DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 6/12/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 17 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, 12-14,, 15-16 and 18-20 have been cancelled.
Claim 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/3/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Drake et al. (US 2021/0210205) and Abraham et al. (US 2021/0295979) and Chander et al. (US 2018/0239949) teach a method of evaluating cancer. Drake et al., Abraham et al. and Chander et al. do not teach “cellular mass accumulation and/or mass accumulation rate measurements, "a mass accumulation and/or mass accumulation rate," "using a device comprising one or more suspended microchannel resonators,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Human Interactions Organized/Mathematical Concepts
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that individual patient response to drug and therapy are often variable and unpredictable. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data using the steps of “providing training data, operating machine learning system, associating mass accumulation measurements with cancer status, obtaining samples, flowing cells, measuring mass changes, inputting data, correlating data,” etc. Applicant’s method is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0006]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception 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. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method for performing the steps of “providing training data, operating machine learning system, associating mass accumulation measurements with cancer status, obtaining samples, flowing cells, measuring mass changes, inputting data, correlating data,” etc., that is “generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators (Applicant’s Specification [0033], [0042]-[0043]), etc.) to perform steps of “providing training data, operating machine learning system, associating mass accumulation measurements with cancer status, obtaining samples, flowing cells, measuring mass changes, inputting data, correlating data,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0033], [0042]-[0043], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators,” etc. to perform the functions of “providing training data, operating machine learning system, associating mass accumulation measurements with cancer status, obtaining samples, flowing cells, measuring mass changes, inputting data, correlating data,” etc. The recited “computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/12/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 6/12/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/12/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14 and 17 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 3/12/2026 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “further comprising isolating the one or more live cells downstream from the SMR after the measuring step, the one or more live cells remaining viable upon passing through the SMR, and performing genome sequencing on the isolated live cells.” The step of “performing genome sequencing on the isolated live cells” is an information processing step that is part of Applicant’s abstract idea and does not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended step of “performing genome sequencing on the isolated live cells,” is an abstract computational step that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Gatering Step
The amended step of “performing genome sequencing on the isolated live cells” is a data gathering process and does not add a meaningful limitation to Applicant’s method as it is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Such features/arguments do not move Applicant’s intention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 46
Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 46. Claim 4 of Example 26 is eligible because it does not recite any judicial exceptions. Applicant’s amended claims do recite a judicial exception (e.g. associating, by the machine learning system known mass accumulation measurements with the known cancer statuses, correlating, by the machine learning system, the data with the known cancer statuses and determining a cancer status for the patient), and are directed to generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data without more. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “computers, terminal computers, analysis instruments, data acquisition modules, communication networks, processors, input/output devices, memories, suspended microchannel resonators” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 47
Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 47 as Applicant’s claims are not directed to trained artificial neural network to detect malicious network packets. Applicant’s claims are directed to generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data without more. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Inventive Concept Coincides with the Abstract Idea
Applicant’s alleged inventive concept (generating mass accumulation data through a measurement modality that differs from conventional cell measurement techniques such as flow cytometry, hemocytometry, or standard microscopy) is coincident with the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Abstract Idea Cannot Supply the Inventive Concept
Applicant’s reliance on “generating mass accumulation data through a measurement modality that differs from conventional cell measurement techniques such as flow cytometry, hemocytometry, or standard microscopy,” etc. is misplaced because “the abstract idea itself cannot supply the invention concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance” (Trading Technologies International, Inc. v IBG LLC). Thus, the claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 45
Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 45 as Applicant’s claims are not directed to improvements in previous injection molding technology. Applicant’s claims are directed to generating customized treatment plan reports using individual patient data without more (e.g. SMR-based single-cell mass measurement). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights