DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IIa in the reply filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-20, 22, 24, and 26-27 (non-elected claims 3, 13, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the measurement unit being configured for carrying out the method of claim 1.” as recited in claim 22; “a control system, arranged for displacing …” as recited in claim 24; “the measurement unit according to claim 22, said measurement unit being configured for: a. scanning … b. transferring …” as recited in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0038] and [0040]: “Fig. 2” and “Fig. 4” are recited. However, the drawings depict Figs. 2A, 2B, 4A, and 4B.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 15, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “Obtaining … Displacing … Obtaining … Forming … Analyzing … Repeating …” should be -- obtaining … displacing … obtaining … forming … analyzing … repeating … --.
Claim 1 at line 9: “the presence” should be -- a presence --.
Claim 4 at line 5: “• Providing” should be -- providing --.
Claim 4 at line 6: “repeating comprises” should be -- repeating further comprises --.
Claim 15 at line 2: “the most” should be -- a most --.
Claim 27 at lines 3-4: “being configured for:” should be -- being further configured to perform: --.
Claim 27 at line 11: “configured for:” should be -- configured to perform: --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 19, and 26-27 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.
Re Claim 5 at line 2: The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Similar discussions are also addressed with regard to claim 10 at line 4, claim 19 at each of lines 2 and 3, and claim 27 at line 16 respectively.
Re Claim 26 at line 3: The claim limitation “the control unit, and wherein said control unit” lacks antecedent basis. Therefore it should be -- the control system, and wherein said control system --.
Claims 7 and 10 are dependent upon claim 5 respectively.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 and similarly the measurement unit of independent claim 22 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “for continuous detection and species classification of biological particles in a sample, the method comprising: b. Displacing the sample relative to the measurement unit; d. Forming a scanning sequence comprising multiple recently obtained images; e. Analyzing said scanning sequence for the presence of said biological particles thereby obtaining a scanning indicator; and f. Repeating, a number of times, steps b-e; thereby continuously detecting and species classifying biological particles in the sample”.
Each of the above limitations of “for continuous detection and species classification of biological particles in a sample, the method comprising: b. Displacing the sample relative to the measurement unit; d. Forming a scanning sequence comprising multiple recently obtained images; e. Analyzing said scanning sequence for the presence of said biological particles thereby obtaining a scanning indicator; and f. Repeating, a number of times, steps b-e; thereby continuously detecting and species classifying biological particles in the sample” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are the elements of “a. Obtaining an image of a part of said sample, by a measurement unit”, “c. Obtaining an additional image of an additional part of said sample, by the measurement unit”, and “by a trained machine learning model”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps “a. Obtaining an image of a part of said sample, by a measurement unit” and “c. Obtaining an additional image of an additional part of said sample, by the measurement unit” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements “by a trained machine learning model” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the steps of “a. Obtaining an image of a part of said sample, by a measurement unit” and “c. Obtaining an additional image of an additional part of said sample, by the measurement unit” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements “by a trained machine learning model” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
As to independent claim 22, the claim is the corresponding measurement unit to claim 1 respectively. Similar discussions are addressed with regard to claim 22.
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1 and 22 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 24, and 26-27:
Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 24, and 26-27 are dependent on corresponding independent claims 1 and 22 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1 and 22 respectively. Thus claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 24, and 26-27 recite “Mental Processes”. Further, claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 24, and 26-27 further describe:
Dependent claim 2 merely describes “wherein the scanning sequence … provided to the machine learning model and used to derive the scanning indicator” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 merely describes “… Providing the scanning indicator … repeating said step of providing”. However, these limitations merely constitute activity involving data gathering / data outputting and such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 merely describes “providing an image … wherein the scanning indicator is provided … and/or …”. However, these limitations merely constitute activity involving data gathering / data outputting and such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 merely describes “wherein the scanning indicator comprises information …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 10 merely describes “wherein the scanning indicator comprises a direction indicator, indicating …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 11 merely describes “wherein the biological particle is a mold spore …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 12 merely describes “wherein the machine learning model is a convolutional neural network that has been trained …” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Dependent claim 14 merely describes “… scanning indicator is provided …”. However, these limitations merely constitute activity involving data gathering / data outputting and such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 15 merely describes “wherein the scanning indicator comprises a classification …; and/or wherein the scanning indicator comprises multiple biological particle species …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 17 merely describes “wherein the scanning indicator comprises one or more indicators of one or more scanning conditions …”. However, these limitations due to their broad generality are merely observational covering the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the same “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 19 merely describes “wherein the sample has been obtained from a surface …”. However, these limitations merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 24 merely describes “… displace the sample based on the scanning indicator ...”. However, these limitations merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 26 merely describes “provide a scanning indicator comprising a direction indication … displace the sample … according to the direction indication”. However, these limitations merely constitute insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 27 merely describes “scanning … transferring … to a remote server … receiving … from the remote server … providing … repeating … the remote server configured for: receiving … forming … analyzing … transferring … repeating” which are processes that due to their broad generality amount to merely using a generic server computer as a tool to implement generic computer features which perform generic computer functions [e.g. transferring to, receiving from, providing to] that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system which neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor adds significantly more.
Thus, claims 2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 24, and 26-27 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14-15, 19, 22, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al (US 2018/322634 A1, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS) in view of Callahan et al (JP 2004509611 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this JP document [attached along with corresponding WO 01/94528 A2 publication]).
Re Claim 1: Zimmerman discloses a method for continuous detection and species classification of biological particles in a sample (see Zimmerman, [0018], [0022], [0055]), the method comprising: a. Obtaining an image of a part of said sample, by a measurement unit (see Zimmerman, [0080], processor implemented, [0037]-[0038], [0054]); b. Displacing the sample relative to the measurement unit (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]); c. Obtaining an additional image of an additional part of said sample, by the measurement unit (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]); d. Forming a scanning sequence comprising recently obtained images (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]); e. Analyzing said scanning sequence for the presence of said biological particles, by a trained machine learning model, thereby obtaining a scanning indicator (see Zimmerman, [0040], [0050], [0054]-[0055], the indications indicating type, presence, and location/position); and f. Repeating, a number of times, steps b-e (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]); thereby continuously detecting and species classifying biological particles in the sample (see Zimmerman, [0018], [0022], [0054]-[0055]).
However Zimmerman fails to explicitly disclose that the scanning sequence comprises multiple recently obtained images.
Callahan discloses d. Forming a scanning sequence comprising multiple recently obtained images (see Callahan, [0163]-[0165], series of snapshots); e. Analyzing said scanning sequence for the presence of said biological particles, by a trained machine learning model, thereby obtaining a scanning indicator (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165], series of snapshots, monitoring e.g. five groups of cells wherein the stage moves continuously and repeatedly between the five different regions, repeatedly imaged and quantified continuously thereby identifying and classifying different species using a learning techniques / models wherein the classification indicates the type); and f. Repeating, a number of times, steps b-e (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165], monitoring e.g. five groups of cells wherein the stage moves continuously and repeatedly between the five different regions, repeatedly imaged and quantified continuously thereby identifying and classifying different species using a learning techniques / models).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman’s method using Callahan’s teachings by including the monitoring via a series of snapshots with the continuous and repeated processing to Zimmerman’s classification process in order to improve the classification of the type (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165]).
Re Claim 2: Zimmerman as modified by Callahan further discloses wherein the scanning sequence, comprising the most recently obtained images, is for each repetition, provided to the machine learning model and used to derive the scanning indicator (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165], series of snapshots, monitoring e.g. five groups of cells wherein the stage moves continuously and repeatedly between the five different regions, repeatedly imaged and quantified continuously thereby identifying and classifying different species using a learning techniques / models wherein the classification indicates the type).
Re Claim 4: Zimmerman further discloses wherein the method further includes, between the step of analyzing and the step of repeating, a step of providing that comprises: • Providing the scanning indicator to a user and/or a control system; and wherein the step of repeating comprises repeating said step of providing (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], output the classification, [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device).
Re Claim 5: Zimmerman as modified by Callahan further discloses wherein the step of providing further comprises providing an image of the scanning sequence, such as the most recently obtained image of the scanning sequence, and wherein the scanning indicator is provided to the user and/or the control system, that is controlling what area of the sample that is imaged, and wherein said user and/or control system, for each repetition, displaces the sample relative to the measurement unit, to image another area, based on the scanning indicator (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], output the classification, [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device, after classification at that position e.g. move over to the right and iterate the process).
Re Claim 7: Zimmerman further discloses wherein the scanning indicator comprises information about the portion of the sample that has been analyzed and wherein the method is repeated until at least a predetermined portion of the sample has been imaged, and wherein the predetermined portion of the sample has been determined during a benchmarking training phase of the machine learning model, where the predetermined portion is the portion of the sample that is required to be imaged in order to obtain accurate detection and species classification of biological particles (see Zimmerman, [0042], repeat until all of the images have been reviewed / analyzed, [0053], a number of rounds of training will achieve improved accuracy, [0054]-[0055], output the classification wherein the classification indicates the type, [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device, after classification [using learning techniques / models] at that position e.g. move over to the right and iterate the process).
Re Claim 11: Zimmerman further discloses wherein the biological particle is a mold spore, a mold, a bacterium, a virus particle, and/or a fragment thereof (see Zimmerman, [0022]).
Re Claim 12: Zimmerman further discloses wherein the machine learning model is a convolutional neural network that has been trained by DNA verified and/or expert labelled samples of biological particles (see Zimmerman, [0041], [0050]).
Re Claim 14: Zimmerman further discloses wherein each repeatedly formed scanning indicator is provided from obtaining the oldest obtained image of the scanning sequence from which said scanning indicator was formed (see Zimmerman, [0042], repeat until all of the images have been reviewed / analyzed, [0054]-[0055], output the classification wherein the classification indicates the type, [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device, after classification [using learning techniques / models] at that position e.g. move over to the right and iterate the process). Although Zimmerman as modified by Callahan fails to explicitly disclose providing the scanning indicator at less than one second, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Zimmerman's [as modified by Callahan] method by including the limitations providing the scanning indicator at less than one second. These limitations are exceedingly well known and typical in the image processing field of endeavor [different computer architectures process image’s at different speeds and more powerfully equipped processor architectures process image’s at extremely fast speeds] and therefore would be exceedingly obvious modifications toward Zimmerman's [as modified by Callahan] method in order to broaden the applicability and processing of Zimmerman's [as modified by Callahan] classification of type at such fast speeds.
Re Claim 15: Zimmerman as modified by Callahan, further discloses wherein the scanning indicator comprises a classification of the most abundant biological particle species present in the images of the scanning sequence; and/or wherein the scanning indicator comprises multiple biological particle species and wherein the scanning indicator comprises a significance level of the classification of each biological particle species (see Zimmerman, [0018], [0022], [0039], [0054]-[0055], indicate the types of particle that are present and their corresponding probability of being present).
Re Claim 19: Zimmerman further discloses wherein the sample has been obtained from a surface, such as by tape sampling, or from the air, such as air sampling (see Zimmerman, [0080], processor implemented, [0018], [0022], [0054]-[0055], and more specifically [0012]).
Re Claim 22: As to claim 22, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1 respectively. Further, Zimmerman further discloses a measurement unit for continuous detection and species classification of biological particles in a sample, the measurement unit being configured for carrying out the method of claim 1 (see Zimmerman, [0080], processor implemented, [0018], [0022], [0054]-[0055]).
Re Claim 27: As to claim 27, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 22 respectively. Further, Zimmerman as modified by Callahan further discloses a system for continuous detection and species classification of biological particles in a sample (see Zimmerman, [0018], [0022], [0055], [0080]), the system comprising: the measurement unit according to claim 22, said measurement unit being configured for: a. scanning at least a part of the sample, such that a number of images along at least a part of said sample is obtained (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]); b. transferring the obtained images, to a remote server (see Zimmerman, Fig. 1, [0054]-[0055], and more specifically [0017]); c. receiving a scanning indicator, from the remote server (see Zimmerman, [0040], [0050], [0054]-[0055], the indications indicating type, presence, and location/position from the remote server based classification system); d. providing an image of the scanning sequence and the scanning indicator (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], output the classification [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device); e. repeating, a number of times, steps a-d (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], output the classification, [0084], after classification at that position e.g. move over to the right and iterate the process); the remote server (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], and more specifically [0017]) configured for: i. receiving said obtained images, from the measurement unit (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], and more specifically [0017]); ii. forming a scanning sequence comprising multiple recently received images (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]) (see Callahan, [0163]-[0165], series of snapshots); iii. analyzing said scanning sequence for the presence of said biological particles, by a trained machine learning model, such as a convolutional neural network model, thereby obtaining a scanning indicator (see Zimmerman, [0040]-[0041], [0050], [0054]-[0055], the indications indicating type, presence, and location/position) (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165], series of snapshots, monitoring e.g. five groups of cells wherein the stage moves continuously and repeatedly between the five different regions, repeatedly imaged and quantified continuously thereby identifying and classifying different species using a learning techniques / models wherein the classification indicates the type); iv. transferring the scanning indicator to the measurement unit (see Zimmerman, Fig. 1, [0054]-[0055], [0084], and more specifically [0017]); and v. repeating, a number of times, steps i.-iv (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055]) (see Callahan, [0040], [0044], [0046], [0052], [0128], [0163]-[0165], monitoring e.g. five groups of cells wherein the stage moves continuously and repeatedly between the five different regions, repeatedly imaged and quantified continuously thereby identifying and classifying different species using a learning techniques / models). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Claim(s) 10, 17, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman as modified by Callahan, and further in view of Okane et al (JP 2009-192371 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this JP document). The teachings of Zimmerman as modified by Callahan have been discussed above.
Re Claim 10: Although Zimmerman further discloses the presently imaged area, with a high likeliness of having biological particles, such as mold (see Zimmerman, [0018], [0022], [0039], [0054]-[0055], indicate the types of particle [e.g. such as mold] that are present and their corresponding probability of being present), Zimmerman as modified by Callahan however fails to explicitly disclose where Okane discloses wherein the scanning indicator comprises a direction indicator, indicating a direction of the sample, with respect to the presently imaged area (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-17, scanning direction, stage position information, and region type designation).
Therefore 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 Zimmerman’s method, as modified by Callahan, using Okane’s teachings by including the scanning direction and type indicator to Zimmerman’s [as modified by Callahan] type indication in order to improve the classification of the type (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-17).
Re Claim 17: However Zimmerman as modified by Callahan fails to explicitly disclose where Okane discloses wherein the scanning indicator comprises one or more indicators of one or more scanning conditions of the obtaining of the images of the scanning sequence, said scanning conditions including any of a lightning level, a scanning speed level, a focus level, a background particle level, and/or an indicator of a background contrast level (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-23, scanning direction and speed, stage position information, and region type designation).
Therefore 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 Zimmerman’s method, as modified by Callahan, using Okane’s teachings by including the scanning direction, speed and type indicator to Zimmerman’s [as modified by Callahan] type indication in order to improve the classification of the type (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-23).
Re Claim 24: Although Zimmerman further discloses a control system arranged for displacing the sample relative to the measurement unit, and for receiving the scanning indicator, and wherein said control system is further arranged to displace the sample based on the scanning indicator (see Zimmerman, [0054]-[0055], output the classification, [0084], display for displaying the output to one or more users of the computing device, after classification at that position e.g. move over to the right and iterate the process), Zimmerman as modified by Callahan however fails to explicitly disclose where Okane discloses such as wherein the scanning indicator comprises a direction indicator (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-17, scanning direction, stage position information, and region type designation). See claim 10 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 26: Okane further discloses wherein the measurement unit is configured to provide a scanning indicator comprising a direction indication to the control unit, and wherein said control unit is arranged to displace the sample relative to the measurement unit according to the direction indication (see Okane, Page 9/33 at lines 9-23, scanning direction, stage position information, and region type designation, wherein driving the stage so that the stage moves at the instructed scanning direction and speed). See claim 24 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights