DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s response, received 16 September 2025 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 35, 36, and 39-49 are pending.
Claims 35, 36, and 39-49 are rejected.
Priority
This application is a Divisional of 15/515,404, filed 29 March 2017.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy of KOREAN Application No. 10-2014-0132229, filed 01 October 2014, has been filed in parent Application No. 15/515,404, filed on 29 March 2017.
The certified copies of KOREAN Application Nos. 10-2015-0051080, filed 10 April 2015, and 10-2014-0191924, filed 29 December 2014, have not been received.
Claims 35, 36, and 39-49 are given benefit of the claim for priority to KOREAN Application No. 10-2014-0132229, filed 01 October 2014.
Therefore, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 01 October 2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on 16 September 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the Specification received 16 September 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 are maintained in view of the amendment received 16 September 2025.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are:
“the signal-generating means” in claims 35, 47, 48, and 49.
The written description discloses a corresponding structure for:
“the signal-generating means” at page 11, lines 6-8 in the Specification (the term “signal-generating means” refers to any material used in generation of signals indicating the presence of the analyte, for example including oligonucleotides, labels and enzymes).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 40 and 44 in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendment received 16 September 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 48 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025, is withdrawn in view of the amendment received 16 September 2025.
The amendment received 16 September 2025 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised in view of the amendment.
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 35, 36, and 46-49 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. Specifically, the amendments of step b and what is required of b1 for what and how a baseline value is applied is unclear. In view of the specification, there does not appear to be any specific guidance for practicing this step, in particular how it is determined when at least two must be different as provided in the wherein clause. Claim 48 provides the same limitation, and the metes and bounds of the claim are also found unclear. Dependent claims are included in the basis of the rejection because they fail to address or clarify the issue of the independent claim.
Claims 39-42 and 45 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 39 is indefinite for depending from claim 38, because it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of claim 39 are due to claim 38 having been cancelled.
Claim 40 is indefinite for depending from claim 39 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 39.
Claim 41 is indefinite for depending from claim 37, because it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of claim 41 are due to claim 37 having been cancelled.
Claim 42 is indefinite for depending from claim 41 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 41.
Claim 45 is indefinite for depending from claim 37, because it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of claim 45 are due to claim 37 having been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendment received 16 September 2025 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, the rejection of claims 35-49 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 is maintained with modification in view of the amendment.
The rejection of claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 is withdrawn in view of these claims having been cancelled in the amendment received 16 September 2025.
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 35, 36, and 39-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 35, 36, and 39-46 are directed to a method (process) of correcting a raw data set; claim 47 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (machine or manufacture); and claim 48 is directed to a device (machine or manufacture) comprising (a) a computer processor; and (b) a computer readable storage medium. Therefore, claims 35, 36, and 39-48 are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 49 is directed to a non-transitory computer program to be stored on a computer readable storage medium, and further directed to an embodiment that is software per se, because the claim limitation of a “computer program to be stored…” (emphasis added) is an intended use of the computer program product, which does not require that it actually be stored. The applicants may overcome the rejection at Step 1 by amending the claimed subject matter to be limited to a “computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (see MPEP 2106.03 I.). However, amending the claims to recite a “computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” would not overcome the rejection at Step 2A or Step 2B for the reasons provided below.
[Step 1: NO]
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 49 is examined herein with respect to whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 35 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
(b) determining a baseline region by determining both a start-point cycle and an end-point cycle of the baseline region using the raw data set (i.e., mental processes);
(c) establishing a function for a best-fit line of the baseline region using at least two data points of the raw data set within the baseline region (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
(d) obtaining a corrected data set by subtracting values of the function for the best-fit line from the values of the signals of the raw data set; wherein the corrected data set contains (i) the amplification cycles of the amplification reaction and (ii) the resultants of the subtraction (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
(e) providing a corrected amplification curve using the corrected data set (i.e., mental processes);
wherein in step (b) the end-point cycle of the baseline region is determined by a process comprising:
(b1) applying a baseline threshold value to each of the amplification cycles such that a plurality of baseline threshold values are applied to the cycles (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
(b2) identifying one or more cycles satisfying a baseline threshold criterion determined by each of the baseline threshold values (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
(b3) determining the end-point cycle of the baseline region by using the identified cycle or cycles in the step (b2) (i.e., mental processes), and
wherein the baseline threshold values of at least two cycles among the cycles are different from each other (i.e., mental processes).
Independent claim 47 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions to configure a processor to perform the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 35.
Independent claim 48 recites a computer processor and the computer readable storage medium of independent claim 47 coupled to the computer processor and containing instructions to configure a processor to perform the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 35.
Independent claim 49 recites a non-transitory computer program to be stored on a computer readable storage medium to configure a processor to perform the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 35.
Dependent claims 36 and 39-46 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 36 further recites:
step (a) further comprises plotting the raw data set to provide an amplification curve and the step (d) further comprises plotting the corrected data set to provide a corrected amplification curve (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 39 further recites:
the baseline threshold values for the amplification cycles are determined in such a manner that with respect to a baseline threshold-changed cycle (BTCC), a first function formed by a set of pre-BTCC cycles and baseline threshold values to be applied to the pre-BTCC cycles is different from a second function formed by a set of post-BTCC cycles and baseline threshold values to be applied to the post-BTCC cycles (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 40 further recites:
the amplification cycles are classified into at least two different groups in terms of a baseline threshold-changed cycle (BTCC); wherein cycles classified into a group are continuous, and cycles classified into a group have the same baseline threshold value, and cycles classified into immediately adjacent-different groups have different baseline threshold values from each other (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 41 further recites:
the identification in the step (b2) is performed by comparing a slope calculated for each of the amplification cycles using the raw data set with a baseline threshold value for each of the amplification cycles (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 42 further recites:
the slope is a slope calculated by a least square method using a data point of a certain cycle and at least one data point of a cycle or cycles before and/or after the certain cycle (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 43 further recites:
in step (b) the end-point cycle of the baseline region is determined with a cycle not less than a minimum baseline end-point cycle (MBEC) (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 44 further recites:
wherein the end-point cycle of the baseline region is determined by a process comprising:
(i) obtaining a slope calculated for each of the amplification cycles (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
(ii) comparing the slope with the baseline threshold value for each amplification cycle to obtain a candidate of the end-point cycle of the baseline region (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts); and
(iii) comparing the candidate of the end-point cycle with the MBEC, wherein when the candidate of the end-point cycle is more than the MBEC, the candidate is determined as the end-point cycle (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 45 further recites:
the method further comprises applying an additional baseline threshold value to at least one cycle among the cycles (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 46 further recites:
establishing the function for the best-fit line of the baseline region is performed by a linear regression analysis using at least two data points within the baseline region (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., determining a baseline region by determining both a start-point cycle and an end-point cycle of the baseline region using the raw data set), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., “slope calculation” at page 33, line 21, through page 36, line 4, in the Specification) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 35, 36, and 39-49 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 36 and 39-46 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claims 35, 47, 48, and 49 include:
(a) obtaining the raw data set containing (i) amplification cycles of the amplification reaction and (ii) values of signals obtained from the signal-generating means at the amplification cycles (claim 35);
(a) receiving the raw data set containing (i) amplification cycles of the amplification reaction and (ii) values of signals obtained from the signal-generating means at the amplification cycles (claims 47 and 49);
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 47);
a processor (claims 47 and 49);
a device comprising (a) a computer processor and (b) the computer readable storage medium of claim 47 coupled to the computer processor (claim 48);
data to be stored (claim 49); and
a computer readable storage medium (claim 49).
The additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium (claim 49); a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 47); a processor (claims 47 and 49); and a device comprising (a) a computer processor and (b) the computer readable storage medium of claim 47 coupled to the computer processor (claim 48); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional elements of (a) obtaining the raw data set containing (i) amplification cycles of the amplification reaction and (ii) values of signals obtained from the signal-generating means at the amplification cycles (claim 35); and (a) receiving the raw data set containing (i) amplification cycles of the amplification reaction and (ii) values of signals obtained from the signal-generating means at the amplification cycles (claims 47 and 49); are merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of data to be stored (claim 49) is merely an intended use of storing data – a nominal addition to the claim that does not meaningfully limit the claim, and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and/or an intended use; and as such, when all limitations in claims 35, 36, and 39-49 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 35, 36, and 39-49 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claim recites an abstract idea, and does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claim is probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 36 and 39-46 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 35, 47, 48, and 49 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium (claim 49); a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claim 47); a processor (claims 47 and 49); and a device comprising (a) a computer processor and (b) the computer readable storage medium of claim 47 coupled to the computer processor (claim 48); obtaining data (claim 35); receiving data (claims 47 and 49); and storing data (claim 49); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in claims 35, 36, and 39-49 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 35, 36, and 39-49 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 16 September 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 10 of the Remarks that the amended claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract idea, as they integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application in the field of molecular diagnostics. The Applicant further states that as amended, the independent claims recite the additional step of providing a corrected amplification curve using the corrected data set, and that this step is not a mere presentation of information, but rather, the corrected amplification curve is directly utilized to determine an accurate cycle threshold (Ct) value of the amplification reaction. The Applicant explains that the determination of the Ct value is a critical step in nucleic acid testing and PCR-based diagnostic assays, and that by generating a corrected amplification curve, the invention enables more accurate Ct value calculation, and further explains that the accurate determination of Ct values reduces false positives and false negatives in diagnostic testing, thereby improving the reliability of molecular diagnostic results, and that this is a concrete technological improvement in the field of PCR analysis, which directly impacts patient outcomes and laboratory workflows. Finally, the Applicant states that accordingly, the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea “as such,” but instead integrates mathematical processing into a specific and meaningful application in the art of molecular diagnostics.
These arguments/remarks are not persuasive, because first, the corrected amplification curve is the data produced by the calculations at steps (a) through (d), and thus is part of the abstract idea, and therefore is not an additional element. Second, the claims do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application by applying, relying on, or using the judicial exceptions (i.e., the corrected amplification curve) in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Therefore, any purported improvement is in the abstract idea (i.e., generating a corrected amplification curve), and not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 35, 36, 47, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lerner in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments/remarks received 16 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 16 September 2025 have been fully considered, and are persuasive.
The Applicant states that the independent claims have been amended by incorporating the limitations previously recited in original dependent claims 37 and 38, and as a result the independent claims now include structural and functional features that are not disclosed by Lerner, and accordingly, the instant claims are no longer anticipated by Lerner.
These arguments/remarks are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 37-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerner as applied to claims 35, 36, 47, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) above, and further in view of Ward et al. in the Office action mailed 18 March 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments/remarks received 16 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 16 September 2025 have been fully considered, and are persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 11 of the Remarks that the independent claims have been amended by incorporating the limitations previously recited in original claims 37 and 38, and that these limitations are not disclosed or suggested by Ward. The Applicant further states on page 12 of the Remarks that the Ward disclosure relates to noise region analysis and exponential region identification, and not to determining an end-point cycle of a baseline region using threshold values applied cycle-by-cycle, and applying different threshold values to different cycles. The Applicant further states that Ward fails to disclose or suggest the specific steps required by the amended independent claims, in particular, the use of multiple, cycle-specific baseline threshold values to determine the end-point cycle of the baseline region, and that this distinction provides improved accuracy in identifying the baseline end-point, thereby enhancing the reliability of corrected data sets.
These arguments/remarks are persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached on (571) 272-9047. 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.
/S.W.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687