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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/166,204 filed on 3/25/2021. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is 3/25/2021.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 7/5/2022 and 10/4/2022 have been entered and considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 forms have been included with this Office action. However, the information disclosure statement filed 7/5/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, there are 2 NPL in the file wrapper associated with this IDS that are not on the IDS form. Both have "Research Letter" at the top left, with no author or publisher/journal identified. They both seem to be from the same document. One is 4 pages and has "Extended Data Fig. 7" on the first page, the other is 3 pages and has "Extended Data Fig. 10" on the first page. Applicant is required to list all provided NPL attached to the application on an IDS form if they wish it to be considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of the Abstract, "A method of method of spatial" should read "A method of spatial".
In para.0062 of the Specification, based on the preceding context: line 1, "Once the distance values for each code word are calculated for a given pixel" should read "Once the distance values for each code word are calculated for a given pixel word"; and lines 4-5, "and the pixel is tagged as expressing the gene" should read "and the pixel word is tagged as expressing the gene".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 17-18 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, "a count of matches of pixels words" should read "a count of matches of pixel words". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 objected to because based on claims 14 and 15 (15 depending from claim 14 instead of 9), claim 22 should depend from claim 21, not 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 9, 14-16, and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite "the plurality of code words include a plurality of gene-identifying code words and a plurality of negative control code words" and "the plurality of negative control code words have an equal number of on-values". It is unclear what "negative control code words" and "on-values" are meant to represent in the pixel codebook or how they are meant to function. To further prosecution, "negative control code words" are interpreted as a reference word within the codebook for matching the "generated pixel word" against, and "on-values" are interpreted as being represented by a 1 within the framework of bit values of 0 or 1, and also encompassing their description in the instant specification in para.0021 "An advantageous approach to creating the set of negative control code words includes a two-step process: creating code words in which each code word contains a known number of on-value bits (e.g., 1s); and creating code words with a uniform distribution of on-bits across all column positions".
Claims 14-15 and 21-22 recite "the Hamming distance between any two code words of the plurality of code words is equal" and "the Hamming distance is equal to 4". There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the Hamming distance" in the claim. To further prosecution, a Hamming distance is interpreted as the method used in the following step from claim 9: "compare the pixel word for the pixel to a codebook including a plurality of code words and identifying a closest matching code word of the plurality of code words to the pixel word, each code word represented by a sequence of N bits", the "closest match" being the code word with the smallest Hamming distance.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 11-12, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 2, “The method of claim 2, wherein N is 16” does not contain a reference to a previous claim. To further prosecution, Claim 2 is interpreted as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, “The system of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to, for each gene-identifying code word, calculate a count []” does not contain a reference to a previous claim. To further prosecution, Claim 11 is interpreted as depending from claim 9.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, these claims do not further limit claim 9 or 16 from which they depend, respectively. The independent claims already describe that the sequence of intensity values correspond to the images from which they are derived (claims 9 and 16 recite "for each pixel of a plurality of pixels registered across the plurality of images, generating a pixel word from intensity values of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the plurality of images, each pixel word represented by a sequence of N intensity values").
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 1, 9, and 16: “comparing the pixel word for the pixel to a codebook including a plurality of code words and identifying a closest matching code word of the plurality of code words to the pixel word” provides a comparison and evaluation (comparing data and identifying a match) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
“determining a gene or error associated with the closest matching code word” provides an evaluation (determining a best match) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 3: “determining a confidence threshold” provides an evaluation (determining a threshold) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claims 4, 10, and 17: “calculating a count of matches of pixel words to the negative control word” provides a mathematical calculation (calculating a number of matching counts) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Claims 5, 11, and 18: “calculating a count of matches of pixels words to the gene-identifying code word” provides a mathematical calculation (calculating a number of matching counts) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 7: “calculating a confidence value based on distances between the code word and the pixel words for which the code word is identified as the closest matching code word” provides a mathematical calculation (calculating a confidence value) that is considered a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Additionally, while claims 16-22 recite performing some aspects of the analysis on a “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which, when executed by one or computers, causes the one or computers to”, there are no additional limitations that indicate that this requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental processes or mathematical concepts in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1-22 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1, 9, and 16: “receiving a plurality of images of a sample” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (receiving data is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
“generating a pixel word from intensity values of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the plurality of images” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (generating data is a pre-solution activity involving data manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
“storing an association of the pixel with the gene or error” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (storing data is a post-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claims 4, 10, and 17: “generating a plurality of counts of matches, and selecting a largest count from the plurality of counts of matches as the confidence threshold” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (generating and selecting data are post-solution activities involving data gathering and manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 6, 11, and 18: “storing an association of the pixel with the gene-identifying code word” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (storing data is a post-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 9: “a flow cell to contain a sample to be exposed to fluorescent probes in a reagent; a plurality of reagent reservoirs, each reagent reservoir including a container to hold a liquid reagent; a valve system to control flow from one of a plurality of reagent reservoirs to the flow cell; a pressure source to urge the liquid reagent to flow through the flow cell; a fluorescence microscope including a variable frequency excitation light source and a camera positioned to receive fluorescently emitted light from the sample” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (holding a sample and exposing it to reagents, controlling reagent flow, and receiving light from a sample are pre-solution activities involving sample manipulation and data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 16: “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which, when executed by one or computers, causes the one or computers to” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (running instructions on generic computer components) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The steps for receiving, generating, selecting, and storing data; holding a sample and exposing it to reagents, controlling reagent flow, and receiving light from a sample are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering, data manipulation, and sample manipulation steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations regarding implementing program instructions do not indicate that they require anything other than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. As such, this limitation equates to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, claims 1-22 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
As discussed above, there are no additional elements to indicate that the claimed “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, which, when executed by one or computers, causes the one or computers to” requires 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. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. Additionally, the limitations for receiving, generating, selecting, and storing data; holding a sample and exposing it to reagents, controlling reagent flow, and receiving light from a sample are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, as evidenced by a 2020 review article (Schueder et al. "DNA‐barcoded fluorescence microscopy for spatial omics." Proteomics 20.23 (2020): 1900368) the system described is also well-understood, routine, and conventional: page 6 col 1 paragraph 2 "Instead of imaging all probes at once, the hybridized complements are displaced after a single imaging round by DNAse I treatment and the next subset of probes is hybridized. This introduces a sequential imaging pattern (SeqFISH), in which the target is encoded by “positive” and “negative” readouts, a binary code (Figure 3d). These codes can then be visualized in a codebook, showing either all readout rounds (“positive” or “negative”) or only the “positive,” so called “barcoding” rounds. With this approach, it is possible to image FN probes with F being the number of different fluorophores in a single round and N the total number of barcoding rounds (exemplary data, Figure 3e). By replacing the fixed dye on the FISH probes with a single-stranded overhang, a secondary, dye-labeled complement can be hybridized, furthermore decoupling the “positive” readout signal from spectral colors as in Exchange-PAINT and Universal Exchange. When operating in densely populated environments, image correlation can be combined with the barcoding system to yield quantification even without single spot resolution" and page 6 col 2 last paragraph "Zooming out, technology development on the side of spatial transcriptomics and genomics using fluorescence microscopy has yielded impressive advancements in the past years, now allowing to spatially visualize hundreds to thousands of nucleic acid species simultaneously in a single cell".
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang et al. (US-20170220733).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 12, 16, and 19, Zhuang teaches receiving a plurality of images of a sample from an mFISH imaging system (Para.0148 "This can be achieved using methods for highly multiplexed smFISH via the sequential hybridization of orthogonal detection probes and super-resolution imaging, reducing the cost of probe synthesis, and the development of a highly automated system to minimize demands on the user, as discussed herein. This provides an integrated platform to handle the bioinformatics of probe design, the mathematics of error-correcting codes, the complexity of image registration and analysis, and the cumbersome fluid handling through a simple suite of user friendly interfaces. This integration allows easy operation with limited user training and facilitates the rapid collection of data").
Zhuang also teaches for each pixel of a plurality of pixels registered across the plurality of images, generating a pixel word from intensity values of each pixel of the plurality of pixels of the plurality of images, each pixel word represented by a sequence of N intensity values (Para.0185 "FIG. 2A shows a STORM image of a cell. FIG. 2B shows a zoom in of the boxed region in FIG. 2A. Each dot indicates a localization. Localizations from different rounds of imaging are shown differently. FIG. 2C shows a representative cluster of localizations from the boxed region in FIG. 2B. The cluster shows localization signals from 4 different hybridizations. This cluster is a putative mRNA encoded with codeword [0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0]. FIG. 2D shows a reconstructed cell image of 14 genes after decoding and error correction. Each gene is shown differently. FIG. 2E shows measured gene expression for the 14 genes from the cell. FIG. 2F shows a comparison of transcript count with ensemble RNA-sequencing data. FIG. 2G shows correlation of transcript expression level between two cells detected using the described approach").
Zhuang also teaches comparing the pixel word for the pixel to a codebook including a plurality of code words and identifying a closest matching code word of the plurality of code words to the pixel word, each code word represented by a sequence of N bits, wherein the plurality of code words include a plurality of gene-identifying code words and a plurality of negative control code words, wherein the plurality of negative control code words have an equal number of on-values, and wherein on-values of the plurality of negative control code words are evenly distributed across the N bits such that each ordinal position in the sequence of N bits has a same total number of on-bits from the plurality of negative control code words (Para.0109 "Accordingly, in some embodiments, once the codeword is determined (e.g., as discussed herein), the codeword may be compared to the known nucleic acid codewords. If a match is found, then the nucleic acid target can be identified or determined. If no match is found, then an error in the reading of the codeword may be identified" and Para.0063 "It should also be understood that all possible codewords in a code need not be used in some cases. For example, in some embodiments, codewords that are not used can serve as negative controls" and para.0192 "To further account for the fact that it is more likely to miss a hybridization event (an 1-->0 error) than to misidentify a background spot as an RNA (an 0-->1 error) in smFISH measurements, a modified HD4 (MHD4) code was designed, in which the number of ‘1’ bits were kept both constant and relatively low, only four per word, to reduce error and avoid biased detection").
Zhuang also teaches determining a gene or error associated with the closest matching code word, and storing an association of the pixel with the gene or error (Para.0014 "the method comprises acts of associating a plurality of targets with a plurality of target sequences and a plurality of codewords, wherein the codewords comprise a number of positions and values for each position, and the codewords form an error-checking and/or error-correcting code space; associating a plurality of distinguishable read sequences with the plurality of codewords such that each distinguishable read sequence represents a value of a position within the codewords; and forming a plurality of nucleic acid probes, each comprising a target sequence and one or more read sequences").
While the claims are not identical, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Zhuang in order to reduce error and avoid biased detection (para.0192 "To further account for the fact that it is more likely to miss a hybridization event (an 1-->0 error) than to misidentify a background spot as an RNA (an 0-->1 error) in smFISH measurements, a modified HD4 (MHD4) code was designed, in which the number of ‘1’ bits were kept both constant and relatively low, only four per word, to reduce error and avoid biased detection). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both approaches are using codebooks to match and identify gene targets from mFISH or similar image data.
Regarding claim 2, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claim 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches that N is 16 (Para.0199 "This example illustrates the measurement of 140 genes with MERFISH using a 16-bit MHD4 Code").
Regarding claims 3-4, 10, and 17, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claims 1, 9, and 16 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches determining the confidence threshold comprises, for each negative control code word, calculating a count of matches of pixel words to the negative control word, thus generating a plurality of counts of matches, and selecting a largest count from the plurality of counts of matches as the confidence threshold (Para.0112 "In addition, in some embodiments, a confidence level for the identified nucleic acid target may be determined. For example, the confidence level may be determined using a ratio of the number of exact matches to the number of matches having one or more one-bit errors. In some cases, only matches having a confidence ratio greater than a certain value may be used. For instance, in certain embodiments, matches may be accepted only if the confidence ratio for the match is greater than about 0.01, [etc]" and "In addition, in some embodiments, matches may be accepted only if the confidence ratio for the identified nucleic acid target is greater than an internal standard or false positive control").
Regarding claims 5-6, 11, and 18, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claims 3, 9, and 17 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches for each gene-identifying code word, calculating a count of matches of pixel words to the gene-identifying code word and for each gene-identifying code word having a count of matches greater than the confidence threshold and each pixel word for which the closest matching code word is the gene-identifying code word, storing an association of the pixel word with the gene-identifying code word (Para.0014 "the method comprises acts of associating a plurality of targets with a plurality of target sequences and a plurality of codewords, wherein the codewords comprise a number of positions and values for each position, and the codewords form an error-checking and/or error-correcting code space; associating a plurality of distinguishable read sequences with the plurality of codewords such that each distinguishable read sequence represents a value of a position within the codewords; and forming a plurality of nucleic acid probes, each comprising a target sequence and one or more read sequences").
Regarding claim 7, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claim 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches for each code word of the plurality of code words, calculating a confidence value based on distances between the code word and the pixel words for which the code word is identified as the closest matching code word (Para.0150 "For a Hamming distance larger than 2, it is also possible to correct some errors, as codewords with one error will be closest in Hamming distance to a single, unique codeword. The total number of different RNAs to be detected from the transcriptome and the amount of error correction desired determines the length of the codewords. Information theory provides several efficient algorithms for assembling error-correcting binary codebooks").
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 20, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claims 1, 9, and 16 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches the plurality of negative control code words comprises between 5% and 25% of the codebook (Para.0199 "To test the feasibility of this error-robust, multiplexed imaging approach, this example uses a 140-gene measurement on human fibroblast cells (IMR90) using a 16-bit MHD4 code to encode 130 RNA species while leaving 10 code words as misidentification controls (FIG. 20)", 10 negative control words out of 140 total words is approximately 9%).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claims 9 and 16 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches the Hamming distance between any two code words of the plurality of code words is equal (Para.0161 "Codebook Design. Each mRNA in the target set was assigned a binary codeword using a Single Error Correction Double Error Detection (SECDED) code. SECDED is an extended Hamming codebook with an additional parity bit. Briefly, Matlab's Communications System toolbox was used to generate SECDED codes of either 8 or 16 letters or positions. In both cases, only those codewords containing four is were used", enforcing that all codewords in the codebook contain exactly 4 on-bits implies the Hamming distance between any two words is equal).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Zhuang teaches the methods of Claims 14 and 16 (or 21, see claim objections) on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhuang also teaches the Hamming distance is equal to 4 (Para.0107 "For example, in one set of embodiments, the codewords or nucleic acid probes may be assigned within a code space such that the assignments are separated by a Hamming distance, which measures the number of incorrect “reads” in a given pattern that cause the nucleic acid probe to be misinterpreted as a different valid nucleic acid probe. In certain cases, the Hamming distance may be at least 2, at least 3, at least 4, at least 5, at least 6, or the like" and para.0192 "To address this challenge, error-robust encoding schemes were designed, in which only a subset of the 2.sup.N-1 words separated by a certain Hamming distance were used to encode RNAs. In a codebook where the minimum Hamming distance is 4 (HD4 code), at least four bits must be read incorrectly to change one code word into another (FIG. 12A)").
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is 571-272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at 571-270-3062. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686