CTNF 18/368,222 CTNF 82844 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 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. With respect to claims 1 and 2 , the claims recite an apparatus comprising an analysis device, an optical pickup, a pulse detection circuit, and a nanoparticle counter or an aggregation degree generating unit. However, the claim further includes limitations that recite active method steps for performing actions such as the nanoparticle counter or aggregation degree generating unit “divides the reaction region into a plurality of unit sections,” “calculates the number of unit sections…,” “generates or selects second array data of a theoretical aggregate value…”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) The inclusion of these methods renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to an apparatus defined by its structure or to a method requiring performance of these recited steps. Method steps do not further structurally limit the apparatus and introduce ambiguity into the claim. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2011) The balance of claims are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiency of the above claims upon which they depend. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 112, 2 nd above. However, if these concerns are corrected, the examiner believes the claims do contain allowable subject matter. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 6 and 7 are allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art alone or in combination fails to suggest or disclose individually aggregating the number of sections in which single pulse waveforms are detected and the sections in which close pulse waveforms are detected and generating a measured aggregate value that is then used to correct the number of nanoparticles calculated in each region . The prior art is primarily the inventor’s own work and this further step is clearly an improvement on previous methods. U.S. Publications 2019/0145885, U.S. Publication 2018/0080870, and U.S. Publication 2018/0238790 all disclose the optical pick-up and counting of nanoparticles in divided regions, but all lack the idea of separating which pulses are single nanoparticles and which are multiple nanoparticles based on the pulse and then aggregating the counts based on those numbers. Several prior art documents disclose that it is well known that a plurality of attached nanoparticles creates a higher signal intensity than single particles (WO 2021/206614 as an example), however fails to then use this knowledge to recompute count data for regions on the optical disc. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm. 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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. REBECCA CAROLE. BRYANT Examiner Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/368,222 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/368,222 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/368,222 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877