [0069] where there is an input portion for inputting information by a user) and
--switch display screens on the display device according to the input instruction, (see: paragraphs [0069] and [0075] where a display portion exists to switch display screens based on the input)
--wherein when a display screen on the display device that displays at least the measurement result is taken as a first display screen (see: paragraph [0100] where there is a display screen that displays results of a test).
Chang et al. and Ogura in combination may not further, specifically teach:
1) --if an instruction requesting display of an explanation of the plurality of flag is input to the input device, the display device switches from the first display screen to a second display screen that allows selection of one of the plurality of flags, and
2) --on the second display screen, the display device displays, out of the plurality of flags, the flag displayed on the first display screen with an appearance different from other flags.
King et al. teaches:
1) --if an instruction requesting display of an explanation of the plurality of flag is input to the input device, the display device switches from the first display screen to a second display screen that allows selection of one of the plurality of flags, (see: paragraphs [0036], [0043], and [0061] where there is a switch in screen to a details screen for errors/flags) and
2) --on the second display screen, the display device displays, out of the plurality of flags, the flag displayed on the first display screen with an appearance different from other flags (see: paragraphs [0036], [0043], and [0061] where details are being shown in the second display screen for the selected error out of a plurality of errors).
One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have 1) if an instruction requesting display of an explanation of the plurality of flag is input to the input device, the display device switches from the first display screen to a second display screen that allows selection of one of the plurality of flags and have 2) on the second display screen, the display device displays, out of the plurality of flags, the flag displayed on the first display screen with an appearance different from other flags as taught by King et al. in the device as taught by Chang et al. and Ogura in combination with the motivation(s) of determining more information about an error (see: paragraph [0004] of King et al.).
As per claim 8, Chang et al., Ogura, and King et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. King et al. further teaches wherein on the second display screen, out of the plurality of flags, the flag displayed on the first display screen is emphasized as compared with the other flags (see: paragraph [0057] where there is emphasis of a selected item among other items. The item being a flag was already taught in claims 1 and 7).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Chang et al., Ogura, and King et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. King et al. further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
--after switching from the first display screen to the second display screen, on recognizing a predetermined flag to be selected on the input device, switch from the second display screen to a third display screen that displays an explanation of the predetermined flag selected (see: paragraphs [0036], [0043], and [0061] where there is a switch in screen to a details screen for errors/flags. The details are being shown in the another display screen for the selected error out of a plurality of errors. This would happen with another error such as a predetermined flag).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Chang et al., Ogura, and King et al. in combination teaches the apparatus of claim 7, see discussion of claim 7. Chang et al. further teaches:
--a bar code reader configured to read peripheral information attached to a sample container that holds the blood sample (see: paragraph [0008] where there is a camera for sample cartridge identification. Peripheral information is being read based on what is attached to the sample container. Paragraph [0072] teaches a barcode scanner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights