DETAILED ACTION
Comments
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 (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.
Claims 1-19 are pending and examined in the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
In claim 19, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the number of outputs being a natural number when the number of classes is not a power of two. For example, in the instance where there are three classes, since log2(3) is not a whole number, the number of outputs is not a natural number.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
While the claims recite judicial exceptions, the claims are subject matter eligible because the limitations of the claims result in the practical application of a more computationally efficient manner of flow cytometry signal processing by accounting for noise in the signals.
The claims are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach classification, comprising two sequential stages of machine learning wherein in the first stage, the detector classifies an impulse candidate as impulse or non-impulse, and wherein in the second stage, the pulses are further classified as either associated with a biological target or with a cluster of particles.
The closest prior art of Soares et al. [IEEE 6th Portuguese Meeting on Bioengineering, 18 April 2019, 4 pages; on attached 892 form] studies an analytical strategy for magnetic flow cytometry signals classification [title], Soares et al. teaches a computer algorithm for classifying flow cytometry peaks as to belonging to clusters or signal particles. Soares et al. does not teach that this classification involves machine learning, let alone two sequential stages of machine learning.
While the prior art of Jalali et al. [US PGPUB 2018/0286038 A1; on attached 892 form] teaches deep learning in label-free cell classification and machine vision extraction of particles [title], Figure 5 and paragraphs 76-78 of Jalali et al. teach machine learning to analyze the properties of flow cytometry particles. Jalali et al. does not teach machine learning for the purpose of classifying pulses and/or classifying peaks as being associated with single particles or clusters of particles. In addition, Jalali et al. does not teach two machine learning algorithms (one machine learning algorithm for the former and a second machine learning algorithm for the latter) conducted in series.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Russell Negin, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1083. This Examiner can normally be reached from Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 3 pm and variable hours on Fridays.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Larry Riggs, Supervisory Patent Examiner, can be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/RUSSELL S NEGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1686 25 December 2025
Prosecution Insights