CTNF 18/098,492 CTNF 97538 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Status Claims 26-40, 45-47, 49, and 50 are pending and examined herein. Claims 26-40, 45-47, 49, and 50 are rejected. Claim 37 is objected to. Priority Claims 26-40, 45-47, 49, and 50 are granted the claim to the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional application 63/309953 filed 14 February 2022. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 26-40, 45-47, 49, and 50 is 14 February 2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were received on 04 May 2023 and 13 February 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings received 12 June 2023 are objected to for the reasons provided below. 06-22-07 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “301A” (in Fig. 3), “590” (in Fig. 5), and “790” (in Fig. 7) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-06 The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “670” (mentioned in the description of Fig. 6B and appears there is a typo present in Fig. 6B with the number “760” which should be “670”). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 recites “wherein each desynchronized gates” should read “wherein each desynchronized gate” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim 26 recites “a first pane configured to display…”, “a second pane configured to display…”, and “a third pane configured to display …”. The limitations of the content that the panes are “configured to display” is an intended use of the panes on the graphical user interface (see MPEP 2114(I) and (II)). Claims 28-35, 38, 45, 46, 49 and 50 which further limit how the panes of the graphical user interface are intended to be used. Further, claims 36 and 37 are interpreted as limiting the programming of the system because these claims recite what the panes comprise rather than what the panes are configured to perform. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 112/b 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 34, 39, 40, and 47 are 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. Claim 34 recites “the analysis algorithm” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear which analysis algorithm of the “analysis algorithms” (in claim 33) that “the analysis algorithm” is referring to. For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the analysis algorithms are selected from…”. Claims 39, 40, and 47 recite “wherein the graphical user interface is configured for applying an analysis algorithm” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear if this limitation is meant to be an intended use of the system (i.e., by limiting the graphical user interface which is displayed on the display device) or if this is meant to limit the instructions implemented by the processor when displaying the graphical user interface. For the sake of furthering examination, these limitations are interpreted as an intended use of the system. 112/d 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim s 28-35, 38-40, 45, 46-47, 49, and 50 are 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. These claims do not further limit the system of claim 26 from which they depend from because they do not further limit the programming of the system which displays a graphical user interface. Rather they further limit the intended use of the panes of the graphical user interface as discussed above in claim interpretation, or further limit the intended use of the graphical user interface as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above . 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 27, 39, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Step 1) Claims 27, 39, and 47 fall under the statutory category of a machine. (Step 2A Prong 1) Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations. Claim 27 recites a mental process of “generating a compound population from flow cytometry data from two or more different samples”. Claims 39 and 47 recites a mathematical concept of “applying an analysis algorithm…”. Claim 27 recites a mental process of analyzing/evaluating flow cytometry data as generating compound population which encompasses a process of grouping data based on a set of parameters (Instant disclosure page 18). The human mind is capable of grouping data based on a set of parameters. Claims 39 and 47 recite mathematical concepts of mathematical calculations as applying an analysis algorithm to the measured data of compound populations (instant disclosure page 2 shows the analysis algorithm encompasses spectral compensation matrix which is a mathematical calculation to correct measured values and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding which is a mathematical process for reducing the dimensionality of numerical data measured from the compound population). The MPEP states that there is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Thus, claims 27, 39, and 47 recite abstract ideas. (Step 2A Prong 2) 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). Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements in claims 27, 39, and 47 a system with an input module configured to receive data, a processor and a memory to cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface (which is interpreted as a general-purpose computer) does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because this is simply applying the judicial exception to a generic computer without an improvement to computer technology (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Further, the additional elements in claims 27, 39, and 47 of to display one a display device a graphical user interface does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because this is insignificant extra solution activity of data outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and claims 27, 39 and 47 are directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2B) 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 additional elements in claims 27, 39, and 47 a system with an input module configured to receive data, a processor and a memory to cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface comprising three sections is conventional as shown by Orlova et al. (US 20180018386 A1), Sidhom et al. ( JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) 143 (2019): e57473), and White et al. ( Frontiers in immunology 12 (2021): 768541) which all show a system configured to receive flow cytometry data and a user interfaces with multiple sections (each graphical user interface has three or more sections) implemented on a computer system. Thus, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are conventional. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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: 07-08-aia AIA 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 26-40, 45-47, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Orlova et al. (US 20180018386 A1) . Claim 26 is directed to a system comprising: an input module configured to receive flow cytometer data from one or more samples comprising particles irradiated by a light source in a flow stream Orlova et al. shows a system which is configured to perform the processes of the method of receiving data from two samples where the data is flow cytometer data from two samples (fluorescence data captured from cells being measured) (Orlova et al. [0023], [0024], [0178], Fig. 1, and Fig. 28). and a processor comprising memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory comprises instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface comprising: Orlova et al. shows the system includes a processor operably coupled to the memory with instructions to cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface (Orlova et al. [0032] - [0048], [0178], and Fig. 28). Orlova et al. shows that the graphical user interface have multiple sections such as a plot display, a section for analysis done on the data, and a section for manipulating the plot and navigating with the display (Orlova et al. [0146]- [0170], Fig. 8, and Fig. 9). a first pane configured to display one or more compound populations comprising events generated from the flow cytometry data, a second pane configured to display data gates applied to each of the compound populations, and a third pane configured to display data files for each of the irradiated samples used to generate the compound populations. These limitations are interpreted as intended use of the system because the aspect of the panes being configured to display does not limit what the device is but rather is limiting what a device does (see MPEP 2114(II)). Thus, these panes being configured to display does not limit the structure of the device. Claim 27 is directed to wherein the input module is configured to receive flow cytometry data from two or more samples and the memory comprises instructions for generating a compound population from flow cytometry data from two or more different samples. Orlova et al. shows a system which is configured to perform the processes of the method of receiving data from two samples where the data is flow cytometer data from two samples (fluorescence data captured from cells being measured) (Orlova et al. [0023], [0024], [0178], Fig. 1, and Fig. 28). Orlova et al. shows the system generating compound populations from the flow cytometry data from two different samples as clustering the data from the two different samples (Orlova et al. [0014] - [0017], and [0178]). Claim 36 recites wherein the second pane comprises a visualization of one or more desynchronized gates applied to a compound population in the second pane. Claim 37 recites wherein each desynchronized gate applied to the compound population are visualized in the second pane by different text fonts. Orlova et al. shows the graphical user interface includes displaying a compound population where a gate applied to B-2 cells is outlined in a dark line with a bold text indicating B-2 cells and shows that the gate applied to B-1 cells is outlined in light grey line with non-bolded text indicating B-1 cells (Orlova et al. Figure 11). Claims 28-35, 38, 45, 46, 49 and 50 further limit the what the panes are configured to display on graphical user interface and under the BRI of the claims are intended use of the system. Further, claims 28-35, 38, 45, 46, 49 and 50 are anticipated by Orlova et al. because Orlova et al. shows a system which is configured to perform the processes of the method of receiving data from two samples where the data is flow cytometer data from two samples (fluorescence data captured from cells being measured) (Orlova et al. [0023], [0024], [0178], Fig. 1, and Fig. 28). Orlova et al. shows the system includes a processor operably coupled to the memory with instructions to cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface (Orlova et al. [0032] - [0048], [0178], and Fig. 28). Claims 39, 40, and 47 which set out the graphical user interface is configured for applying an analysis and is interpreted as an intended use of the system. Further, claims 39, 40, and 47 are anticipated by Orlova et al. because Orlova et al. shows a system which is configured to perform the processes of the method of receiving data from two samples where the data is flow cytometer data from two samples (fluorescence data captured from cells being measured) (Orlova et al. [0023], [0024], [0178], Fig. 1, and Fig. 28). Orlova et al. shows the system includes a processor operably coupled to the memory with instructions to cause the processor to display on a display device a graphical user interface (Orlova et al. [0032] - [0048], [0178], and Fig. 28) . Conclusion No claims are allowed. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sidhom et al. ( JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) 143 (2019): e57473) which shows an interactive graphical user interface for analyzing flow cytometry data with interactive icons for spectral compensation, dimensionality reduction of the data using t-SNE, and data clustering using clustering algorithms. White et al. ( Frontiers in immunology 12 (2021): 768541) which shows a graphical user interface for processing flow cytometry data with a hierarchical layout of gates and interactive display for data analysis of flow cytometry data. This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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. /J.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685 /KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/098,492 Page 2 Art Unit: 1685 Application/Control Number: 18/098,492 Page 3 Art Unit: 1685
Prosecution Insights