DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II drawn to claims 7-14, filed 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 7-14 are under examination. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are withdrawn.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/161,500, filed March 16, 2021.
Drawings
The drawings filed 03/16/2022 are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 10/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
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 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-56.
Guidance Step 1:
The instant invention (claim 7 being representative) is directed to system that performs a series of processes. Thus, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. MPEP 2106.03.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Regarding claim(s) 1, the claimed steps that are part of the abstract idea are as follows:
an NPQ correction management module configured to receive input data;
an NPQ correction circuitry configured to receive input NPQ data and to generate an estimated NPQ correction factor based, at least in part, on the input NPQ data, the input NPQ data comprising daytime chlorophyll a fluorescence (Fchl) data and selected environmental data, the estimated NPQ correction factor configured to at least reduce an effect of NPQ on the daytime Fchl data.
Mental Processes
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above italicized steps amount to observing data and performing calculations (e.g. a correction factor) based on said data. Notably, claims do not impose any boundaries on how the italicized functions are actually being achieved. In addition, the instant specification describes mathematical models/algorithms associated with at least some of the claimed functions [see, e.g. page 2]. As such, the specification provides sufficient evidence that the claims are directed to an abstract idea since the specific descriptions provided for accomplishing these tasks include only data reception and analysis. Accordingly, but for the recitation of a processor, module, and circuitry, the above steps clearly fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional steps/elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception are as follows:
a computing device comprising a processor, a memory, an input/output circuitry, and a data store; “correction…module”; “correction circuitry”
In this case, each of the above elements are recited at a high of generality (without any details regarding structure) and are interpreted as generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea and/or merely indicate instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, these additional elements fail to add an inventive concept to the claims. Moreover, applicant is reminded that “generic computer components such as a computer and database do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.” See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Therefore, the additionally recited steps/elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional steps/elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) for a list of considerations when evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO].
C. Guidance Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, the non-abstract steps/elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the courts have explained that the use of generic computer elements do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See DDR Holdings (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, even upon reconsideration, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II). Thus, the independent claim(s) as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. [Step 2B: NO].
D. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 8-14 have also been considered under the two-part analysis but do not include additional steps/elements appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) for the following reasons. In particular, claims 8-14 are entirely directed to limitations that further limit the specificity of the abstract idea or the type of data being used by the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea for the reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 1, analysis). Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101- Lack of Utility
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
For an invention to be “useful” it must satisfy the utility requirement of section 101. The USPTO’s official interpretation of the utility requirement provides that the utility of an invention has to be (i) specific, (ii) substantial and (iii) credible. See MPEP § 2107 and Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1372, 76 USPQ2d at 1230.
In this case, as discussed above, the claimed system results in “an NPQ correction circuitry configured to receive input NPQ data and to generate an estimated NPQ correction factor based, at least in part, on the input NPQ data, the input NPQ data comprising daytime chlorophyll a fluorescence (Fchl) data and selected environmental data, the estimated NPQ correction factor configured to at least reduce an effect of NPQ on the daytime Fchl data. However, while the preamble suggests an intended use of “correcting NPQ” the claimed “correction factor” is not actually associated with any particular real-world context of use, i.e. the claim merely results in calculating a number. As such, the claimed invention would require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a "real world" context of use and therefore does not define "substantial utilities". It is noted that the specification does teach that “In vivo fluorometers use chlorophyll a fluorescence (Fchl) as a proxy to monitor phytoplankton biomass” and that “fluorescence yield of Feh is affected by photoprotection processes triggered by increased irradiance (nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ)), creating diurnal reductions in Feh that may be mistaken for phytoplankton biomass reductions, and thus error in assessing an amount of phytoplankton biomass present in a body of water (e.g., lake or reservoir)” [Background]. However, such limitations are not commensurate in scope with what is being claimed. Therefore, the claimed invention is broader than the disclosure such that it does not require a practical application. For the above reasons, the claimed invention is not supported by a specific and/or substantial utility.
Claims 7-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, since the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific, substantial, and credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. [See MPEP 2106.02].
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph
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 7-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 7 are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claim 7 is directed to a “machine learning system for correcting nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ)”. However, the instant claims do not recite any limitations directed to “machine learning” or recite any particular limitations that could be reasonably construed as machine learning steps. Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps/elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. A review of the specification teaches limitations directed to “training” and machine learning algorithms [pages 2-4] and “training modules” [Figure 1] and suggest that the input NPQ data can be “training and/or actual” data [page 5, ¶2]. Accordingly, the omitted steps/elements appear to be directed to model “training”, obtaining “training” data, and/or performing comparative analysis between the training data and test/experimental data.
Claim 7 recites “a data store”. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of a “data store”. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition for this term that would serve to provide a discernable boundary on the intended structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Clarification is requested via amendment. For purposes of examination, this term is interpreted to mean a database.
Claim 7 recites “an NPQ correction management module configured to receive input data”. Firstly, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of “an NPQ correction management module”. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition for this term that would serve to provide a discernable boundary on the intended structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Clarification is requested via amendment. For purposes of examination, this term is broadly interpreted to mean “program”. Secondly, there is no structural or functional relationship between the claimed “module” and any of the other elements of the claimed system (e.g. processing , memory, input/output circuitry, and data store). As a result, it is unclear as to what (or who) the module is actually receiving input data from. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 7 recites “an NPQ correction circuitry configured to receive input NPQ data and to generate an estimated NPQ correction factor”. Firstly, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of “an NPQ circuitry”. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition for this term that would serve to provide a discernable boundary on the intended structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Clarification is requested via amendment. Secondly, there is no structural or functional relationship between the claimed “circuitry” and any of the other elements of the claimed system (e.g. processing , memory, input/output circuitry, and data store), i.e. claimed circuitry is not associated with or embodied on a specific machine. As a result, it is unclear in what way the above circuitry is “configured” to achieve the claimed functions. Moreover, a review of the specification does not describe, to any appreciable extent, any algorithm or computational operations that correspond to the claimed functions. In fact, the specification confusingly teaches an embodiment wherein the “circuitry” corresponds to an algorithm (random forest regression) [page 2] and “circuitry parameters” [Figure 1], which are clearly not structural limitations. Therefore, the the claim fails to clarify the boundaries of the mathematical/computational operations performed by the claimed “circuitry” such that the artisan would know how to avoid infringement. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 7 recites “the estimated NPQ correction factor configured to at least reduce an effect of NPQ on the daytime Fchl data.” In this case, it is unclear in what is meant by “configured to at least reduce an effect of NPQ on the daytime Fchl data”. This phrase amounts to an intended use of the correction factor (i.e. a number). Applicant is reminded that no patentable distinction (i.e. no limit on the claim scope) is made by an intended use or result recitation unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim. Therefore it is unclear what positive process limitation is intended by the above italicized phrase, i.e. in what way does a number “reduce an effect” of NPQ on additional data. A review of the specification does not describe, to any appreciable extent, any algorithm or computational operations that correspond to the claimed function. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 13 recites “the training comprising comparing the estimated NPQ correction factor and the target NPQ correction factor.” In this case, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the training…” because there are no previously recited steps directed to training. Notably, claim 8 recites “input data comprising training data” but this does not provide support for an positive step of “training” as recited in claim 13. As a result, it is also unclear in what way the above phrase further limits the subject matter of parent claims 1 and 8. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the NPQ correction management module is configured to adjust at least one correction circuitry parameter to minimize a difference between the estimated NPQ correction factor and the target NPQ correction factor.” It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed “correction circuitry parameter”. A review of the specification generates discloses a “circuitry parameter” [Figure 1] but does not provide any limiting definition for this term that would serve to clarify the scope. The specification does disclose an equation for determining NPQ% that includes various parameters [page 5]. However, this is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “correction management module” and “correction circuitry”. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucius et al. (Thomalla et al. (Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods, September 2020, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp. 477-494).
For purposes of examination, the claimed invention is broadly interpreted as being directed to a system comprising a processor, memory, input/output circuitry, a database, and program instructions that cause the system to perform the following operations: receiving input data; receiving data associated with daytime chlorophyll a fluorescence (Fchl); receiving environmental data; and generating a correction factor based on the above data.
Lucius teaches a method of using machine learning to correct for nonphotochemical quenching in high-frequency, in vivo fluorometer data. It is noted that the cited prior art reference shares a common inventor but is a different inventive entity.
Regarding claim(s) 7, Lucius teaches providing a random forest model (i.e. module) configured to receiving a plurality of different data inputs, e.g. raw Fchl, Et, depth, numerical month of the year, water temperature, 1-h rolling average of Et, DO saturation, and solar azimuth angle [pp. 481, col. 1, ¶3, pp.482, col. 2 “Model Training”], which broadly reads on an NPQ correction management module given the breadth of what is claimed and since the model is configured to receive input data.
Lucius teaches obtaining daytime chlorophyll a fluorescence data (Fchl) and depth data (i.e. environmental data) [pp. 481, col. 1 “Data Cleaning”], which broadly reads on receiving NPQ data as claimed. Lucius additionally teaches generating a percent adjustment parameter (NPQ%) that is mathematically expressed as a function of the above parameters (i.e. Fchl z (sensor output), R, and depth) and using the model for predicting NPQ and correcting Fchl profiles [pp.481, Col. 2, Figures 5-8, Abstract], which reads on an estimated NPQ correction factor given the breadth of what is claimed.
With regards to the claimed processor, memory, input/output circuitry, and data store, Lucius does not specifically teach these limitations. However, Lucius makes obvious these features by teaching software (e.g. Python) for performing analysis [pp. 481, col. 1, “model development” and “data cleaning”] and because they are clearly using a suitably programmed computer to perform the above calculations. With regards to the “correction circuitry”, Lucius does not specifically teach this limitation. However, Lucius makes obvious this feature by teaching a mathematical algorithm that performs “correction” and because they are clearly using a suitably programmed computer to perform the calculations.
Regarding claim(s) 8, 9, Lucius teaches the input data of the random forest model (i.e. module) includes training data and reference Fchl data [abstract] as well as data obtained during day and night [Figure 1]. Regarding claim(s) 10, Lucius teaches obtaining a plurality of different types of environmental data including solar radiation, water temperature, depth, and dissolved oxygen saturation [Abstract]. Regarding claim(s) 11, Lucius teaches preprocessing the NPQ data view conventional methods [pp.481, col. 1, “Data Cleaning”]. Regarding claim(s) 12, Lucius teaches determining a percent adjustment parameter related to NPQ (i.e. NPQ%), as set forth above. Regarding claim(s) 13, Lucius teaches the NPQ% can be considered the estimated percent difference between a nighttime reference value (unaffected by NPQ) and daytime fluorescence value (reduced due to NPQ), which broadly reads on generating a target NPQ correction factor as claimed. Regarding claim(s) 14, Lucius teaches generating a scatter plot of estimated NPQ% and predicted (i.e. target) NPQ% [Figure 4], which broadly reads on a target NPQ correction factor based comparing an estimated and target NPQ correction factor.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Serra et al. (Photochemistry and Photobiology, 2009, 85: 321–331), teaches methods for evaluating the effect of NPQ processes on the fluorometric determination of in vivo Chl a from a phytoplankton community [Abstract]. In particular, Serra teaches obtaining fluorescence measurement data associated with chlorophyll from probes as well as HPLC analysis data [page 323, col. 1], which broadly reads on receiving input data (absent any limiting definition to the contrary). Serra teaches obtaining fluorescence profiles for the in vivo (Fbbe) and in vitro Chl a concentrations measured over time [page 325, col. 1, and Figure 4].
Thomalla et al. (Limnol. Oceanogr.: Methods, 16, 2018, 132–144), teaches an optimized method for correcting fluorescence quenching using optical backscattering on autonomous platforms. In particular, Thomalla provides a review of a plurality of different computational methods used to correct for fluorescence quenching (i.e. NPQ) [pp.134, col. 2, pp. 135, col. 1, pp. 136], wherein each of the methods is associated with equations (i.e. modules) configured to receive input data associated with chlorophyll a fluorescence during night and day, backscatter, and depth [Table 1].
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619