DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed 12/15/25. 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 .
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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 – 8, 24 – 28, 30 – 36, 39 and 56 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. Claims 1, 24 and 28 are directed to the abstract idea of obtaining an ultrasonic spectrum, providing the ultrasonic spectrum to a trained statistical model, determining a first property and a second property, obtaining training data, generating a trained statistical model, storing the trained statistical model and selecting a trained statistical model. The steps of the claims describe the concept of obtaining an ultrasonic spectrum of a solution and providing the ultrasonic spectrum to a trained statistical model using a processor, determining a first property and a second property of the particles and selecting a trained statistical model using the trained statistical model, obtaining training data and generating a trained statistical model using a module, and storing the trained statistical model using a memory which are considered abstract ideas. The claim limitations are similar to those previously found by the courts to be abstract such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). All of these concepts relate to tracking, organizing or analyzing information. The concepts described in the claims are not meaningfully different than concepts of gathering data found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the descriptions in the claims of characterizing a plurality of particles by obtaining, generating, providing, determining, storing and selecting is an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic controller elements claimed to perform their basic functions of obtaining, determining, and storing. The recitation of the controller limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they would be routine in any computer implementation. With respect to Electric Power Group, the courts found that claims drawn to collecting data, analyzing data, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis was an abstract idea. The present invention relates to characterizing a plurality of particles suspended in a solution and training a statistical model by obtaining an ultrasonic spectrum of a solution and providing the ultrasonic spectrum to a trained statistical model, determining a first property and a second property of the particles and selecting a trained statistical model, obtaining training data, generating a trained statistical model, and storing the trained statistical model using a memory. Taking the courts' opinion in Electric Power Group into consideration in view of the claimed subject matter of the instant application, simply outputting the results of an analysis is considered to be abstract. Thus, generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (See Liljenberg et al., 2015/0059442, Active Acoustic Spectroscopy”). Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 12, 13, 15 - 17, 19, 23 and 41 are allowed.5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “the plurality of particles are a plurality of cells” and “determining a first property one or more properties of the particles using the trained statistical model, wherein the first property is at least one selected from a concentration and cell viability” in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 12 and “the plurality of particles are a plurality of cells” and “determining a first property of the plurality of particles in the solution using the first trained statistical model, wherein the first property is at least one selected from a concentration and cell viability” in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 41. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on Pg. 9, lines 14 – 20, Pg. 10, lines 1 – 5, 9 – 13 and
18 – 23 and Pg. 11, lines 3 – 8 and 11 – 16 with respect to these claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. Akbari et al. (2025/0102474) disclose an ultrasonic sensor systems for characterizing liquids. Deshpande et al. (2020/0264117) disclose a system and method for detection of concentration of micro and nano particles in a fluid environment.8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/20/26
Prosecution Insights