DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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 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.
Withdrawal of Objections and Rejections
Applicant's response, filed 04/30/2026, has been fully considered.
In view of the amendment and remarks from 04/30/2026, the rejection of the following claims are withdrawn:
claims 3 and 7-8 under 35 USC § 112(b).
The following rejections and/or objections are either maintained or newly applied for claims 1-22 and 71. They constitute the complete set applied to the instant application. Herein, "the previous Office action" refers to the Non-Final Rejection of 10/30/2026.
Status of the Claims
Claims 23-70 are canceled.
Claims 1-22 and 71 are pending.
Claim 3, 7 and 16 are objected to.
Claims 1-22 and 71 are rejected.
Priority
This application US 17/650,067 (02/04/2022) claims benefit of US Application 63/228,093 (07/31/2021) and US Application 63/146,541 (02/05/2021) as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 03/04/2022. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 1-22 and 71 is 02/05/2021.
Claim objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: the recited abbreviation "(MOI)" is used improperly after its introduction. The claim should recite " wherein a percentage of the stain free infected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being greater than 0.999 and a percentage of the stain free uninfected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: a comma is missing after " having M pixels by N pixels" and before "wherein."
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality: the recited "captured by the imager as one" should read "captured by the imager are on."
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-22 and 71 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
101 background
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Analysis of instant claims
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The instant claims are directed to a system (claims 1-22 and 71) which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter.
[Step 1: claims 1-22 and 71: Yes]
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Background
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Analysis of instant claims
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) and mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) are as follows.
Mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) include:
• "one or more imaging Al models to be trained to analyze one or more known viruses, …to process the captured images of stain free cells to detect morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images to determine a ratio of stain free infected cells to stain free uninfected cells indicating a predicted viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images (independent claim 1);
• "provide one or more trained Al models for one or more known viruses, wherein the processor executes further instructions to use the trained Al model to further provide the functionality of analyzing the captured images to predict viral infectivity based on captured images" (claim 13) and
• "wherein a percentage of the stain free infected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being greater than 0.999 and a percentage of the stain free uninfected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being zero" (claim 3).
The claims identified above read on math. The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and determined each element performed by mathematical operation. The step directed to “executing algorithm for the prediction of viral infectivity” requires mathematical techniques as the only supported embodiments because it describes the mathematical technique of adding numbers together in words (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains). Further support for the mathematical techniques used in the claims is provided in the specification at [0103], which discloses that the claimed machine learning algorithm involves training “a pipeline of feature normalization, scoring, selection and classification algorithms from scikit-learn” with automatic optimization of parameters which culminates in the prediction of viral infectivity. Thus, the recited terms correspond to verbal equivalents of mathematical concepts because they constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) pertains.
Dependent claim 71 recites further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claim 71 recites further details about the prediction step.
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1-22 and 71: Yes ]
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Background
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Analysis of instant claims
Instant claims 1, 11-14, 16, and 23-26 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
• "a first storage device storing one or more captured images captured at a subcellular resolution, each captured image capturing a plurality of stain free cells infected with a known virus stock of a plurality of virus stocks, wherein the plurality of stain free cells include both stain free infected cells and stain free uninfected cells" (independent claim 1);
• "read and process the one or more captured images stored in the first storage device" (independent claim 1);
• "a computer system in communication with the first storage device, the computer system including a processor and a second storage device storing instructions for execution by the processor" (claims 1 and 13);
• "storage device for use by the processor" (independent claim 1);
• "read the stored metadata and to further process the one or more captured images stored in the first storage device based on the stored metadata" (claim 12);
• "a plate with one or more wells with a plurality of stain free infected cells and a plurality of stain free uninfected cells in each of the one or more wells" (claim 13); and
• "an imager to capture images, at subcellular resolution, of the plate with a plurality of stain free cells infected with a virus stock" (claim 13).
Dependent claims 2, 4-11 and 14-22 recite further details about the computer system; dependent claims 5, 14-15 and 22 recite further details about “plate with wells containing cells”; dependent claims 4, 6-9 and 16 recite further details about “captured images”; dependent claims 2, 10-11 and 17-18 recite further details about “virus stock” and dependent claims 19-21 recite further details about the “imager."
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
The recited limitations in claims 1-22 and 71 are interpreted as requiring the use of a computer. Hence, the claims explicitly recite steps executed by computers and therefore can be described as computer functions or instructions to implement on a generic computer.
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of a computing device/computer do not describe any specific computational steps by which the "computer parts" perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions.
The judicial exceptions in the claims are considered to perform the claimed abstract idea with a computer, which is not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); since steps that can be performed mentally and merely performing the mental process in a computer environment do not negate the fact that something that can be carried out in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.
The recitation related to the "plate", "imager", "reading/storing data and identified dependent claims limitations read on data gathering activities or the type of data being gathered such as capturing images from a plate with wells containing cells that may be infected virus; not amounting to a practical application.
There are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed computer, processor, or computer readable medium require anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore the claims do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; 2106.05(f); and 2106.05(g)).
In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In this Step 2A, Prong Two immediately above claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more additional elements. Additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B below.
Here in Step 2A, Prong Two, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
[Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1-22 and 71: No]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during examination that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Claims 1-22 and 71 recite a computer or computer functions, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions; which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims directed to “reading” data read on performing a standard computer task, which the courts have identified as a conventional computer function in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art review to Ying (“Electron microscopy: essentials for viral structure, morphogenesis and rapid diagnosis” Sci. China Life Sci. 56(5):421-430 (2013), cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form) discloses that the use of computer systems involving detection of morphological differences in captures cells for subcellular level image detection (pg. 422 col. 1 para. 1) and for microcopy identification of morphological differences (pg. 426 col. 1 para. 2) is routine, well-understood and conventional in the art.
When the claims are considered as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they do not confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology; they do not solve a problem rooted in or arising from the use of a particular technology; they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(h).
The instant claims constitute insignificant extra solution activity, and when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Hence, these elements, when considered individually, are insufficient to constitute inventive concepts that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
[Step 2B: claims 1-22 and 71: No]
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For the reasons above, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept not clearly anything significantly more.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 101
The Remarks of 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 13 para. 2:
Applicant has amended the claims to avoid reciting mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, mathematical equations, and mathematical calculations … Applicant has amended the claims to avoid reciting mathematical concepts mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, mathematical equations, and mathematical calculations … Accordingly, Step 2A Prong One is not satisfied because the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., claims do not recite an abstract idea).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because the amened claims still recited mathematical steps and mental processes as described in the claims rejections above. Applicant is reminded that at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are examined limitation by limitation to identify whether the claimed concept aligns with at least one judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(I)). The recited use of an algorithm to "detect morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images" and "predict" step constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus representing mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 14 para. 4:
There is no need to proceed to Step 2A Prong Two because the Step 2A Prong One is not satisfied by the amended claims. However, Applicant discusses Step 2A Prong Two just in case the Office does not accept Applicant's arguments above for Step 2A Prong One … Applicant's independent Claim 1 is patent eligible for similar reasons Example Number 48, Claim 3 of the SMEE is patent eligible. Like Example 48, Claim 3, Applicant's independent Claim 1 includes additional limitations that incorporate an (presumed) abstract idea into a practical application. The Office Action has considered Claim 1 to be an abstract idea. However, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to clarify limitations that incorporated the (alleged) abstract idea into a practical application: "to …predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images." Although the Office Action alleges the limitations of Claim 1 amount to an abstract idea, the limitation of "to predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images" incorporates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the limitations of "to predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images" reflect a technical improvement discussed in Application specification. Accordingly, Claim 1 is directed to an improvement to existing technology for analyzing viral infectivity assays. The improvement is that Claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into the practical application of predicting viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images. Applicant notes similarities to Examples 47-49 of the SMEE
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because there is a need to proceed the analysis to Step 2A Prong 1, since Step 2A Prong was not satisfied. Furthermore, the arguments are not persuasive because the instant claims are not analogous to Examples 38 neither Examples 47-49. Regarding the comparison to Example 38, the instant claims are distinct from Example 38 because here there are both mathematical concepts and mental processes recited in the claims.
Furthermore, the instant claims are not analogous to Examples 47-49. The argued Example 47 describes an improvement to technology by the improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. The argued Example 48 claim 2 describes an improvement to technology by creating a new speech signal that no longer contains extraneous speech signals from unwanted sources. The instant invention is not analogous to either examples because it describes executing algorithm for the prediction of viral infectivity steps involving mathematical calculations and mental processes. Example 49 is different than the instant case because Example 49 claim 2 provided the administration of a "particular treatment" when considered in context of the claim as a whole.
