DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions.
Continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. MPEP 706.07(h) pertains.
Status of claims
Canceled:
2 and 11
Pending:
1, 3-10 and 12-14
Withdrawn:
7-8 and 14
Examined:
1, 3-6, 9-10 and 12-13
Independent:
1 and 9
Allowable:
1 and 3-6
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 5/5/2021 filing receipt, this application claims priority to as early as 5/18/2018.
Withdrawal / revision of objections and/or rejections
In view of the amendment and remarks:
The objections to the claims are withdrawn.
The 112/b rejections are withdrawn, except as noted below, and new rejections are applied.
Rejections and/or objections not maintained from previous office actions are withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application.
Claim rejections - 112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
9
...wherein the deep learning processor identifies signal patterns by using sparse coefficients
Claim 9 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here a "system," cannot directly recite a process step such as "identifies... using..." For software-embodied process steps (e.g. calculations), this rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "system," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps, however support should be identified for any such amendment. It would be insufficient to only add "configured to" because it still would be unclear what structure is required to be configured. Regarding any software-embodied steps, it should be clear whether such steps are in fact software-embodied, and it should be clear whether such software is comprised by the claimed machine or manufacture.
10
...is supplied... and irradiated... using...
Similarly, claim 10 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here a "system," cannot directly recite process steps such as "...is supplied... and irradiated... using..." For physical process steps relying on well-known physical structure, it may suffice to add "configured to" before the process step so as properly focus on claimed structure.
12
...is obtained..., after collecting... and injecting..., waiting... and then separating...
Similarly, claim 12 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here a "system," cannot directly recite process steps such as "...is obtained by, after collecting... and injecting..., waiting... and then separating..."
13
...processor acquires and stores... using...
Similarly, claim 13 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here a "system," cannot directly recite process steps such as "...processor acquires and stores... using..."
9
deep learning processor configured to acquire and store... and configured to acquire and output...
Claim 9 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a "system" in this instance, limited according to its claimed physical structure, but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited "configured to acquire and store..." and "acquire and output..." The recited "system" and "deep learning processor" are not interpreted as requiring structure clearly linking the "system" to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "system," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps, if support for such an amendment can be identified. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process.
9
lung cancer detector and analyzer configured to detect... and configured to confirm...
Similarly, claim 9 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a "system" in this instance, limited according to its claimed physical structure, but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited "configured to detect..." and "confirm..." The recited "system" and "lung cancer detector and analyzer" are not interpreted as requiring structure clearly linking the "system" to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "system," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps, if support for such an amendment can be identified. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process.
Claim interpretations
The following claim interpretations apply to all instances of the following terms throughout all claims:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
9
deep learning processor
Recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "processor") and function and/or result (here "deep learning"), but the recitation does not invoke 112/f because the claim is interpreted as reciting sufficient structure (in this instance in the form of subsequent algorithmic steps) not to invoke. MPEP 2181.I.C pertains.
9
lung cancer detector and analyzer
Recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "detector and analyzer") and function and/or result (here "lung cancer detector and analyzer"), but the recitation does not invoke 112/f because the claim is interpreted as reciting sufficient structure (in this instance in the form of subsequent algorithmic steps) not to invoke. MPEP 2181.I.C pertains.
No prior art has been applied to the following claims
No prior art is applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10 and 12-13. Close art, for example as cited in the now withdrawn art rejections, as well as art found in the search histories and on the IDSs, does not teach the instant combination of particularly recited sample presentation, Raman spectroscopy, learning and cell type, and it is not clear that any combinable art of record would have rendered the claims obvious.
101 -- no rejections -- patent eligibility
Referring to 101 JE analysis as organized in MPEP 2106, no rejection applies to claims 1, 3-6, 9-10 and 12-13, at least by analogy to analysis Step 2B relating to a non-conventional combination of additional elements causing the claim to read on significantly more than any recited JE (MPEP 2106.05(d)), the combination in this instance comprising at least the particularly recited substrate, Raman spectroscopy, and cell type. In this regard, Applicant's 3/27/2026 remarks at pp. 14-15 also support withdrawal of the rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686