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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 December 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33) recite “A method for processing cytometry data, the method comprising with a processor: generating a compound population of events comprising data accessors from cytometry data from two or more samples comprising particles; applying a hierarchy of data gates to the compound population to generate a plurality of gated compound populations; and applying a comparative analysis algorithm to the plurality of gated compound populations based on a controlled characteristic.”
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “generating a compound population of events comprising data accessors from cytometry data from two or more samples comprising particles; applying a hierarchy of data gates to the compound population to generate a plurality of gated compound populations; and applying a comparative analysis algorithm to the plurality of gated compound populations based on a controlled characteristic.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “generating a compound population of events comprising data accessors from cytometry data from two or more samples comprising particles; applying a hierarchy of data gates to the compound population to generate a plurality of gated compound populations; and applying a comparative analysis algorithm to the plurality of gated compound populations based on a controlled characteristic.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0189] and [0190] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trotter et al (US 2020/0225141).
Trotter et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, a method for processing cytometry data (Figures 4, 6 and 8), the method comprising with a processor (424): generating a compound population of events comprising data accessors from cytometry data from two or more samples comprising particles (Abstract; event data receiver 422; paragraph [0089]); applying a hierarchy of data gates to the compound population to generate a plurality of gated compound populations (gate selection unit 426; paragraph [0090]); and applying a comparative analysis algorithm to the plurality of gated compound populations based on a controlled characteristic (sort configuration 490; paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the compound population is generated from cytometry data from two or more different samples (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the data accessors are configured to access metadata for each event of the cytometry data from one or more samples (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the data accessors comprise source identity for each event of the cytometry data from the one or more samples (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the cytometry data of the compound population from the two or more different samples is retained in separate raw data files (paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the raw data files comprising the cytometry data are not concatenated to form a single combined data file (paragraphs [0050] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 8, wherein applying a data gate to a single event of the compound population is sufficient to apply the data gate to a plurality of events of the compound population (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, wherein applying a data gate to the plurality of events of the compound population is sufficient to apply the data gate to all of the events of the compound population (paragraphs [0097]).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the method comprises desynchronizing a gate for one or more samples of the gated compound population (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, wherein desynchronizing a gate for one or more samples of the gated compound population comprises changing a gate geometry of the gate (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the compound population of events is displayed on a graphical user interface (106).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the graphical user interface comprises: a first pane configured to display one or more ungated compound populations comprising cytometry data of one or more groups of samples; a second pane configured to display one or more gated compound populations; and a third pane configured to display data files for each of the samples used to generate the compound populations (Figure 7 shows several panes with different data).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the gated compound populations of the second pane are displayed as a hierarchy (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the second pane is configured to display analysis algorithms (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 22, wherein desynchronized data gates are visualized in the second pane (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 32, wherein the cytometry data comprises flow cytometry data from particles irradiated by a light source in a flow stream (paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 33, wherein the cytometry data is represented in a flow cytometry standard (FCS) format (paragraph [0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17-20, 22, 32 and 33 under 112 and 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Trotter et al (US 2020/0225141).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853