CTNF 18/056,585 CTNF 78795 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. Applicant has canceled claims 1-15 in a preliminary amendment and added new claims 16-35. Currently, claims 16-35 are pending. Examiner refers to the action below. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 3. Claim s 17-28 and 30-32 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 17-28: In line 1 it should be “ The apparatus” not “An apparatus” to refer back to the apparatus in claim 16. Regarding claims 30-32: In line 1 it should be “ The method” not “A method” to refer back to the method in claim 29 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 4. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 16-23 and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Avinash et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2012/0070044 A1) . Regarding claim 16: Avinash discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: at least one processor (fig. 1); and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1), cause the apparatus at least to: obtain a plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets from a biological sample (paragraphs 0043 and 0056); divide the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets into a plurality of sections wherein each section comprises at least one feature (paragraphs 0057-0058); for at least a subset of the plurality of sections, filter the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets to select features of interest, compare the selected features of interest to a plurality of reference features and make one or more associations between two or more selected features of interest to identify one or more characteristics of the biological sample (paragraphs 0094-0102). Regarding claim 17: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets are obtained from an output signal provided by stimulating the biological sample with at least one of: an electrical signal, an acoustic signal, or an electromagnetic signal, to cause changes in respective electrical properties of the biological sample (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 18: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets comprise electrical impedance tomography signals (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 19: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the reference features are determined from calibration outputs from a reference biological sample and the reference features that are determined from calibration outputs are identified as corresponding to one or more characteristics of the biological sample (paragraphs 0059 and 0060). Regarding claim 20: An apparatus as claimed in claim 19 wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: associate at least some of the plurality of reference features with each other based on the one or more characteristics of the biological sample that the reference features correspond to (paragraphs 0059 and 0060). Regarding claim 21: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20 wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: access a memory storing the reference features and information indicative of the one or more associations between the different reference features (paragraphs 0059 and 0060). Regarding claim 22: An apparatus as claimed in claim 20 wherein different associations between different selected features of interest are useable for identifying one or more characteristics of the biological sample (paragraphs 0059 and 0060). Regarding claim 23: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the reference features are given identifiers that are linked to characteristics of the biological sample and wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: in response to identifying a match between a respective selected feature and a respective reference feature, use the identifiers to identify the one or more characteristics of the biological sample (paragraphs 0059 and 0060). Regarding claim 26: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: process at least some of the plurality of sections of the datasets in parallel, wherein the processing comprises filtering a plurality of sections of the datasets to select features of interest and wherein the parallel processing of the plurality of sections is useable for simultaneously selecting a plurality of different features of interest (paragraph 0078). Regarding claim 27: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets are time variable and the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: filter the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets over a period of time (paragraph 083). Regarding claim 28: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the characteristic of the biological sample that is identified comprises at least one of: a position of one or more components within the biological sample, a movement of one or more components within the biological sample, a size of one or more components within the biological sample, a conductivity of one or more components within the biological sample, an electrical parameter of one or more components within the biological sample or a shape of one or more components within the biological sample (paragraph 0058). Regarding claim 29: See claim 16. Regarding claim 30: See claim 17. Regarding claim 31: See claim 18. Regarding claim 32: See claim 19. Regarding claim 33: See claim 16. 8Regarding claim 34: See claim 17. Regarding claim 35: See claim 18 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avinash et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2012/0070044 A1) and further in view of Thaker et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2021/0272654 A1) . Regarding claim 24: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: Avinash et al. does not teach the feature of “dynamically tune one or more filter settings for filtering the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets to select features of interest.” Thaker et al. teaches the feature of “dynamically tune one or more filter settings for filtering the plurality of multi-dimensional and multi-layered datasets to select features of interest” (Thaker et al.; paragraph 0888). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Thaker et al. to that of Avinash et al. since they are analogous in the field of processing one or more attributes of inputs captured from a plurality of biological samples (Thaker et al.; paragraph 0015). ITR would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Thaker et al. into the system of Avinash et al. in order to “perform multiple analyses on biological samples and to extract the most impactful and meaningful synthesis of the analysis results” (Thaker et al.; paragraph 0014). Regarding claim 25: An apparatus as claimed in claim 16 wherein the at least one memory and the instructions stored therein are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: Avinash et al. does not teach the feature of “autonomously learn and store reference features by operating one or more filters iteratively on labelled reference features.” Thaker et al. teaches the feature of “autonomously learn and store reference features by operating one or more filters iteratively on labelled reference features” (Thaker et al. paragraph 0888). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Thaker et al. to that of Avinash et al. since they are analogous in the field of processing one or more attributes of inputs captured from a plurality of biological samples (Thaker et al.; paragraph 0015). ITR would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Thaker et al. into the system of Avinash et al. in order to “perform multiple analyses on biological samples and to extract the most impactful and meaningful synthesis of the analysis results” (Thaker et al.; paragraph 0014). Contact Information 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm. 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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. 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. /ANAND P BHATNAGAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 May 22, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 2 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 3 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 4 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 5 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 6 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 7 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 8 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 9 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/056,585 Page 10 Art Unit: 2668
Prosecution Insights