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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on June 16, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections to the claims in the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 4 is obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
The rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All other rejections from the previous office action are maintained and modified as necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interfering ion analysis unit” in claims 1-3 and 6. There is no corresponding structure in the instant specification for these limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 recite the limitation "interfering ion analysis unit" which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, this means-plus-function limitation lacks adequate written description. MPEP § 2181(IV). Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 1 recites “one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon at least…” in lines 4-6 of the claim and “wherein the processor is configured to cause display of a calculation result of the concentration of the ion to be measured” in lines 22-23 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for a processor or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The specification does not recite a processor or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium anywhere throughout the entire specification. Although Applicant asserts on pgs. 8-9 of the remarks filed June 16, 2026 that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “device control unit” is a computer that includes one or more processors and a computer-readable storage medium, and that the “interfering ion analysis unit,” “concentration calculation unit,” and “potential measurement unit” are software units that are stored on the storage medium and executable by the one or more processors, this is not disclosed or supported by the instant specification. Instead, the device control unit 175 is listed and shown as a separate unit from the potential measurement unit 171, the concentration calculation unit 172, the output unit 174, the input unit 176, the interfering ion analysis unit 181, and the storage unit 182 (see Fig. 1 and para. [0038], [0047] of the instant US PGPub). The device control unit is only mentioned in those two paragraphs and there is no support for a computer, processor, or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon the other limitations of claim 1. The specification only discloses a storage unit and provides no corresponding structure for the storage unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would not assume or understand that the device control unit 175 has one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium when the disclosure does not provide any support or suggestion for that. Furthermore, the specification discloses that the output unit 174 displays the analysis results in the concentration calculation unit 172 (Fig. 1, para. [0047] of the instant US PGPub), and there is no support for a processor that displays a calculation result of the concentration of the ion to be measured. There is also no support for the output unit 174 being a processor. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action. Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 12 recites “the processor is configured to cause display of a detection result of the influence of the interfering ion for viewing by a user” in lines 2-3 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for a processor as discussed supra. Furthermore, the specification discloses that the output unit 174 displays the detection result of the influence of the interfering ions (Fig. 1, para. [0084] of the instant US PGPub), and there is no support for a processor that displays the detection result of the influence of the interfering ions. There is also no support for the output unit 174 being a processor.
Claim 13 recites “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is configured to receive a characteristic of the ion-selective electrode” in lines 2-4 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as discussed supra. Furthermore, the specification discloses that the input unit 176 inputs the characteristics of the electrodes to the storage unit 182 (Fig. 1, para. [0092] of the instant US PGPub), and there is no support for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that is configured to receive a characteristic of the ion-selective electrode. There is also no support for the storage unit 182 being a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim 14 recites “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is configured to receive information about the specimen solution” in lines 2-4 of the claim. The specification does not contain support for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as discussed supra. Furthermore, the specification discloses that the input unit 176 inputs information about the specimen to the storage unit 182 (Fig. 1, para. [0093] of the instant US PGPub), and there is no support for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that is configured to receive information about the specimen solution. There is also no support for the storage unit 182 being a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
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 1-3 and 5-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “interfering ion analysis unit” in claims 1-3 and 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode, detecting an influence of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on the change in potential over time determined based on information received and corrected based on the temperature difference, calculating a concentration of an ion to be measured, and correcting the influence for calculating the concentration of the ion to be measured based on the influence detected.
The limitations of correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode, detecting an influence of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on the change in potential over time determined based on information received and corrected based on the temperature difference, calculating a concentration of an ion to be measured, and correcting the influence for calculating the concentration of the ion to be measured based on the influence detected, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or performing the calculations with pen and paper. Nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper to be an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The "detect," "based on," "calculate," and "correct" language in the context of the claim encompasses the user mentally correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode, determining an influence of the interfering ion based on the change in potential over time, calculating a concentration of an ion to be measured, and correcting the influence for calculating the concentration of the ion to be measured based on the influence detected. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The limitations of correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode, calculating a concentration of an ion to be measured, and correcting the influence for calculating the concentration of the ion to be measured based on the influence detected, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and equations. The "calculating" and “correcting” language in the context of the claim encompasses mathematical calculations that can be performed by a user to calculate a concentration and correct the change in potential over time and the influence of the interfering ion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: an electrolyte analysis device comprising an ion-selective electrode, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, an interfering ion analysis unit, and a concentration calculation unit. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere data gathering elements linked to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the one or more processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are new matter as discussed supra. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 an electrolyte analysis device comprising an ion-selective electrode, one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, an interfering ion analysis unit, and a concentration calculation unit amount to no more than mere data gathering elements in conjunction with the judicial exception. Furthermore, the one or more processors and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are new matter as discussed supra. Mere data gathering steps and insignificant extra-solution activity linked to the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). For example: Kishioka et al. (JP 2020041968 A) (references herein made with respect to US equivalent US 2021/0318266 A1) teaches an electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 comprising an ion-selective electrode 101, a data storage unit 184, a potential response curve analysis unit 183, and a concentration calculation unit 172 (Fig. 1, para. [0027]-[0028], [0036]-[0037]). The claims do not invoke any of the considerations that courts have identified as provided significantly more than an exception. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as dependent thereon and also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more or integrate the exception into a practical application. Appropriate correction is requested.
If Applicant believes that the instant invention pertains to an improvement in technology, then Examiner suggests pointing out exactly which elements lead to the technological improvement and ensuring that the claim recites those elements that lead to the technological improvement. When relying upon an improvement in technology as integrating the abstract idea into a particular practical application, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim reflects the improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. See also MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 2 recites identifying a type of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a direction of a change in a potential waveform. Claim 3 recites calculating a concentration of the interfering in the specimen solution based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform. Claim 6 recites comparing a potential waveform of the ion-selective electrode with a potential waveform of an electrode that responds to an ion having an opposite electric charge to an electric charge of an ion to be measured.
The limitations of identifying a type of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a direction of a change in a potential waveform, calculating a concentration of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform, and comparing a potential waveform of the ion-selective electrode with a potential waveform of an electrode that responds to an ion having an opposite electric charge to an electric charge of an ion to be measured, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. The "identify," "calculate," "based on," and "compare" language in the context of the claims encompass the user mentally identifying the type of interfering ion based on a direction of change in a potential waveform, calculating a concentration of the interfering ion based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform, and comparing potential waveforms. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The limitation of calculating a concentration of the interfering ion in the specimen based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts such as mathematical calculations and equations. The "calculating" and "slope" language in the context of the claim encompasses mathematical calculations that can be performed by a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of the interfering ion analysis unit and the ion-selective electrode. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere data gathering elements linked to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 the interfering ion analysis unit and the ion-selective electrode amount to no more than mere data gathering elements in conjunction with the judicial exception. Mere data gathering steps and insignificant extra-solution activity linked to the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). For example: Kishioka et al. (JP 2020041968 A) (references herein made with respect to US equivalent US 2021/0318266 A1) teaches the ion-selective electrode 101 and the potential response curve analysis unit 183 (Fig. 1, para. [0028], [0036]). The claims do not invoke any of the considerations that courts have identified as provided significantly more than an exception. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 2-3 and 6 as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishioka et al. (JP 2020041968 A) (references herein made with respect to US equivalent US 2021/0318266 A1) in view of Wilke et al. (US 2012/0073989 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kishioka teaches an electrolyte analysis device having an ion-selective electrode and using potential measurement (an electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 comprising an ion-selective electrode 101 and using potential measurement, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0027]-[0028]), the electrolyte analyte device comprising:
one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (an arithmetic and control unit 200, and a data storage unit 184, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0027], [0036]);
an interfering analysis unit (a potential response curve analysis unit 183, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036], [0039]); and
a concentration calculation unit configured to calculate a concentration of an ion to be measured (a concentration calculation unit 172 calculates a concentration of a specific ion, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0037]), and
wherein the processor is configured to cause display of a calculation result of the concentration of the ion to be measured (the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes an output unit 174 which includes a display for outputting an arithmetic result in the concentration calculation unit 172, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]-[0037]).
The limitations "using potential measurement," "stored thereon at least a relationship of a change in potential over time with respect to an interfering ion," “a correlation for correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode,” and "detect an influence of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on the change in potential over time determined based on information received from the ion-selective electrode while the specimen solution is stationary after the specimen solution comes in contact with the ion-selective electrode, and corrected based on the temperature difference" are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device disclosed by Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Kishioka teaches that the electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 is configured to measure a potential difference between electrodes (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0027]), so the electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 is capable of the recitation "using potential measurement." Kishioka also teaches that the data storage unit 184 stores library data related to the feature value of the potential response curve which is a transient change in the potential of the ion-selective electrode 101 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036], [0038], [0095]- [0096]), the potential response curve may include an aqueous solution containing interfering ions (Kishioka, Fig. 6, para. [0103]), and that accurate measurement can be implemented even when a gentle potential variation occurs due to a temperature change (Kishioka, para. [0071]), so the data storage unit 184 is capable of the recitations "stored thereon at least a relationship of a change in potential over time with respect to an interfering ion" and “a correlation for correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode.” Kishioka also teaches that the potential response curve analysis unit 183 analyzes the potential response curve generated by a potential monitoring unit 181 after introduction of the liquid into the flow path of the ion-selective electrode 101 and determines contamination of a surface of the ion-selective electrode 101 based on a waveform of the potential response curve at the time of stopping movement of the liquid in the flow path of the ion-selective electrode 101, and that accurate measurement can be implemented even when a gentle potential variation occurs due to a temperature change (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036], [0038]-[0039], [0071], [0095], [0097]), the liquid for the potential response curve including an ion solution containing interfering ions (Kishioka, Fig. 6, para. [0093], [0103]), so the potential response curve analysis unit 183 is capable of the recitation "detect an influence of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on the change in potential over time determined based on information received from the ion-selective electrode while the specimen solution is stationary after the specimen solution comes in contact with the ion-selective electrode, and corrected based on the temperature difference."
The limitation "while the specimen solution is stationary after the specimen solution comes in contact with the ion-selective electrode" is with respect to an article worked upon (specimen solution) and not a positively recited element of the electrolyte analysis device. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (specimen solution) by a structure (electrolyte analysis device) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Kishioka teaches that the concentration calculation unit 172 calculates a concentration of a specific ion based on the potential difference calculated by the potential measuring unit 171 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0037]). Kishioka teaches that the potential response curve analysis unit 183 analyzes the potential response curve generated by the potential monitoring unit 181 and compares the feature value of the library data with the feature value of the obtained potential response curve to determine contamination of a surface of the ion-selective electrode 101 exposed to an ion solution containing interfering ions (Figs. 1 & 6, para. [0039], [0093], [0095], [0097], [0103]). Kishioka fails to teach wherein, based on the influence detected by the interfering ion analysis unit, the concentration calculation unit is configured to correct the influence for calculating the concentration of the ion to be measured.
Wilke teaches a measuring device that determines a measured value of concentration of the measured ion (Wilke, abstract). Wilke teaches that ion-selective electrodes do not respond specifically only to the kind of ion to be measured, but, instead also to other ions, which are referred to as disturbing ions (Wilke, para. [0005]). Wilke teaches that a correction value stored in a data memory is subtracted from each measured value ascertained from a probe measurement signal to compensate for the disturbing influences of disturbing ions and ascertain a corrected measured ion concentration (Wilke, para. [0033]-[0034], [0042], [0049]). Wilke teaches that the correction value is derivable from experiential values or a model of the disturbing influences on the ion selective electrode 2 (Wilke, Fig. 1, para. [0062]). Wilke teaches that this program can be executed by the processor of the data processing system 6 (Wilke, Fig. 1, para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concentration calculation unit 172 of Kishioka to compensate for the disturbing influences of disturbing ions and correct the measured ion concentration based on the disturbing influences as taught by Wilke because the cross sensitivities of the ion selective electrode may then be compensated and the measured ion concentration is obtained in which corruption by disturbing ions (interfering ions) present is eliminated (Wilke, para. [0014], [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kishioka teaches the interfering ion analysis unit (the potential response curve analysis unit 183, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
The limitation "identify a type of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a direction of a change in a potential waveform" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device comprising the potential response curve analysis unit disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the potential response curve analysis unit 183 compares the feature value of the library data with the feature value of the obtained potential response curve to determine contamination of a surface of the ion-selective electrode 101 exposed to an ion solution containing interfering ions, wherein the sign of abnormality is determined by calculating shape features (presence or absence of a convex peak, amplitude thereof, width thereof) of the waveform in the potential response curve and comparing the shape features with a reference value (Kishioka, Figs. 1 & 6, para. [0039], [0093], [0095], [0103]-[0104]), so the potential response curve analysis unit 183 is capable of the recitation “identify a type of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a direction of a change in a potential waveform.”
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kishioka teaches the interfering ion analysis unit (the potential response curve analysis unit 183, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
The limitation "calculate a concentration of the interfering in the specimen solution based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device comprising the potential response curve analysis unit disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the potential response curve analysis unit 183 compares the feature value of the library data with the feature value of the obtained potential response curve to determine contamination of a surface of the ion-selective electrode 101 exposed to an ion solution containing interfering ions, wherein the sign of abnormality is determined by calculating shape features (presence or absence of a convex peak, amplitude thereof, width thereof) of the waveform in the potential response curve and comparing the shape features with a reference value (Kishioka, Figs. 1 & 6, para. [0039], [0093], [0095], [0103]-[0104]), and the concentration of the interfering ions in the sample is calculated at the timing 402 on the potential response curve (Kishioka, Fig. 6, para. [0103]-[0104]), so the potential response curve analysis unit 183 is capable of the recitation "calculate a concentration of the interfering ion in the specimen solution based on a slope of a change in a potential waveform."