Under Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements must integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the claims to be considered patent eligible. Regarding any improvement to technology, it must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and the improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements, either on their own or in combination with the recited judicial exception. In this case, the improvement does not exist since all claims directed to "predicting viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images" constituting actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus representing mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
A. Claims 1, 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang ("Differentiation of Cytopathic Effects (CPE) induced by influenza virus infection using deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)." PLoS Computational Biology 16(5):e1007883 (2020)) in view of Kensert ("Transfer learning with deep convolutional neural networks for classifying cellular morphological changes." SLAS Discovery: Advancing Life Sciences R&D 24(4):466-475 (2019)), as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 1 recites:
a first storage device storing one or more captured images captured …, each captured image capturing a plurality of stain free cells infected with a known virus stock of a plurality of virus stocks, wherein the plurality of stain free cells include both stain free infected cells and stain free uninfected cells …
and one or more imaging artificial intelligence (Al) models stored in the second storage device for use by the processor, the one or more imaging Al models trained to analyze one or more known viruses, the one or more imaging Al models used with instructions executed by the processor to process the captured images of stain free cells to detect morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images to predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images
• Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (i.e. first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 14 para. 2) of influenza-infected cells and mock-infected cells using only a minimum essential medium and trypsin addition (i.e. each captured image capturing a plurality of stain free cells infected with a known virus stock of a plurality of virus stocks, wherein the plurality of stain free cells include both stain free infected cells and stain free uninfected cells) (pg. 14 para. 3) to training of a deep convolutional neural network to recognize the morphological changes induced by virus infection (i.e. detect morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images) (pg. 11 para. 2-3) with a global learning rate of 0.0001 (i.e. a system for training one or more Al models for viral infectivity assays using machine learning for the functionality of analyzing the captured images) (pg. 15 para. 1) wherein the model was established to enhance the identification of influenza virus in clinical practice (i.e. predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images) (pg. 1 Abstract).
images captured at a subcellular resolution…
wherein the morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images are undeterminable by human eyesight at the subcellular resolution
• Wang does not teach the recitation above. However, Kensert teaches the application of trained deep convolutional neural networks for the quantification and identification of cellular phenotypes from high-content microscopy images (i.e. wherein the morphological differences between the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images are undeterminable by human eyesight at the subcellular resolution) and distinguish between different cell morphologies using cell profiling datasets from the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection (i.e. first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 466 para. 1); wherein the prediction of mechanisms of action was performed at subcellular resolution (pg. 468 Fig. 1) showing cytoplasm to nucleus translocation (pg. 2 para. 3).
a computer system in communication with the first storage device, the computer system including a processor and a second storage device storing instructions for execution by the processor, the processor to execute instructions stored in the second storage device to read and process the one or more captured images stored in the first storage device
• Wang that the model training, model validation, and influenza experiment datasets classified photos into two categories (i.e. computer system/database storing metadata) with uninfected MDCK cells labeled as negative samples and cells with cytopathic effects marked as positive samples (pg. 14 para. 2).
Claim 3 recites:
wherein a percentage of the stain free infected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being greater than 0.999 and a percentage of the stain free uninfected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being zero
• Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (i.e. first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 14 para. 2) of influenza-infected cells and mock-infected cells using only a minimum essential medium and trypsin addition (i.e. stain free infected cells infected) (pg. 14 para. 3) depicting examples of different levels of influenza-induced cytopathic effects and mock-infected MDCK cells described by positive (i.e. infected cells) and negative (i.e. uninfected cells) samples numbers out of 601 samples (i.e. reading on percentage of infection) with correlated MOI that were used in the model's dataset (pg. 4 Table 1); wherein MOI varied from zero for uninfected samples (i.e. percentage of the stain free uninfected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being zero) to 2 for infected samples (i.e. percentage of the stain free infected cells infected with at least one viral particle is based on a multiplicity of infection (MOI) being greater than 0.999) (pg. 4 Table 1).
