DETAILED ACTION This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions. Status of claims Canceled: none Pending: 1- 20 Withdrawn: none Examined: 1- 20 Independent: 1 , 10 and 19 Allowable: none Rejections applied Abbreviations x 112/b Indefiniteness PHOSITA "a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" 112/b "Means for" BRI Broadest Reasonable Interpretation 112/a Enablement, Written description CRM "Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language 112 Other IDS Information Disclosure Statement 102, 103 JE Judicial Exception 101 JE(s) 112/a 35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc. 101 Other N:N page:line x Double Patenting MM/DD/ YYYY date format Priority As detailed on the 11/2/2022 filing receipt, this application claims priority to no earlier than 1/8/2018 . All claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date. Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) One or more IDSs have been entered and considered, with exceptions as noted on the attached annotated IDS form(s) 1449. Objection to the specification: title The title should be amended to more specifically reflect the claims, particularly referencing steps/elements: setting the context of the invention, particular to all claims, and distinguishing the instant application from any related applications . The title should be "descriptive" and "as... specific as possible" (MPEP 606, 1st para. and 37 CFR 1.72; also MPEP 606.01 pertains). Claim rejections - 112/b The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite: Claim Recitation Comment (suggestions in bold) 1 mapping... from the clusters A and B Requires but lacks clear antecedent. It appears that the recited "A and B" was intended to be amended , e.g. so as to be consistent with claims 10 and 19. 10, 19 implement Claim 10 is rejected as directly reciting a machine and a process in the same claim. A claim to a machine, e.g. here a " computer readable medium ," cannot directly recite a process step such as " implement ." MPEP 2173.05(p ).II pertains. I t would suffice to add "configured to" before the process step so as properly focus on claimed structure. MPEP 2173.05(p ).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process. Claim 19 is rejected similarly. No prior art has been applied to the following claims No prior art is applied to claims 1-20 . Close art, for example Khurana (2014-0274746 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS), Lee (2016-0047749 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS) and Madabhushi (2015-0213598 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS) does not teach the instant combination of each pixel including intensity values sensed from two nucleic acid clusters and mapping to sixteen bins representing combinations of bases and leading to a pair of base calls , and it is not clear that any combinable art of record would have rendered the claims obvious. 101 analysis 35 USC 101 reads: 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 satisfying 101 with respect to judicial exceptions ( JEs ) and therefore NOT rejected here In claims 1-20 , the recited additional elements (e.g. hardware and data acquisition / reception steps ) implement and/or use any possible JEs with the additional elements, and those additional elements are interpreted as a particular machine integral to the claimed invention in the context of 101 analysis, thus integrating the JEs into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(b ).I 101 analysis step 2A, 2nd prong, 3rd consideration pertains. Additionally, the recited combination of additional elements is non-conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d) and 101 analysis step 2B pertain. Additionally, the claims improve the field of base calling by making possible increased throughput, for example as disclosed in the instant specification at, at least, [20-21]. MPEP 2106.04(d) and (d)(1) and 101 analysis step 2A, 2nd prong, 1st consideration pertain . Nonstatutory double patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine to prevent the improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of the same invention (MPEP 804.II.B, 1st para.). A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims (instant v. reference) are not identical, but an examined-application claim (instant claim) is not patentably distinct from a reference claim because the instant claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (MPEP 804.II.B, 2nd para.). In cases of double patenting rejections versus reference claims of pending applications , as opposed to claims of an issued patent, the rejections are provisional because the reference claims have not been patented. Presently, no rejections are provisional. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the application or patent of the reference claim either is shown to be commonly owned with the instant application or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must comply fully with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Applicant may wish to consider electronically filing a terminal disclaimer (MPEP 1490.V pertains, along with https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer ). Electronic filing may lead to faster approval of the disclaimer. Also, if filing electronically, Applicant is encouraged to notify the examiner by telephone so that examination may resume more quickly. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Double patenting rejections of instant claims 1-20 Instant claims 1-20 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over one or more claims in each of reference patents : 11,378,544 (from application 16/241,902), 11,561,196 (from application 16/241,905) , 11 , 953 , 464 (from application 17/831 , 424 ) and 12 , 498 , 347 (from application 18 / 157 , 036 ) , each in view of Khurana (2014-0274746 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS ), Lee (2016-0047749 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS) and Madabhushi (2015-0213598 as cited on the 10/20/2022 IDS ) . Although the reference claims are not identical to the instant claims, in a BRI they also are not patentably distinct from the instant claims: either ( i ) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims. Among limitations shared between instant and reference claims, e ach reference patent recites claims analyzing and binning signals from clusters of nucleotides . And, for example, t he instantly recited "sixteen bins" (e.g. claims 1, 10 and 19) would have been prima facie obvious in view of the reference claim recitations and the cited art -- at least in view of the other reference recited elements, the sixteen bins being an obvious to try embodiment . It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art. That is, to the extent that any instant claims are narrower than reference claims, then any such narrowing would have been obvious over the cited art. Conclusion No claim is allowed. A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. Inquiries Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov . Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center , and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx . The Electronic Business Center ( EBC ) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at: (571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062. /G. STEVEN VANNI/ Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686