Regarding claim 5, the limitation "an ion to be measured is an anion" is with respect to an article worked upon (ion to be measured) and not a positively recited element of the electrolyte analysis device. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (ion to be measured) by a structure (electrolyte analysis device) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that an ion to be analyzed is Cl- (Kishioka, para. [0029], [0035], [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kishioka teaches the interfering ion analysis unit (the potential response curve analysis unit 183, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
The limitation "compare a potential waveform of the ion-selective electrode with a potential waveform of an electrode that responds to an ion having an opposite electric charge to an electric charge of an ion to be measured" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device comprising the potential response curve analysis unit disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the potential response curve analysis unit 183 compares the feature value of the library data with the feature value of the obtained potential response curve to determine contamination of a surface of the ion-selective electrodes 101A-101C exposed to an ion solution containing interfering ions, wherein the sign of abnormality is determined by calculating shape features (presence or absence of a convex peak, amplitude thereof, width thereof) of the waveform in the potential response curve an comparing the shape features with a reference value (Kishioka, Figs. 1 & 6, para. [0039], [0093], [0095], [0103]-[0104]), and that the ion-selective electrodes 101A-101C include a chlorine ion electrode 101A, a potassium ion electrode 101B, and a sodium ion electrode 101C (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0029]), so the potential response curve analysis unit 183 is capable of the recitation “compare a potential waveform of the ion-selective electrode with a potential waveform of an electrode that responds to an ion having an opposite electric charge to an electric charge of an ion to be measured.”
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the ion-selective electrode is a flow-type ion-selective electrode (the ion-selective electrode 101 is a flow type ion-selective electrode in the flow type electrolyte concentration measurement device 10, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the ion-selective electrode has a membrane having fixed charges as a sensitive membrane (the ion-selective electrode 101 has an ion-sensitive membrane having an ion balance, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0039], [0105]).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the ion-selective electrode has an ion exchange membrane as a sensitive membrane (the ion-selective electrode 101 has an ion-sensitive membrane that changes in surface state and/or ion balance after sample suction where the specimen solution is injected into the ion-selective electrode 101, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0035], [0039], [0105]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the ion-selective electrode has an internal solution (the ion-selective electrode 101 is supplied with an internal standard solution, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0029]), and the internal solution contains a concentration of ions to be measured (the internal standard solution contains a concentration of the ions to be measured, Kishioka, para. [0037], [0040], [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation "the specimen solution containing ions to be measured is periodically measured" is with respect to an article worked upon (the specimen solution containing ions to be measured) and not a positively recited element of the electrolyte analysis device. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon (the specimen solution containing ions to be measured) by a structure (electrolyte analysis device) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115.
The limitation "periodically measured" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the specific ions in the specimen and the internal standard solution are measured alternately and continuously for continuous analysis (Kishioka, Figs. 1 & 2B, para. [0027], [0041], [0065]-[0066]), so the electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 is capable of the recitation "periodically measured."
Regarding claim 12, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause display of a detection result of the influence of the interfering ion for viewing by a user (the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes the output unit 174 which includes the display for outputting the arithmetic result of the concentration calculation unit 172 and a deterioration determination result regarding the ion-selective electrode 101, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]-[0037], [0102]).
The limitation "display of a detection result of the influence of the interfering ion for viewing by a user" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes the output unit 174 which includes the display for outputting the arithmetic result of the concentration calculation unit 172 and a deterioration determination result regarding the ion-selective electrode 101 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0037], [0102]), so the output unit 174 is capable of the recitation "display a detection result of the influence of the interfering ion for viewing by a user."
Regarding claim 13, Modified Kishioka teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes an input unit 176 and the data storage unit 184, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
The limitation "receive a characteristic of the ion-selective electrode" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The arithmetic and control unit disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes the input unit 176 which is an interface for inputting various kinds of data or commands to the device control unit 175 which is further connected to the data storage unit 184 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]-[0037]), so the data storage unit 184 is capable of the recitation "receive a characteristic of the ion-selective electrode."
Regarding claim 14, Modified Kishioka teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes an input unit 176 and the data storage unit 184, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]).
The limitation "receive information about the specimen solution" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The arithmetic and control unit disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the arithmetic and control unit 200 includes the input unit 176 which is an interface for inputting various kinds of data or commands to the device control unit 175 which is further connected to the data storage unit 184 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036]-[0037]), so the data storage unit 184 is capable of the recitation "receive information about the specimen solution."
Regarding claim 15, Modified Kishioka teaches wherein the ion-selective electrode includes N ion-selective electrodes having different characteristics (the ion-selective electrode 101 includes a chlorine ion electrode 101A, a potassium ion electrode 101B, and a sodium ion electrode 101C, Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0029]).
The limitation "ion concentrations of N+1 or more ion species are measured based on time-series potential waveforms obtained respectively from the N ion-selective electrodes" is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The electrolyte concentration measurement device disclosed by Modified Kishioka teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of the intended use and/or functional language in the claim.
Examiner further notes that Modified Kishioka teaches that the concentrations of Cl, K, Na ions in the solution can be calculated by measuring the potential differences between the ion-selective electrodes 101A to 101C and generating potential response curve waveforms over time (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0035], [0037]-[0039]), so the electrolyte concentration measurement device 10 is capable of the recitation "ion concentrations of N+1 or more ion species are measured based on time- series potential waveforms obtained respectively from the N ion-selective electrodes."
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the arguments presented on pages 7-9 of the amendment, Applicant argues that the instant specification provides sufficient description and corresponding structure for the terms “storage unit” and “interfering ion analysis unit”. Applicant asserts that that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “device control unit” is a computer that includes one or more processors and a computer-readable storage medium, and that the “interfering ion analysis unit,” “concentration calculation unit,” and “potential measurement unit” are software units that are stored on the storage medium and executable by the one or more processors.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s assertion is not disclosed or supported by the instant specification. Instead, the device control unit 175 is listed and shown as a separate unit from the potential measurement unit 171, the concentration calculation unit 172, the output unit 174, the input unit 176, the interfering ion analysis unit 181, and the storage unit 182 (see Fig. 1 and para. [0038], [0047] of the instant US PGPub). The device control unit is only mentioned in those two paragraphs and there is no support for a computer, processor, or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon the other limitations of claim 1. The specification only discloses a storage unit and provides no corresponding structure for the storage unit. The specification does not recite a processor or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium anywhere throughout the entire specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would not assume or understand that the device control unit 175 has one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium when the disclosure does not provide any support or suggestion for that.
In the arguments presented on pages 10-15 of the amendment, Applicant argues that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant asserts that the elements of claim 1 improve the operation of the electrolyte analysis device and output a more accurate measurement of the ions in a specimen when interfering ions might be present. Applicant asserts that the instant specification discloses that the conventional technique has a problem that the type or concentration of interfering ions are difficult to determine, and the present invention solves this problem by providing an electrolyte analysis device capable of more easily determining the type of concentration of interfering ions using one electrode. Applicant asserts that the claims recite features related to a technical solution to a technical problem, and thus the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of an electrolyte analysis device (improvement in a technology or technical field), which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. If Applicant believes that the instant invention pertains to an improvement in technology, then Examiner suggests pointing out exactly which elements lead to the technological improvement and ensuring that the claim recites those elements that lead to the technological improvement. When relying upon an improvement in technology as integrating the abstract idea into a particular practical application, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim reflects the improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. See also MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Currently, claim 1 recites new matter as discussed in the rejection supra, so the claim does not include the components or steps that lead to the asserted technological improvement. Additionally, important features from the specification and drawings (for example Figs. 1 and 3, 10, or 11) are missing from the claim, so the claim does not reflect the asserted improvement in technology.
In the arguments presented on pages 15-17 of the amendment, Applicant argues that the claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant asserts that claim 1 includes an electrolyte analysis device configured to perform specific operations for detecting an influence of interfering ions when detecting an ion in a specimen and correcting an output based on the detected influence. Applicant asserts that claim 1 includes a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of features comprising an inventive concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is rejected under prior art as discussed in the prior art rejection supra, and the additional elements other than the judicial exception are also well-understood, routine, and conventional as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection supra, so the additional elements of claim 1 fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
In the arguments presented on pages 17-22 of the amendment, Applicant argues that Kishioka does not teach “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon at least…a correlation for correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode” as required by amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection supra, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is new matter. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that Kishioka does not teach a correlation for correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Kishioka teaches that the data storage unit 184 of the arithmetic and control unit 200 stores library data related to the feature value of the potential response curve which is a transient change in the potential of the ion-selective electrode 101 (Kishioka, Fig. 1, para. [0036], [0038], [0095]-[0096]), and that accurate measurement can be implemented even when a gentle potential variation occurs due to a temperature change (Kishioka, para. [0071]), so the data storage unit 184 is capable of storing “a correlation for correcting the change in the potential over time due to a temperature difference between a specimen solution and the ion-selective electrode.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights