DETAILED ACTION 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. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed 11/01/2023 has been entered and considered. Claim 16 and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 3-6, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-15, 17-20 and 22 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. 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 ( 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: 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. Claim s 1 , 3, 5-6, 13, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN 111378562 A, a copy of translation is attached herein) . As per claim 1, Wu discloses a method for quantifying microorganisms (abstract: “digital PCR quantitative detecting system”) , the method comprising: obtaining a sample containing the microorganisms ( abstract & paragraph [0008]: a bacterium liquid sample is obtained ) ; encapsulating the microorganisms in one or more first droplets of a plurality of droplets (abstract: a plurality of droplets are obtained) ; allowing microorganism growth within the one or more first droplets of the plurality of droplets ( abstract & paragraph [0014] : droplet temperature circulation device & aqueous agent injection would allow bacterium growth within the liquid droplets ) ; capturing one or more images of the plurality of droplets (abstract: optical imaging the sample in droplets) ; performing an image analysis using artificial intelligence on the one or more images, wherein the artificial intelligence was trained (paragraph [0078]: machine learning/artificial intelligence is employed for image analysis) ; and quantifying the microorganisms (abstract: “ using optical imaging and detecting device installed at the preset position of the pipeline at the position of the micro-droplet fluorescence signal collecting and drawing scatter plot corresponding to template the number of calculating bacterium liquid sample ”) . As per claim 3 , Wu discloses wherein obtaining the sample comprises using an microfluidic device to encapsulate the microorganisms in the one or more first droplets of the plurality of droplets ( see figures 3-5 ). As per claim 5, Wu discloses wherein the one or more first droplets of the plurality of droplets are emulsified into an engineered oil ( paragraph [0015]: “ the centrifugal pipe pre-set capacity is not higher than the oil agent of the preset capacity threshold value to form the layered structure covered by the oily agent on surface of the droplet, the aqueous reagent is the mixed reagent of the bacterium liquid sample and a PCR reagent ” ). As per claim 6, Wu discloses wherein the plurality of droplets comprises one or more second droplets of the plurality of droplets that do not contain a microorganism, and wherein the one or more second droplets of the plurality of droplets are emulsified into an engineered oil (paragraphs [0065] -[ 0066]: Wu teaches the additional water drops may be added during a water phase mixed reagent with mineral oil ). As per claim 13, Wu discloses wherein quantifying the microorganism further comprises: analyzing the one or more first droplets using a digital polymerase chain reaction ( dPCR ) (abstract). As per claim 19, Wu discloses obtaining from the environmental sample a sample containing microorganisms; and quantifying microorganism in the sample. As per claim 20, Wu discloses wherein environmental sample is water or sewage (paragraph [0065]: the sample is water ). As per claim 22, Wu discloses wherein the microorganism is ba cteria (abstract). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 2 , 4, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Embree et al (“ Embree ” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2017/0196922 A1). As per claim 2, Wu teaches aqueous agent injection for growing the bacterium . However, Wu does not explicitly teach the aqueous injection contains nutrients nurturing growth of microorganism. Embree teaches “growth medium” in paragraphs [0080] -[ 0081] for including nutrients to allow growth of microorganisms. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wu’s system to include nutrients in aqueous. One would be motivated to do so because it would allow different microorganisms to grow to a certain threshold before image processing/counting. As per claim 4, the combination of Wu and Embree teaches allowing the microorganism to grow into an individual colony ( Embree : paragraphs [0180] -[ 0181]). As per claim 14, the combination of Wu and Embree teaches a method of analyzing food, the method comprising: obtaining from the food sample containing microorganism ( Embree teaches the sample may be a food sample in paragraph [0333]); and quantifying microorganism in the sample (Wu teaches quantifying microorganisms as explained above). As per claim 15, the combination of Wu and Embree teaches the microorganism is pathogenic or probiotic (Wu teaches the microorganism is bacteria; Embree teaches the microorganism is pathogenic in paragraph [0341]). For claims 17 & 18, the combination of Wu and Embree teaches obtaining from the human subject sample containing microorganisms ( Embree : paragraph [0344]: cows and humans) quantifying microorganism in the sample (see explanation in claim 1 above) , determining that the human subject has an infection when the quantified microorganisms is greater than that of a human subject without an infection , and treating the human subject for the infection ( Embree in paragraph [0382] teaches treatment is possible for subject with infection). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TOM Y LU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7393 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Matthew Bella can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272 - 7778 . 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. /TOM Y LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667