Claim 12 recites:
further comprises a database storing metadata associated with the one or more captured images, and wherein the processor further executes instructions stored in the second storage device to read the stored metadata and to further process the one or more captured images stored in the first storage device based on the stored metadata
• Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (i.e. first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 14 para. 2); wherein model training, model validation, and influenza experiment datasets classified photos into two categories (i.e. reading on second device – hence computer – to process the database storing metadata) with uninfected MDCK cells labeled as negative samples and cells with cytopathic effects marked as positive samples (pg. 14 para. 2).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang in view of Kensert because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would have been to produce highly accurate classification of subcellular mechanisms of action (pg. 473 col. 1 para. 2 Kensert).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang to the methods by Kensert because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
B. Claims 2, 4-6, 13-16 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Kensert as applied to claims 1 and 3 above further in view of Buckingham (“Autophagic flux without a block differentiates varicella-zoster virus infection from herpes simplex virus infection” PNAS 112(1):256-261 (2015)), as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 2 recites:
wherein the known virus stock of stain free cells has a known viral infectivity based on the stain free infected cells and stain free uninfected cells at time of infection
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein fibroblasts were infected with a titer of 400 pfu per 10cm2 (pg. 258 col. para. 1); and cell monolayers were infected at 1:8 infected:uninfected ratio (i.e. infected with the known virus stock) (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3;) wherein six-well plates were utilized (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein infected cells measurements were replicated (i.e. wherein the plate has a range of one to three wells per sample to increase throughput – here "to increase throughput is identified as intended use and not a requirement) (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 4 recites:
wherein the captured images are captured by an imager to produce images selected from the group of brightfield images, darkfield images, phase contrast images, and differential interference contrast (DIC) images
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 5 recites:
further comprising, a plate with one or more wells containing the plurality of stain free cells infected with the known virus stock
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein fibroblasts were infected with a titer of 400 pfu per 10cm2 (pg. 258 col. para. 1); and cell monolayers were infected at 1:8 infected:uninfected ratio (i.e. reading on infected with the known virus stock) (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3).
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the one or more captured images are raw images taken of the plate and the one or more wells
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein generation of uninfected cells was done on 24 wells on six-well plates (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3).
Claim 13 recites:
a plate with one or more wells with a plurality of stain free infected cells and a plurality of stain free uninfected cells in each of the one or more wells … a computer system coupled in communication with the imager
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein fibroblasts were infected with a titer of 400 pfu per 10cm2 (pg. 258 col. para. 1); and cell monolayers were infected at 1:8 infected:uninfected ratio (i.e. measurements for uninfected and infected samples) (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein 24 wells on six-well plates were utilized for uninfected samples (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein infected cells measurements were replicated (i.e. plate with one or more wells with a plurality of stain free infected cells and a plurality of stain free uninfected cells in each of the one or more wells) (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein confocal microscopy images were analyzed using ImageJ (i.e. a visualization and analysis software program widely used while on a computer connected to a microscope) (pg. 258 Fig. 4).
an imager to capture images, at subcellular resolution, of the plate with a plurality of stain free cells infected with a virus stock
• Wang does not teach the recited limitations above. However, Kensert teaches the application of trained deep convolutional neural networks for the quantification and identification of cellular phenotypes from high-content microscopy images and distinguish between different cell morphologies using cell profiling datasets from the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection (i.e. reading on first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 466 para. 1); wherein the prediction of mechanisms of action was performed at subcellular resolution (pg. 468 Fig. 1) showing cytoplasm to nucleus translocation (pg. 2 para. 3).
the computer system including a processor and a storage device storing instructions for execution by the processor, wherein the processor when executing the stored instructions in the storage device to provide one or more trained Al models for one or more known viruses, wherein the processor executes further instructions to use the trained Al model to further provide the functionality of analyzing the captured images to predict viral infectivity based on captured images
• Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (pg. 14 para. 2) of influenza-infected cells and mock-infected cells using only a minimum essential medium and trypsin addition (pg. 14 para. 3) to training of a deep convolutional neural network to recognize the morphological changes induced by virus infection (pg. 11 para. 2-3) with a global learning rate of 0.0001 (i.e. a computer system for training one or more Al models for viral infectivity assays using machine learning for the functionality of analyzing the captured images) (pg. 15 para. 1) wherein the model was established to enhance the identification of influenza virus in clinical practice (i.e. predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images) (pg. 1 Abstract); wherein the model training, model validation, and influenza experiment datasets classified photos into two categories with uninfected MDCK cells labeled as negative samples and cells with cytopathic effects marked as positive samples (pg. 14 para. 2).
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the plate has a plurality of wells
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein fibroblasts were infected with a titer of 400 pfu per 10cm2 (pg. 258 col. para. 1); wherein 24 wells on six-well plates were utilized (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein infected cells measurements were replicated (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 15 recites:
wherein the plate has a range of one to three wells per sample to increase throughput
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein infected cells measurements were replicated (i.e. wherein the plate has a range of one to three wells per sample to increase throughput – here "to increase throughput is identified as intended use and not a requirement) (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 16 recites:
wherein the captured images captured by the imager as one selected from the group of brightfield images, darkfield images, phase contrast images, and differential interference contrast (DIC) images.
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitations above. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 71 recites:
wherein the predicted viral infectivity is based on the stain free infected cells and the stain free uninfected cells in the one or more captured images at one or more predetermined times after infection
• Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (i.e. first device/system for storage of captured images) (pg. 14 para. 2) of influenza-infected cells and mock-infected cells using only a minimum essential medium and trypsin addition (pg. 14 para. 3) to training of a deep convolutional neural network to recognize the morphological changes induced by virus infection (pg. 11 para. 2-3) with a global learning rate of 0.0001 (pg. 15 para. 1) wherein the model was established to enhance the identification of influenza virus in clinical practice (i.e. predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images) (pg. 1 Abstract).
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach one or more captured images at one or more predetermined times after infection. However, Buckingham teaches the study of a viral infection where infected human skin was imaged using brightfield microscopy (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1); wherein fibroblasts were infected with a titer of 400 pfu per 10cm2 (pg. 258 col. para. 1); and cell monolayers were infected at 1:8 infected:uninfected ratio and incubated at 32 °C for 72 h (i.e. predetermined times after infection) (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein six-well plates were utilized (pg. 261 col. 1 para. 3); wherein infected cells measurements were replicated (pg. 257 col. 1 para. 1).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 13-16 and 71, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang and Kensert in view of Buckingham because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would have been to examine conditions of viral infections (pg. 256 para. 1 Buckingham).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang and Kensert to the methods by Buckingham because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
C. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Kensert and Buckingham as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 further in view of Wang as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the one or more captured images are divided up into non-overlapping rectangular tiles with each tile having M pixels by N pixels wherein M is in a range inclusively between thirty-two and a pixel width of the one or more captured images and wherein N is in a range inclusively between thirty-two and a pixel height of the one or more captured images
• Wang teaches that the original size of the photos of 1024x1360 pixels were utilized in the model (pg. 12 para. 4). Here, it is interpreted that the recitation above defines 32 pixels as the lower bound limit for both pixel width and pixel height and defines any upper bound limit for both pixel width and pixel height. Therefore, the 1024x1360 pixels reads on the recited pixel width and pixel height.
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham in view of Wang because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would have been to enhance the identification of influenza virus in clinical practice (pg. 1 Abstract Wang).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham to the methods by Wang because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
D. Claims 8-9 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Kensert and Buckingham as applied to claims 1, 4-7 and 13 further in view of Panchal (“Development of High-Content Imaging Assays for Lethal Viral Pathogens” J. Biomol. Screening 15(7):755-765 (2010)), as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the tiles are prefiltered to reject tiles that are substantially empty of cells; and the cells are not individually isolated
• Neither Wang or Kensert or Buckingham teach the recited limitation above. However, Panchal teaches sta-tistical analysis of single-cell images (i.e. analysis of cell to cell basis) from a minimum of 592 cells (i.e. reading on filtering out images of no-cells or not isolated cells) (pg. 764 col. 1para. 3).
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the one or more captured images are analyzed by the Al model on a cell to cell basis or a tile to tile basis
• Neither Wang or Kensert or Buckingham teach the recited limitation above. However, Panchal teaches the use of imaging assays for identification of virus pathogens (pg. 755 para. 1); and sta-tistical analysis of single-cell images (i.e. analysis of cell to cell basis) from a minimum of 592 cells (pg. 764 col. 1para. 3).
Claim 19 recites:
wherein the imager is a plate imager
Claim 20 recites:
wherein the imager is a microscope
Claim 21 recites:
wherein the imager is an imaging robot that performs robotic microscopy
Claim 22 recites:
further comprising fluid handling robots to process the plates for imaging
• Neither Wang or Kensert or Buckingham teach the recited limitation above. However, Panchal teaches the use of imaging assays for identification of virus pathogens (pg. 755 para. 1); and sta-tistical analysis of single-cell images from a minimum of 592 cells (pg. 764 col. 1para. 3); wherein automated confocal imagery of a 96-well plate is done with a confocal microscopy (pg. 760 Fig. 3) for image-based screens to moni-tor viral infection (i.e. a plate imager as in claim 19 and microscope as in claim 20) with large liquid handling and robotic workstations used to manage viral identification in large well formats (i.e. wherein the imager is an imaging robot that performs robotic microscopy as in claim 21 and fluid handling robots to process the plates for imaging as in claim 22) (pg. 762 col. 2 para. 3).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 8-9 and 19-22, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham in view of Panchal because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would to incorporate analyses of single-cell data to account for heterogeneity in the subcellular localization (pg. 755 para. 1 Panchal).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham to the methods by Panchal because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
E. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Kensert as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Shokr (“Mobile Health (mHealth) Viral Diagnostics Enabled with Adaptive Adversarial Learning” ACS Nano 15:665−673 (2021)) – Published 11/23/2020 as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the known virus stock belongs to the family of coronavirus
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the known virus stock is the SARS-CoV-2 virus
• Neither Wang or Kensert teach the recited limitation above. However, Shokr teaches a system of adversarial neural networks with conditioning to develop an easily reconfigurable virus diagnostic platform via real image dataset (pg. 665 para. 1); wherein viral stocks were obtained from Nasopharyngeal swab samples from COVID-19 patients (pg. 670 col.1 para. 3); wherein the training protocol allowed for detection of HBV, HCV, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses (i.e. known virus stock belongs to the family of coronavirus as in claim 10 - SARS-CoV-2 as in claim 11) (pg. 670 col. 1 para. 2).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 10-11, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang and Kensert in view of Shokr because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would have been to provide a platform based diagnostics that can be adapted to a given emerging viral agent (pg. 665 para. 1 Shokr).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang and Kensert to the methods by Shokr because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
F. Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Kensert and Buckingham as applied to claim 13 above further in view of Shokr as cited on the 10/30/2025 PTO-892 Form. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment
Claim 17 recites:
wherein the virus stock contains virus of the group of coated or uncoated DNA and coated or uncoated RNA
Claim 18 recites:
wherein the virus is SARS CoV-2, an RNA coated virus which is the causative agent of COVID-19
• Neither Wang or Kensert or Buckingham teach the recited limitation above. However, Shokr teaches a system of adversarial neural networks with conditioning to develop an easily reconfigurable virus diagnostic platform via real image dataset (pg. 665 para. 1); wherein viral stocks were obtained from Nasopharyngeal swab samples from COVID-19 patients (pg. 670 col.1 para. 3); wherein the training protocol allowed for detection of HBV, HCV, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses (i.e. SARS CoV-2, an RNA coated virus which is the causative agent of COVID-19 as in claims 17-18) (pg. 670 col. 1 para. 2); wherein the use of specific guide RNA to the nucleic acid target of choice in CRISPR/dCas9 recognition system (pg. 668 col. 2 para. 1) for detection of HBV (i.e. coated DNA virus as in claim 17), HCV, HIV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses (pg. 670 col. 1 para. 2).
Rationale for combining (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 17-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, in the course of routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, the methods of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham in view of Shokr because all references disclose methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells. The motivation would have been to provide a platform based diagnostics that can be adapted to a given emerging viral agent (pg. 665 para. 1 Shokr).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the method for identifying an viral presence in biological cells of Wang, Kensert and Buckingham to the methods by Shokr because such a substitution is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for identifying an viral presence in biological cells.
Response to applicant's remarks in regard to Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. ~ 103
The Remarks of 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 21 para. 2:
In contrast, Wang does not disclose the use of stain free cells. Wang does not disclose whether stained cells or stain free cells are being used. Meanwhile, the stain free properties of Applicant's cells are important, as well as color images as indicated by the useful colors in Applicant's Figures 2A and 2B. In contrast Wang's technology uses grey scale images for analysis, instead of color images.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because Wang teaches the use of images collected with the Olympus IX71 microscope (pg. 14 para. 2) of influenza-infected cells and mock-infected cells using only a minimum essential medium and trypsin addition (i.e. reading on stain free cells) (pg. 14 para. 3). Furthermore, the argument regarding colored images is not persuasive because the instant claims do not require colored images.
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 22 para. 1:
Wang effectively teaches away from using images that cannot be analyzed by human eyesight. In other words, Wang's technology relies on the ability to analyze images via human eyesight. Accordingly, the Office Action cannot properly combine Wang with Kensert to teach this claim limitation. Further, Wang's disclosure of a cytopathic effect (CPE) is a morphological change in a cell due the virus. According to Wiki, "Many CF Es can be seen in unfixed, unstained cells under the low power of an optical microscope. However, with some CPEs, namely inclusion bodies, the cells must be fixed and stained then viewed under light microscopy."
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because the combinations of all references do not teach away from using images that cannot be analyzed by human eyesight. The Applicant seems to be arguing teachings not addressed by Wang without addressing the teachings based on the Wang and Kensert combination of references for at least claim 1. "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references" (MPEP 2145 § IV). This argument is unpersuasive, because it analyzes the teachings of the references separately and independently, whereas the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. Despite the fact that Wang does not teach the recited captures images at subcellular resolution, Kensert teaches the application of trained deep convolutional neural networks for the quantification and identification of cellular phenotypes from high-content microscopy images (and distinguish between different cell morphologies using cell profiling datasets from the Broad Bioimage Benchmark Collection (pg. 466 para. 1); wherein the prediction of mechanisms of action was performed at subcellular resolution (pg. 468 Fig. 1) showing cytoplasm to nucleus translocation (pg. 2 para. 3).
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 22 para. 5:
However, Wang does not disclose a computer system coupled to an imager. Although, Wang recites a microscope, Wang does not indicate that the microscope is coupled to a computer system. Applicant's Claim 13 is an artificial intelligence (AI) system that is server-based and can remotely connect to imagers in order to receive images
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because the recited " a computer system coupled in communication with the imager" (claim 13 only) is addressed by the prior art to Buckingham as described in the Claim Rejections. Buckingham teaches that confocal microscopy images were analyzed using ImageJ (i.e. a visualization and analysis software program widely used while on a computer connected to a microscope) (pg. 258 Fig. 4).
"The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law" See MPEP 2144.I Therefore the step of using "Al models to predict viral infectivity based on the one or more captured images" is well known in the art and thus accepted as a rational to combine the teachings in the prior art.
Applicant asserts starting in pg. 23 para. 2:
Further, regarding dependent Claim 3, Wang does not provide a user interface with a visual representation of each tile in a color photo and the identified infected cells. (See Applicant's Figures 4A-4B, which are currently in color.) Wang's FIG. 1 shows a 200um reference line. So, each photo is about 1600um along x-axis and 1200um along the y-axis. Wang's photos in Figure 1 (A-D) are effectively shown in grey scale and at different multiplicities of infection (MO Is). Note that, in evaluating CPE over time, Wang uses 16 hour, 28 hour, and 40 hour post virus infection for recognition rates of 71.80, 98.25, 87.46 percentages respectively. Wang seems to have the same goal as the present invention - "we aimed to utilize convolutional neural networks (CNN) to shorten the timing required for CPE identification and to improve the assay sensitivity." (Wang Abstract) To accomplish this goal, Wang used MDCK cells. …Regarding dependent Claim 7, Wang did not tile the images to M by N pixels less than the overall photograph. (See Applicant's Figure SD.) The linear range in Applicant's Figure SE is important for evaluating infectivity. Classification can be made within hours instead of days. Wang uses 16 hours for one percentage, but typically Wang uses days to determine percent
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive because the argument regarding claim 3 and colored images is not persuasive because the instant claims do not require colored images. Furthermore, the argument regarding claim 7 and tiling images to M by N pixels less than the overall photograph is not persuasive because the instant claims do not require regarding tiling images to M by N pixels less than the overall photograph. The same applies for the amount of time taken for classifying data.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. 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.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights