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 Application
This second action on the merits is NON-FINAL because it contains a new ground of rejection (see 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below) that was neither necessitated by Applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement.
Status of Claims
In the amendments filed November 6, 2025, claims 1-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination and are considered on the merits below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed November 6, 2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1-6, 8, 13-15, and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed November 6, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's argument filed November 6, 2025 regarding Tsuji failing to disclose an information processing unit configured to generate differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Tsuji discloses processing unit 10A, 10B which generates differential data (e.g., data generated when the processing unit compares, i.e., calculates a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule) based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals (whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities and therefore the difference is between similar fluorescent signals among a plurality of fluorescent signals) (Tsuji, ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0080], [0085]-[0089], [0091], and [0110]; Figs. 9-10).
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: the limitation “a difference calculation unit configured to that calculate…” (emphasis added) contains a typographical error. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons discussed below (see Subject Matter Eligibility Test in MPEP 2106).
Eligibility Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system/machine.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of an information processing unit configured to generate differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals (generating differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals… is a mathematical calculation and hence falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas).
Eligibility Step 2A Prong 2: The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application. Other than the abstract idea, claim 1 recites an excitation light source, a measurement unit, and an information processing unit. With respect to the excitation light source and the measurement unit, such limitations represent insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering). With respect to the information processing unit, it is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Thus, there is no application of the abstract idea much less a particular practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B: Claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). As discussed above, the excitation light source and the measurement unit are considered insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering), and the information processing unit is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the excitation light source, the measurement unit, and the information processing unit, alone and in combination within claim 1 as a whole, are well understood, routine and conventional activities within the prior art (see Tsuji as it is applied to claim 1 below).
Dependent claims 2-18 do not resolve any of the issues discussed above because they involve insignificant extra-solution activity and/or abstract ideas in the form of mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons discussed below (see Subject Matter Eligibility Test in MPEP 2106).
Eligibility Step 1: Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus/machine.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 19 recites the abstract idea of a difference calculation unit configured to that calculate a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals based on fluorescence generated by irradiating a respective plurality of samples belonging to a sample group with excitation light (calculating a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals based on fluorescence generated by… is a mathematical calculation and hence falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas).
Eligibility Step 2A Prong 2: The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application. Other than the abstract idea, claim 19 recites a compression unit configured to compress the difference. This limitation simply represents insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data manipulation). Furthermore, the compression unit is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Thus, there is no application of the abstract idea much less a particular practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B: Claim 19 does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). As discussed above, the compression unit is considered insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data manipulation), and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the compression unit, alone and in combination within claim 19 as a whole, is well understood, routine and conventional activities within the prior art (see Tsuji in view of Martens as applied to claim 19)
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons discussed below (see Subject Matter Eligibility Test in MPEP 2106).
Eligibility Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to a method/process.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1: Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of calculating a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals based on fluorescence generated by irradiating a respective plurality of samples belonging to a sample group with excitation light (calculating a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals based on fluorescence generated by… is a mathematical calculation and hence falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas).
Eligibility Step 2A Prong 2: The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application. Other than the abstract idea, claim 20 recites a step of compressing the difference. This limitation simply represents insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data manipulation). Furthermore, a step of compressing is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Thus, there is no application of the abstract idea much less a particular practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B: Claim 20 does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). As discussed above, the step of compressing the difference is considered insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., mere data manipulation), and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the step of compressing the difference, alone and in combination within claim 20 as a whole, is well understood, routine and conventional activities within the prior art (see Tsuji in view of Martens as applied to claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuji (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0360910, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses an information processing system (cell analysis system 1000; ¶ [0066]; Fig. 2) comprising:
an excitation light source (light sources 201 and 224; ¶ [0102]; Fig. 12) configured to irradiate a plurality of samples belonging to a sample group with excitation light (wherein light sources 201 and 224 irradiate a plurality of samples belonging to a sample group, e.g., cells in a measurement sample group, with excitation light; ¶¶ [0102]-[0104]);
a measurement unit (light receiving elements 200A to 200F; ¶ [0102]; Fig. 12) configured to measure fluorescence generated by irradiation of the plurality of samples with the excitation light to obtain a plurality of fluorescence signals corresponding to the plurality of samples (wherein light receiving elements 200A to 200F detect optical information, e.g., fluorescence, generated by irradiation of the light derived from the cells; ¶¶ [0102]-[0104]); and
an information processing unit (processing unit 10A, 10B that includes a CPU, central processing unit, 11 to perform data processing; ¶¶ [0019], [0069]-[0071], and [0120]; Figs. 3 and 14) configured to generate differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B generates differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals, e.g., data generated when the processing unit compares, i.e., calculates a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0080], [0085]-[0089], [0091], and [0110]; Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein the information processing unit is configured to set, as the similar fluorescence signals, a combination having a smallest calculated difference among combinations of two fluorescence signals selected from the plurality of fluorescence signals (see ¶¶ [0085]-[0089]; Fig. 9)).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein the information processing unit determines the similar fluorescence signals using at least one of a Euclidean distance and cosine similarity (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B, via a CPU (central processing unit) 11 that performs data processing, is capable of determining the similar fluorescence signals using at least one of a Euclidean distance and cosine similarity; ¶ [0069]) (Examiner’s Note — a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein the differential data includes first information for specifying a combination of the similar fluorescence signals used to calculate the difference (wherein the differential data, e.g., data generated when the processing unit compares, i.e., calculates a difference/differential between, includes first information, e.g., fluorescent intensity values, for specifying a combination of the similar fluorescence signals used to calculate the difference; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0080], [0085]-[0089], [0091]; Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 7 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein, when a fluorescence signal similar to a first fluorescence signal of the plurality of fluorescence signals is absent in the plurality of fluorescence signals, the differential data includes predetermined second information instead of the first information (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B, via a CPU (central processing unit) 11 that performs data processing, is capable of generating differential data that includes predetermined second information instead of the first information when a fluorescence signal similar to a first fluorescence signal of the plurality of fluorescence signals is absent in the plurality of fluorescence signals; ¶¶ [0069] and [0090]) (Examiner’s Note — a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 13, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein each fluorescence signal of the plurality of fluorescence signals includes spectrum information of light generated by irradiating the plurality of samples (wherein the cells emit one or more lights, e.g., spectrum information, when irradiated with a predetermined light; ¶ [0103]).
Regarding claim 14, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein each fluorescence signal of the plurality of fluorescence signals includes fluorescent dye information obtained from spectrum information via un-mixing (see ¶¶ [0017], [0060], and [0104]) (Examiner’s Note – the fluorescent signals are not positively recited in the instant claim and therefore a further limitation that the fluorescent signals include a fluorescent dye information of the fluorescent dye obtained from spectrum information of light does not structurally limit the information processing system).
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein
each fluorescence signal of the plurality of fluorescence signals (Examiner’s Note – the fluorescent signals are not positively recited in the instant claim and therefore a further limitation that the fluorescent signals include a fluorescent dye information of the fluorescent dye obtained from spectrum information of light does not structurally limit the information processing system) includes:
spectrum information of light generated by irradiating the plurality of samples with the excitation light (see ¶¶ [0017], [0060], and [0104]); and
fluorescent dye information obtained from the spectrum information via un-mixing (see ¶¶ [0017], [0060], and [0104]]), and
generating differential data based on a difference between similar fluorescence signals comprises:
specifying, using only one of the spectrum information and the fluorescent dye information, a combination of two fluorescence signals as the similar fluorescence signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B, via a CPU (central processing unit) 11 that performs data processing, is capable of specifying, using only one of the spectrum information and the fluorescent dye information, a combination of two fluorescence signals as the similar fluorescence signals; ¶ [0069]) (Examiner’s Note — a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114);
calculating a difference between the spectrum information of the similar fluorescent signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B, via a CPU (central processing unit) 11 that performs data processing, is capable of calculating a difference between the spectrum information of the similar fluorescent signals; ¶ [0069]) (Examiner’s Note — a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114); and
calculating a difference between fluorescent dye information of the similar fluorescence signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B, via a CPU (central processing unit) 11 that performs data processing, is capable of calculating a difference between fluorescent dye information of the similar fluorescence signals; ¶ [0069]) (Examiner’s Note — a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”); see also MPEP 2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Kosaka (U.S. Pat. No. 5,469,375).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. Tsuji further discloses wherein the information processing unit is configured to set, as the similar fluorescence signals, a combination having a calculated difference among combinations of two fluorescence signals selected from the plurality of fluorescence signals (see ¶¶ [0085]-[0089]; Fig. 9). However, Tsuji does not explicitly disclose wherein the information processing unit is configured to set, as the similar fluorescence signals, a combination having a highest appearance frequency of a calculated difference among combinations of two fluorescence signals selected from the plurality of fluorescence signals.
Kosaka, in the analogous art of devices for identifying particles through a particle detecting device such as a flow cytometer, teaches an information processing unit (judging unit 34; col. 3, ll. 11-39; Fig. 2) configured to judge whether a particle belongs to a group based on the frequency of appearance of detection signals, e.g., fluorescent intensity, whereby a higher frequency of appearance means a higher probability of the detected particles belonging to the group (see col. 1, ll. 17-23 and col. 3, ll. 11-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of the processing unit of Tsuji in setting the combination to utilize high appearance frequency as taught by Kosaka for the benefit of increasing the accuracy of the information processing unit.
Claims 9-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Martens et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0083902, previously cited; hereinafter “Martens”).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, Tsuji discloses does not explicitly disclose wherein the information processing unit is configured to generate compressed data by compressing the differential data.
Martens, in the analogous art of analyzing multidimensional data in a computer system, teaches a system (see Fig. 1) comprising a compression unit (a compression module 104; ¶¶ [0074]-[0075]; Fig. 1) configured to compress fluorescence spectra data (see ¶¶ [0074]-[0076] and [0224]-[0225]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing unit of Tsuji to incorporate a compression unit as taught by Martens, to thereby compress the differential data, for the benefit of efficient transmission of data files between two sites (Martens, ¶ [0239]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tsuji and Martens teaches the information processing system according to claim 9 as discussed above. Martens further teaches wherein the information processing unit is configured to compress data using a reversible compression method (compressed data may also be decompressed by reversing the compression; ¶ [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the information processing unit to incorporate a reversible compression method as taught by Martens for the benefit of providing the option to obtain original raw data (Martens, ¶ [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tsuji and Martens teaches the information processing system according to claim 9 as discussed above. Martens further teaches wherein the information processing unit is configured to compress the differential data using at least one of a method of compressing by reducing unnecessary bit representation, a lexicographic compression method, a compression method using an entropy code, and a compression method using statistical prediction (wherein compression is used to compress predicted states, i.e., statistical predictions; ¶ [0125]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tsuji and Martens teaches the information processing system according to claim 9 as discussed above. Tsuji further teaches a transmission unit (communication unit 151; ¶¶ [0069] and [0089]; Fig. 3) configured to transmit the compressed data generated by the information processing unit via a predetermined network (wherein communication unit 151 would transmit the compressed data generated by the information processing unit of Tsuji in view of Martens as discussed in claim 9 via a predetermined network; ¶¶ [0069] and [0089]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tsuji and Martens teaches the information processing system according to claim 9 as discussed above. Tsuji further teaches a storage unit (auxiliary storage unit 13; ¶ [0069]; Fig. 3) configured to store the compressed data generated by the information processing unit (wherein auxiliary storage unit 13 would store the compressed data generated by the information processing unit of Tsuji in view of Martens as discussed in claim 9; ¶ [0069]; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Tsuji discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 as discussed above. However, Tsuji does not explicitly disclose a decompression unit configured to decompress compressed data of the difference generated by the information processing unit; and a restoration unit configured to restore the plurality of fluorescence signals based on the difference decompressed by the decompression unit.
Martens, in the analogous art of analyzing multidimensional data in a computer system, teaches a system (computer system 109; ¶¶ [0080]-[0081]; Fig. 1) comprising a decompression unit that decompresses the compressed data (wherein computer system 109 decompresses compressed data and therefore computer system 109 is interpreted as the decompression unit; ¶ [0081]), and a restoration unit that restores processed data (wherein computer system 109 reverses, i.e., restores, compression and pre-processing performed on data to obtain an approximation of the original raw data and therefore computer system 109 is interpreted as the restoration unit; ¶ [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information processing unit of Tsuji to incorporate a decompression unit, which would thereby decompress compressed data of the difference generated, and a restoration unit, which would thereby restore the plurality of fluorescence signals based on the difference decompressed, as taught by Martens for the benefit of performing visualization, analysis or any other desirable processing on data that was previously compressed (Martens, ¶ [0081]).
Regarding claim 19, Tsuji teaches an information processing apparatus (cell analysis system 1000; ¶ [0066]; Fig. 2) comprising:
a difference calculation unit (a processing unit 10A, 10B of a reagent selection support apparatus 100, 100B that includes a CPU, central processing unit, 11 to perform data processing, such as comparing, i.e., calculating a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0069]-[0071], [0080], [0085]-[0089], and [0120]; Figs. 9-10 and 14) configured to calculate a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B calculates a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals, e.g., the processing unit compares, i.e., calculates a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0080], [0085]-[0089], [0091]; Figs. 9-10) based on fluorescence generated by irradiating a respective plurality of samples belonging to a sample group with excitation light (wherein light receiving elements 200A to 200F detect optical information, e.g., fluorescence, generated by irradiation of the light derived from the cells and the information is thereby transmitted to the reagent selection support apparatus 100; ¶¶ [0102]-[0104] and [0110]; Fig. 12).
However, Tsuji does not explicitly teach a compression unit configured to compress the difference. Martens, in the analogous art of analyzing multidimensional data in a computer system, teaches a system (see Fig. 1) comprising a compression unit (a compression module 104; ¶¶ [0074]-[0075]; Fig. 1) configured to compress fluorescence spectra data (see ¶¶ [0074]-[0076] and [0224]-[0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsuji to incorporate a compression unit as taught by Martens, to thereby compress the difference, for the benefit of efficient transmission of data files between two sites (Martens, ¶ [0239]).
Regarding claim 20, Tsuji teaches an information processing method (a processing unit 10A, 10B of a reagent selection support apparatus 100, 100B that includes a CPU, central processing unit, 11 to perform data processing, such as comparing, i.e., calculating a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0069]-[0071], [0080], [0085]-[0089], and [0120]; Figs. 9-10 and 14) comprising:
calculating a difference between similar fluorescence signals among a plurality of fluorescence signals (wherein processing unit 10A, 10B calculates a difference between similar fluorescence signals among the plurality of fluorescence signals, e.g., the processing unit compares, i.e., calculates a difference/differential between, the multiplication value determined for the first target molecule with the multiplication value determined for the second target molecule whereby the multiplication values are based on fluorescent intensities; ¶¶ [0017], [0019], [0080], [0085]-[0089], [0091]; Figs. 9-10) based on fluorescence generated by irradiating a respective plurality of samples belonging to a sample group with excitation light (wherein light receiving elements 200A to 200F detect optical information, e.g., fluorescence, generated by irradiation of the light derived from the cells and the information is thereby transmitted to the reagent selection support apparatus 100; ¶¶ [0102]-[0104] and [0110]; Fig. 12).
However, Tsuji does not explicitly teach compressing the difference. Martens, in the analogous art of methods for compressing, monitoring, decompressing or analyzing multidimensional data in a computer system (see ¶¶ [0074]-[0075]; Fig. 1), teaches comprising compressing data, e.g., fluorescence spectra, from a data generating process (see ¶¶ [0074]-[0076] and [0224]-[0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manipulate the difference in the calculating step of Tsuji with a step of compression as taught by Martens for the benefit of efficient transmission of data files between two sites (Martens, ¶ [0239]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Bahr et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0302606; hereinafter “Bahr”), in the analogous art of devices and methods for determining characteristics of particles flowing through a flow cytometer, teaches fluorescence signals that include a plurality of dimensions (fluorescent radiation emanating from the excited cell is collected in two (or more) dimensions, e.g., separate fluorescence channels; ¶¶ [0151] and [0221]).
However, none of the prior art of record nor any other references found (alone or in combination) teaches or fairly suggests (i) wherein the information processing unit is configured to set, as the similar fluorescence signals, a combination having a smallest maximum value of a difference calculated between corresponding dimensions among combinations of two fluorescence signals selected from the plurality of fluorescence signals as recited in claim 3, (ii) wherein the information processing unit is configured to set, as the similar fluorescence signals, a combination having a largest total of appearance frequencies of differences calculated between corresponding dimensions among combinations of two fluorescence signals selected from the plurality of fluorescence signals as recited claim 5, or (iii) wherein the differential data includes information for specifying a most significant bit of the difference, and the information processing unit is configured to compress the differential data using the reversible compression method including a method of compressing by reducing unnecessary bit representation as recited in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven R. Castaneda whose telephone number is (571)272-0998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10am - 6pm 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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/STEVEN RAY CASTANEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797