Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/877,105

SPECIMEN CONDITION ASSESSING DEVICE, SPECIMEN CONDITION ASSESSING METHOD, AND SPECIMEN TESTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 19, 2024
Priority
Jun 23, 2022 — JP 2022-101278 +1 more
Examiner
LU, TOM Y
Art Unit
2667
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Hitachi Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
844 granted / 965 resolved
+25.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
983
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§103
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
§102
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 965 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed 12/19/2024 has been entered. Claims 4, 9 and 11 have been amended. Claims 12-17 have been added. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al (“Chang” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0390478 A1). As per claim 1, Chang discloses a specimen condition assessing device (abstract) comprising: a processor that executes a program for performing image processing on an image of a target specimen container; and a memory for storing a result of the image processing (paragraph [0055]: computer 143 in figure 1 inherently includes a processor and memory for storage), wherein the processor performs: processing of inputting an image (paragraph [0040]: image devices 106A-C are used to captured images of the sample tube 102); processing of detecting a boundary position from the image (paragraph [0043]: “the characterization methods and apparatus may be used to determine a location of the interface boundaries of the serum or plasma portion 212SP and/or the settled blood portion 212SB, and/or gel separator 313”); processing of determining a type of upper and lower regions of each of the detected boundary position and determining a boundary position of each inclusion (as shown in figures 2-3, see lines of demarcation between air 216, 212SP, 212SB and gel separator 313 in figure 3, for example, for the line of demarcation between air 216 and plasma 212SP, the upper region type is air, and the lower region type is plasma, as same for other lines of demarcation, the upper region type may be plasma and the lower region type may be settled blood); and processing of assessing whether or not the target specimen container is testable on the basis of the determined boundary position of each inclusion (paragraph [0056]-[0057]: the lines of demarcation is used to determine the height of plasma, serum and blood to determine if the sufficient amount of serum or plasma is available to carry out the ordered tests). As per claim 2, Chang discloses processing of correcting each of the detected boundary position on the basis of the determined type of the upper and lower regions of each of the detected boundary position (as shown between figures 2 and 3, the boundary position or line of demarcation changes when the types of portions changed, for example, in figure 2, line of demarcation between 212SP and 212SB, and figure 3, the line of demarcation between 212 SP and 212SB is changed to include separator gel 313). As per claim 3, Chang discloses processing of identifying a container from the image to calculate container information; processing of selecting a detector according to the container information; and processing of determining the type of the upper and lower regions of each of the boundary position detected by using the selected detector and determining the boundary position of each inclusion and the processor assesses whether or not the target specimen container is testable on the basis of the determined boundary position of each inclusion (see explanation in claim 1 above). As per claim 4, Chang discloses processing of calculating a content on the basis of the determined boundary position of each inclusion and the processor assesses whether or not the target specimen container is testable on the basis of the calculated content (as explained above, whether a sufficient amount of plasma or serum is determined to carry out the ordered tests). As per claim 5, see explanation in claim 4 above. As per claim 6, see explanation in claim 1. As per claim 7, see explanation in claim 2. As per claim 8, see explanation in claim 3. As per claim 9, see explanation in claim 4. As per claim 10, see explanation in claim 5. As per claim 11, Chang discloses A specimen testing device (paragraph [0003]: automated testing system) comprising: the specimen condition assessing device according to claim 1; a specimen sucking device that controls whether or not to suck a specimen to analyze a testing item of the specimen; and a display device that displays a result of the analysis, wherein the specimen sucking device uses information on the testability assessed by the specimen condition assessing device to control whether or not to suck the specimen in the specimen container and uses the sucked specimen and a reagent to analyze the testing item related to the specimen and the display device displays a result of the analysis of the testing item (as shown in figure 1, the computer 143 and LIS 147 inherently includes a display for determining whether the ordered test can be carried out based on the image measurement of serum, plasma as disclosed in paragraphs [0056]-[0057], and if test is determined not to be carried out, the sucking device for automated testing systems will not be used to suck the specimen using reagents for testing). As per claim 12, see explanation in claim 4. As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 4. As per claim 14, see explanation in claim 4. As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 4. As per claim 16, see explanation in claim 11. As per claim 17, see explanation in claim 11. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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. /TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749178
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE STATE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743767
3D OPTICAL SENSOR ALIGNMENT
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740721
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING BREATH RATE USING AN OPTICAL FLOW SENSING
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739352
IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12725333
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PARAMETER IMAGING
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.6%)
2y 5m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 965 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month