DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on January 9, 2026. Claims 1, 14-15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claim 20 has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and will be considered for examination.
3. In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
4. Claims 1-4 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) and further in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1).
As in Claim 1, Hage teaches a biological particle sorting device comprising (FIGS. 1-4, at least pars. 97-99, 107-109, a sorting control system (e.g., a particle sorter system 200) for biological particles):
a display that displays a measurement data display area, wherein in a display mode that displays blank spaces in addition to one or more pieces of measurement data in the measurement data display area (FIGS. 1-4 and 6-9, pars. 98-99, pars. 139-143, the system displays measurement data (e.g., plotted data) in display areas arranged in a triangular grid that includes blank spaces in addition to one or more pieces of measurement data).
Hage does not appear to explicitly teach: a display that displays a sorting operation control area, wherein a sorting operation control area displays a button that controls flowing of a biological particle containing sample into the biological particle sorting device; a display that displays in response to a user selecting one piece of movement target measurement data of the one or more pieces of measurement data and one movement destination position in the blank spaces, the movement target measurement data is displayed at the movement destination position; and after the display position of the movement target measurement data is changed, a position where the movement target measurement data exists is displayed as the blank spaces.
However, in the same field of the invention, Yamamoto teaches a display that displays a sorting operation control area, wherein a sorting operation control area displays a button that controls flowing of a biological particle containing sample into the biological particle sorting device (FIG. 2, pars. 70-71, 80, 83, a device displays a start button 130, pause button 131, and stop button 132 for controlling the analysis of biological samples. For example, with the start button, the system starts a serious of analyses including preprocessing on the biological samples).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, and to display the buttons for controlling the analysis of the biological samples, as taught by Yamamoto. The motivation is to easily allow the operator to start, pause, and stop the analysis process on the biological samples.
Hage and Yamamoto do not teach: a display that displays in response to a user selecting one piece of movement target measurement data of the one or more pieces of measurement data and one movement destination position in the blank spaces, the movement target measurement data is displayed at the movement destination position; and after the display position of the movement target measurement data is changed, a position where the movement target measurement data exists is displayed as the blank spaces.
However, in the same field of the invention, Baker teaches: in response to a user selecting one piece of movement target measurement data of the one or more pieces of measurement data and one movement destination position in the blank spaces, the movement target measurement data is displayed at the movement destination position (FGIS. 3-7,(38), (40), (64)-(67), a graphical user interface 300 displays a grid of items (e, g, music cells in this instance) including empty cells (e.g., cells 316, 336, 356, etc.). The user can select a cell (e.g., cell 322) and drag it to an empty cell (e.g., cell 324) to move it to a new position (e.g., a different column)); and
after the display position of the movement target measurement data is changed, a position where the movement target measurement data exists is displayed as the blank spaces (FGIS. 3-7, (38), (40), (64)-(67), after moving the cell 322 to the new position, its original or previous position is displayed as a blank cell as shown in FIGS. 6-7).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s teachings, and to display the buttons for controlling the analysis of the biological samples, as taught by Yamamoto, and to incorporate the way to move the desired cell into the empty cell in the grid provide, as taught by Baker. The motivation is to enable users to easily move items within the grid for editing or organization.
As in Claim 2, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker further teaches that the one or more pieces of measurement data are displayed in a grid pattern in the measurement data display area (Baker, FGIS. 3-7, at least col. 10, lines 9-62).
As in Claim 3, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker further teaches that wherein a candidate position image indicating a position where measurement data can be arranged is displayed in the blank spaces (Baker, FGIS. 3-7, at least col. 10, lines 9-62, empty spaces or positions are visually indicated by empty calls, as shown in FIGS. 3-7).
As in Claim 4, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker further teaches that an arrangement configuration of measurement data other than the movement target measurement data is not changed between before and after the movement of the movement target measurement data to the blank spaces (Baker, FGIS. 3-7, at least col. 10, lines 9-62, the arrangement of cells in the grid, except for the moved call, remains the same).
As in Claim 17, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker further teaches that the display is configured to facilitate touch input (Hage, pars. 101, 170, the device can be implemented as a keyboard 108 or other means for providing an input signal to the analytics controller 100 such as a touchscreen).
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19, please see the rejection for Claim 1, which incorporates all the limitations recited in Claim 1.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) and further in view of Schultink, Jan (US 2016/0026376 A1).
As in Claim 5, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker does not teach a plurality of display modes, wherein the blank spaces are caused to appear in the measurement data display area in response to selection of a display mode that displays the blank spaces from among the plurality of display modes; or the blank spaces are caused to appear in the measurement data display area in response to the selection of the display mode that displays the blank spaces from among the plurality of display modes and selection of the movement target measurement data.
However, in the same filed of the invention, DelloStritto teaches a plurality of display modes, wherein the blank spaces are caused to appear in the measurement data display area in response to selection of a display mode that displays the blank spaces from among the plurality of display modes; or the blank spaces are caused to appear in the measurement data display area in response to the selection of the display mode that displays the blank spaces from among the plurality of display modes and selection of the movement target measurement data (FIGS. 5, 8, 9-12, pars. 23-24, 27-28, 51-53, the system allows the user to spelt a display mode among a plurality of modes, such as a grid view with a specific array that presents blank grids).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to provide options for grid arrangements providing blank grids, as taught by Schultink. The motivation is to allow flexible arrangements of data within the screen region.
6. Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) and further in view of DelloStritto et al. (US 2012/0096367 A1).
As in Claim 6, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker does not teach that the number of columns of positions where the measurement data can be arranged in the measurement data display area is settable.
However, in the same filed of the invention, DelloStritto teaches that the number of columns of positions where the measurement data can be arranged in the measurement data display area is settable (FIG. 3, pars. 54-55, the user can specify the number of columns to organize and view data in the grid view via a grid window 162).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to provide the way to control column in the grid view, as taught by DelloStritto. The motivation is to allow flexible arrangements of data within the screen region.
As in Claim 7, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto further teaches that the biological particle sorting device is configured to be able to display a setting panel that changes the number of columns (DelloStritto, FIG. 3, pars. 54-55 ).
As in Claim 8, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto teaches all the limitations of Claim 6. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto further teaches that the number of columns is increased in the measurement data display area in response to the selection of the display mode that displays the blank space (DelloStritto, FIG. 3, pars. 54-55 ).
As in Claim 9, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto further teaches that the increased columns are displayed as the blank spaces (DelloStritto, FIG. 3, pars. 54-55).
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1 in view of DelloStritto et al. (US 2012/0096367 A1) and further in view of Taylor, Thomas H (US 7673250 B2).
As in Claim 10, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto teaches all the limitations of Claim 7. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-DelloStritto does not teach that the setting panel is displayed translucently.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Taylor teaches that the setting panel is displayed translucently (FIGS. 2A-2D, col. 4, line 60-col. 5, line 13, and col. 9, lines 56-60, the user can control or adjust a level of transparency of a user interface or any individual items or elements within it ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s, Baker’s, and DelloStritto’s teachings, and to incorporate a way to control the level of transparency for any user interface elements, as taught by Taylor. The motivation is to allow users to customize visibility and enhance usability based on their preferences or environment.
8. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) and further in view of Cappione et al. (US 2008/0263468 A1).
As in Claim 11, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker further does not teach that wherein the biological particle sorting device is configured to be able to display a gate edit panel that edits a gate set in the measurement data, and the gate edit panel is configured to be able to select a gate to be edited.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Cappione teaches that wherein the biological particle sorting device is configured to be able to display a gate edit panel that edits a gate set in the measurement data (FIGS. 16-18, pars. 69-80, the system enables users to create and edit gate definition as part of configurating analyses for data visualization), and
the gate edit panel is configured to be able to select a gate to be edited (FIGS. 16-18, pars. 69-80, the user can select a gate to be edited, such as graph type, choosing axes, and plotting data from specific sample locations, etc.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to incorporate the way to select the gate to be edited, as taught by Cappione. The motivation is to provide an intuitive, interactive way for users to define, combine, and optimize gates, enabling precise analysis and real-time visualization of data for more accurate and meaning insights.
As in Claim 12, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-Cappione teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-Cappione further teaches that the gate edit panel is configured to be able to select the entire selected gate or a configuration component of the selected gate as an object to be edited (Cappione, FIGS. 16-18, pars. 69-80).
As in Claim 13, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker does not teach that the biological particle sorting device is configured to be able to display a plot or axis edit panel that edits a display form and/or axis of the measurement data, and the plot or axis edit panel is configured to be able to select an axis to be edited.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Cappione taches that the biological particle sorting device is configured to be able to display a plot or axis edit panel that edits a display form and/or axis of the measurement data, and the plot or axis edit panel is configured to be able to select an axis to be edited (pars. 74-75, the user can select a gate to be edited, such as graph type, choosing axes, and plotting data from specific sample locations, etc.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to edit the plot or axis via the edit interface, as taught by Cappione. The motivation is to provide an intuitive, interactive way for users to define, combine, and optimize gates, enabling precise analysis and real-time visualization of data for more accurate and meaning insights.
