CTNF 18/439,206 CTNF 83074 DETAILED ACTION Contents Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2 Election/Restrictions 2 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4 Allowable Subject Matter 7 Conclusion 8 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 21-30 in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden . This is not found persuasive because the argument is a naked assertion without any further support . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 21-40 are currently pending. Claims 31-40 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. In regards to claim 21, the claim is an abstract idea and a mental process. The limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does the limitations add significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding claims 22-23, the claims also recite mathematical concepts that are an abstract idea and a mental process. The claims further do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does the claims add significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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.(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aifuwa (WO 2021/041994 A1). Regarding claim 21, Aifuwa discloses an analysis system comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a cell image including images of a plurality of cultured cells which are cultured in a medium (see 0081, 0082, 0083, 0085); and an image analyzing unit configured to analyze living states of the plurality of cultured cells included in the cell image on the basis of luminance values and cell diameters of the cultured cells included in the cell image (see 0080, 0122, 0099, 0123, 0097,0044-0045, 0097-0099, 0129) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aifuwa (WO 2021/041994 A1) in view of Gustafsson (US 2010/0060897 A1) . Regarding claim 22 , Aifuwa teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 21. Aifuwa does not teach expressly derives a refractive index difference between the plurality of cultured cells included in the cell image and the medium on the basis of the luminance values and the cell diameters of the cultured cells and drives one or both of a survival rate of the plurality of cultured cells included in the cell image and a living cell density of living cells in the cultured cells on the basis of refractive index difference information for identifying the refractive index difference. Gustafsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches derives a refractive index difference between the plurality of cultured cells included in the cell image and the medium on the basis of the luminance values and the cell diameters of the cultured cells and drives one or both of a survival rate of the plurality of cultured cells included in the cell image and a living cell density of living cells in the cultured cells on the basis of refractive index difference information for identifying the refractive index difference (see 0037-0038, 0040, 0044, 0012, 0015, 0044, 0045, 0049, 0012, 0014, 0043, 0040, 0042, 0047). It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aifuwa to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Gustafsson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to increase flexibility and reduce time consumption (see 0009). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Aifuwa, while the teaching of Gustafsson continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aifuwa (WO 2021/041994 A1) in view of Gustafsson (US 2010/0060897 A1), and further in view of Jalali et al (WO 2017/053592 A1) . Regarding claim 23 , Aifuwa with Gustafsson teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 21. Aifuwa with Gustafsson does not teach expressly acquires a quantitative phase image on the basis of light intensity distribution data of the cell image, and wherein the image analyzing unit derives information of the refractive index difference between the cultured cells included in the quantitative cell image and the medium on the basis of cell luminance values in the quantitative phase image and the cell diameters of the cultured cells. Jalali, in the same field of endeavor, teaches acquires a quantitative phase image on the basis of light intensity distribution data of the cell image, and wherein the image analyzing unit derives information of the refractive index difference between the cultured cells included in the quantitative cell image and the medium on the basis of cell luminance values in the quantitative phase image and the cell diameters of the cultured cells (see 0011-0012, 0035-0037, 0107, 0132-0135, 0046, 0059-0061, 0131-0134, 0044, 0049, 0050, 0069, 0135). It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aifuwa with Gustafsson to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Jalali. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to achieve record high accuracy in classification (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Aifuwa with Gustafsson, while the teaching of Jalali continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 24-30 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. Regarding claim 24, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the image analyzing unit derives the information of the refractive index difference on the basis of Expression (1): Phase value = (2xπxAnxcell thickness)/~ (1) where a in Expression (1) is an observation wavelength, An is a refractive index difference between a cell and a medium, a phase value corresponds to the cell luminance value of the quantitative phase image, and the cell thickness corresponds to the cell diameter, and wherein the information of the refractive index difference is acquired by dividing the cell luminance value by the cell diameter. Regarding claims 25, 29, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the image analyzing unit determines living cells and dead cells in the cultured cells on the basis of the information of the refractive index difference and derives the survival rate of the cultured cells using Expression (2) on the basis of a count result of the living cells and the number of observed cells: Survival rate [%] = 100x(number of living cells)/(number of observed cells). Regarding claims 26-28, 30, none of the references of record alone or in combination suggest or fairly teach wherein the image analyzing unit determines living cells and dead cells in the cultured cells on the basis of the information of the refractive index difference and derives a living cell density of the living cells using Expression (3) on the basis of a counting result of the living cells and a capacity of a container in an observation field of view: Living cell density [cells/mL] = (number of living cells)/(observation-field capacity). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows: Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /EDWARD PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 2 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 3 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 4 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 5 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 6 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 7 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 8 Art Unit: 2675 Application/Control Number: 18/439,206 Page 9 Art Unit: 2675
Prosecution Insights