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) in view of Cappione et al. (US 2008/0263468 A1) and further in view of Siler et al. (US 2012/0019559 A1).
As in Claim 14, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker does not teach that wherein the sorting operation control area displays a button that controls a sorting operation by the biological particle sorting device, and data associated with the sorting operation control area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Cappione teaches that wherein the sorting operation control area displays a button that controls a sorting operation by the biological particle sorting device, and data associated with the sorting operation control area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area (FIGS. 16-18, pars. 69-80).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to provide the buttons on the user interface controlling operations, as taught by Cappione. The motivation is to allows users to easily control operation via the graphic user interface.
Hage-Yamamoto-Baker and Cappione do not teach that data associated with the sorting operation control area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Siler teaches that data associated with the sorting operation control area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area (FIG. 2, pars. 36-37, 40, the user interface displays expandable indicators 200 for revealing measurement values).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s, Baker’s, and Cappione’s teachings, and to provide the expandable indicators for revealing measurement values, as taught by Siler. The motivation is to provide a clear and organized way to explore and analyze data at different levels of detail.
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) in view of Cappione et al. (US 2008/0263468 A1) and further in view of Dowd et al. (US 2013/0127734 A).
As in Claim 15, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Baker does not teach that the display displays, in addition to the measurement data display area, an operation button area that displays one or more operation buttons used to set a sorting condition, and the operation button area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area in response to selection of any one of the one or more operation buttons.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Cappione teaches that wherein the display displays, in addition to the measurement data display area, an operation button area that displays one or more operation buttons used to set a sorting condition (FIGS. 16-18, pars. 69-80).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s and Baker’s teachings, and to provide the buttons on the user interface controlling operations, as taught by Cappione. The motivation is to allows users to easily control operation via the graphic user interface.
Hage-Yamamoto-Baker and Cappione do not teach that the operation button area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area in response to selection of any one of the one or more operation buttons.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Dowd teaches that the operation button area can be expanded and displayed on the measurement data display area in response to selection of any one of the one or more operation buttons (FIGS. 4A-4B, pars. 46-47, the user interface allows users to expand tool groupings to access related tools).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s, Baker’s, and Cappione’s teachings, and to inculpate the way to expand operation button areas, as taught by Dowd. The motivation is to enables users to expand more tools for user’s needs or convivence.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) in view of Cappione et al. (US 2008/0263468 A1) in view of Dowd et al. (US 2013/0127734 A) and further in view of Schultink, Jan (US 2016/0026376 A1).
As in Claim 16, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-Cappione-Dowd teaches all the limitations of Claim 15. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker-Cappione-Dowd does not teach that a button that selects the display mode that displays the blank spaces is displayed in the operation button area.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Schultink teaches that a button that selects the display mode that displays the blank spaces is displayed in the operation button area (FIGS. 5, 8, 9-12, pars. 23-24, 27-28, 51-53).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s, Baker’s, Cappione’s, and Dowd’s teachings, and to provide the button for controlling display mode, as taught by Schultink. The motivation is to allow users to easily select a desired arrangement for the better visualization.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hage et al. (US 2020/0319079 A1) in view of Yamamoto, Kohei (US 2020/0309747 A1) in view of Baker et al. (US 9640158 B1) and further in view of Lucente et al. (US 2022/0099491 A1).
As in Claim 20, Hage-Yamamoto-Baker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hage-Yamamoto-Baker does not teach that the sorting operation control area displays a button that controls recording of a detection result by a detector.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Lucente teaches that the sorting operation control area displays a button that controls recording of a detection result by a detector (pars. 95-96, the device displays options in the user interface for saving data that include detector array responses and spectral maps (including spectral or hyperspectral mapping results) by a detector or detector array. These data are used for analyzing and identifying chemical, electronic, or biological species; further see par. 94).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sorter system 200 for presenting measurement data in the grid, as taught by Hage, in view of Yamamoto’s teachings, and to display the buttons for controlling the analysis of the biological samples, as taught by Yamamoto, and to display options on the user interface for recording detection results, as taught by Lucente. The motivation is to enable users to easily record detection result via the user interface.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179