CTFR 18/450,720 CTFR 90952 DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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. Response to Amendment As to the certified foreign translation of the priority document filed on 5/15/26, the previous rejection based on Baker et al (Baker Alexander et al; “Lateral flow glycol-assays for the rapid and low-cost detection of lectins-polymeric linkers and particle engineering are essential for selectivity and performance”; Advanced Healthcare Materials; vol. 11, issue 4, published 11/17/21; already of record; hereinafter “Baker”) has been withdrawn since applicants have perfected priority of the instant application to have an effective filing date of 3/24/21. As to the amended claims and remarks, filed on 5/11/26, the previous 101 rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments. As to the amended claims and remarks, the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, new rejections are entered to address the claim amendments. Regarding the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments (see below). Claim Status Claims 1-13, 16-19 are pending. 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 1-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 is rejected based on the following analysis: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of “processor configured to perform a main determination” in lines 7-9 and 25-26, and also recites that the processor “selects” pixels in lines 18-20 and acquires residual pixels by excluding pixels in lines 21-23, and then deriving values using the pixels in line 24. Each of these are mental steps and/or math. Although a processor is used, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application? No. Once the determination is made then a result of determination is displayed. However, displaying then this does not integrate the exception into a practical application because dispalying is insignificant post-solution activity and also just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications, and is similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). The claim also recites an assay apparatus with a loading part and an imaging unit to image the assay region. However, this is just using the assay apparatus and imaging unit to gather data to be used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications. The abstract idea is performed by a computer/controller/processor, but performing the abstract idea on a general-purpose computer is not enough to integrate the exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)I.). Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? The claim recites the additional elements of an assay apparatus with a loading part and an imaging unit and a display. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the art as evidenced by Ding et al (WO 2021092595 where US 20220404342 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Ding”; already of record) and Uchida et al (US 20110244590; hereinafter “Uchida”; already of record; already of record). Ding discusses an assay apparatus with a loading part and an imaging unit and a display; [7, 99, 221-225, 236-239], Fig. 2. Uchida discusses an assay apparatus with a loading part and an imaging unit and a display; [56, 64, 72-73], Fig. 1-2. The dependent claims 2-13, 16-19 undergo a similar analysis and do not appear to resolve any of the above issues, and are therefore similarly rejected. Claims 2-3 describe “selecting” which is an abstract idea under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two. Claims 4-5 describe “deriving” which is math and/or a mental process and “determining” which are abstract ideas under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two. Claim 6 further describes the imaging device which is still used to gather data under step 2A prong two, and where the imaging device with an image sensor is WURC as evidenced by the cited references above. Claim 6 also describes generating a profile which is a mental step as it could be done by the computer or with pencil and paper under step 2A prong one, and even if this were displaying then this does not integrate the exception into a practical application because notifying is insignificant post-solution activity and not a particular practical application, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Claim 7 further describes dividing the image and determining which are both abstract ideas under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two. Claims 8-12, 18 describe the abstract ideas of “determining” and/or “deriving” in more detail under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two. As best understood, claim 13 also recites details the abstract ideas of “determining” under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two, and even if this were displaying then this does not integrate the exception into a practical application because notifying is insignificant post-solution activity and not a particular practical application, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Claims 16, 17, 19 recite details the abstract ideas of “presenting” which could be a determining step (as best understood) under step 2A prong one, where there is no application under step 2A prong two, and even if this were displaying then this does not integrate the exception into a practical application because notifying is insignificant post-solution activity and not a particular practical application, similar to the alarm in Parker v. Flook. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). 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 AIA Claim s 1-13, 16-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. As to claim 1, it is unclear what the range being selected is attempting to be defined by in lines 18-20. What is a pixel of a preset order? How is the range of a minimum pixel value to a pixel of a preset order defined? The range typically includes similar features such as units (i.e. value), but the minimum pixel value is a range from the minimum value to a preset order where it is unclear how this preset order relates to the minimum value? As to claim 1, it is unclear what high and low values are attempting to describe in lines 18-20. First, it is unclear what pixels are selected. A pixel is selected having a minimum value as a high-density pixel corresponding to low pixel values. This language reads very ambiguously and it is unclear whether a high density or high value pixel is selected or whether a low density or low value pixel is selected. Additionally, it is unclear if the plurality of pixels selected having a minimum value in line 18 are the one or more high density pixels of line 19, which also creates an ambiguity as to whether a plurality of pixels are selected as implied by line 18 or whether one (one or more) pixels are only required as implied by line 19. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al (WO 2021092595 where US 20220404342 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Ding”; already of record) alone or alternatively in view of Georgescu et al (US 20180260609; hereinafter “Georgescu”; already of record) . As to claim 1, Ding teaches an immunochromatographic assay apparatus (Ding; Figs. 1-2, [54]) comprising: a loading part in which a cartridge including a carrier having a spotting region on which a sample is spotted and an assay region in which a color development state changes depending on whether the sample is positive or negative, is attachably and detachably loaded; an imaging unit that images the assay region; a monitor; and a processor configured to perform a main determination, which is a determination of whether the sample is positive or negative, based on an assay region image of the assay region imaged by the imaging unit, wherein in a case where a development direction of the sample in the carrier is a row direction and a direction intersecting the row direction is a column direction, the assay region is a line-shaped region extending along the column direction, the assay region image is an image in which a plurality of pixels are two-dimensionally arranged in a matrix form having a plurality of rows and columns, and the processor is configured to perform the main determination using residual pixels excluding one or more low-density pixels having a relatively low density in each of the columns of the assay region image; select a plurality of pixels from a pixel having a minimum pixel value to a pixel of a preset order as one or more high-optical density pixels corresponding to pixels having relatively low pixel values; acquire residual pixels by excluding the one or more high-optical density pixels to suppress an erroneous determination caused by a portion having a partially high density in the assay region; derive a representative value using the residual pixels; perform the main determination using the derived representative values of the respective columns; and display a result of the main determination on the monitor. (Ding teaches a VFA/LFA strip that is carrier with bars/lines/columns for analytes in figure 1; [29, 42]. Ding teaches an imaging device with an adapter/slider/holder as the loading part to connect the carrier to the imager; [7, 221-225, 236-239], Fig. 2. Ding teaches a display; [99, 223]. Ding teaches a processor, where the processor determines the presence or absence of the sample/analyte; [91, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352]. Ding teaches dividing up each of the imaged assay region into subregions, which create a heatmap/matrix of the pixels and determine highest and lowest pixel values; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches removing the highest pixel values from the heatmap/matrix to help in the determination; [284-285]. Ding teaches that the pixels are formed by a matrix with corresponding coordinates, where when the highest value pixels are removed, the pixels with coordinates next to the highest value are also removed; [284-286]. Therefore, because there are neighboring pixel coordinates for the plurality of pixels, then there is at least a plurality of pixels in each the row and column forming a matrix. The removal of high value pixels, as errors, are iteratively removed from the list such that each local peak is removed whereby this occurs for a plurality of pixels and would occur for at least two columns out of the matrix/heatmap. As best understood, the examiner notes that a larger pixel value correlates to a lower pixel density, while a smaller pixel value correlates to a higher pixel density, as described in [127-128] of applicants instant specification. Ding teaches displaying the results; [99, 223]). Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. Ding teaches that using all of the optical data can cause the analysis to include unwanted errors where it is desirable to correct the data (Ding; [5, 91-94]), and that algorithms are used to help determine actual analytes from false positives (Ding; [295]). Although Ding teaches excluding outlier pixels, including low-density pixels, Ding also suggests in another embodiment that high-density pixels can be removed (Ding suggest that smaller heatmap/matrix pixel values, which correlate to higher pixel density, can be removed during analysis; [293]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte based on an exclusion of pixels of Ding to have excluded high-density pixels as suggested by Ding because Ding teaches that using all of the optical data can cause the analysis to include unwanted errors or false positives (Ding; [5, 295]) and Ding suggests that removing the outliers as the highest and smallest values helps to improve the assay results (Ding; [284-285, 293]). However, if it is deemed that Ding does not specifically teach the main determination excludes one or more high-density pixels, then Georgescu teaches the analogous art of analysis of samples images where pixels that are high density or low density can be excluded (Georgescu teaches that during the analysis, that removal of outlying pixels helps to create a noise free analysis; [21]. Georgescu teaches that pixels that are too bright (higher pixel value which equals lower pixel density) or pixels that are too dark (lower pixel value which equals higher pixel density) can be removed to create a noise-free analysis; [21, 25, 27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte based on an exclusion of low-density pixels of Ding to have excluded high-density pixels as taught by Georgescu because Georgescu teaches that excluding low density and high density pixels are obvious variants (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]) and because Georgescu teaches that excluding the high density pixels creates a noise free analysis (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]). The modification of Ding and alternatively over Ding and Georgescu does not specifically teach that for each column that the high density (lower value) pixels identified and removed and that a value for each column is derived in the determination. However, Ding teaches a matrix and heatmap and removing values that are erroneous, and because Georgescu also teaches that stains mix in a linear fashion [22] where the outliers are noise and the inaccurate optical density pixels should be removed [21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination and derivation of values by removing high density pixels from the matrix of modified Ding to have done so for each column in the matrix as this would achieve a similar result of removing the erroneous values from the determination process. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the high-density values were removed from all of the aggregate data, then the values could also be removed from each row or each column that creates the data, achieving the same purpose and predictable result of ensuring that the erroneous data was removed that is desired by both Ding (Ding; [5, 91-94]) and Georgescu (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]). (See MPEP 2143 I. A and MPEP 2143 I. B). As to claim 2, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select a plurality of pixels from a highest density pixel to a pixel of preset order in each of the columns as the high-density pixels (The modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high-density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations). As to claim 3, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the number of pixels selected as the high-density pixels is the same in each of the columns (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations). As to claim 4, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein for each of the columns, the processor is configured to derive a representative value of each of the columns using the residual pixels, and perform the main determination using the derived representative values of the respective columns (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 5, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to derive, as the representative value of each of the columns, a pixel value of one pixel selected from the residual pixels in each of the columns according to a preset reference or an average pixel value of two or more pixels selected from the residual pixels in each of the columns according to a preset reference (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 6, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the imaging unit is an image sensor that images an observation region including the assay region to output an observation image including the observation region, the observation image is an image in which a plurality of pixels are two-dimensionally arranged in a matrix form, and the processor is configured to generate a profile in the row direction based on the representative values of the respective columns in the observation image, and extract an assay region profile corresponding to the assay region from the generated profile or extract the assay region image corresponding to the assay region from the observation image based on the profile (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]). As to claim 7, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to divide the assay region image into a plurality of areas extending in the row direction, derive an average value or a center value of each column in the areas, which is obtained by using at least a part of a plurality of pixels included in each of the columns, and generate an area profile in the row direction for each of the areas by using the derived average value or the derived center value, and in the main determination, execute a condition determination processing using the area profile derived for each of the areas (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 8, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to execute, as the condition determination processing, at least one of the first, second, or third condition determination processing for determining whether or not a value derived based on the area profile satisfies a preset condition, and determine that the sample is negative in a case where even one of the conditions is not satisfied in the executed condition determination processing, or determine that the sample is positive in a case where all the conditions are satisfied in the executed condition determination processing, the first condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which a differential area profile obtained by differentiating the area profile for each of the areas is used, a position in the row direction showing a highest maximal value in the differential area profile is derived for each of the areas, a standard deviation at a plurality of the derived positions in the low direction is derived, and whether or not a first condition that the standard deviation is less than a preset first threshold value is satisfied is determined, the second condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which the differential area profile for each of the areas is added, a difference between the highest maximal value in the added addition differential area profile and an average value of maximal value other than the highest maximal value is derived, and whether or not a second condition that the difference is larger than a preset second threshold value is satisfied is determined, and the third condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which the area profiles for each of the areas are added, and whether or not the third condition that a value at the position in the row direction which is preset in the addition area profile is larger than the third threshold value is satisfied is determined (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 9, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute, as the condition determination processing, all of the first condition determination processing, the second condition determination processing, and the third condition determination processing (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 10, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to, in the main determination, determine that the sample is negative in a case where the maximum position, which is a position in the row direction showing a maximum density in the assay region profile, is located in any of both end regions of the assay region profile, in a case where the maximum position is not located in any of both the end regions, derive a center position of the assay region in the row direction and a width of the assay region, which are defined based on the maximum density and the maximum position, execute a pre-condition determination processing for determining whether or not a pre-determination condition that the maximum density is not less than a preset fourth threshold value and the center position and the width are within preset ranges is satisfied, and determine that the sample is negative in a case where the pre-determination condition is not satisfied, and execute the condition determination processing in a case where the pre-determination condition is satisfied (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 11, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to, in the main determination, in a case where it is determined in the pre-condition determination processing that the pre-determination condition is satisfied, determine whether or not the maximum density is not less than a preset fifth threshold value larger than the fourth threshold value before executing the condition determination processing, determine that the sample is positive in a case where the maximum density is not less than the fifth threshold value, and execute the condition determination processing in a case where the maximum density is less than the fifth threshold value (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]). As to claim 12, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform an abnormality determination for determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the assay region image, using, as a determination index, at least one of a difference between a relatively large pixel value and a relatively small pixel value in at least one column in the assay region image, a standard deviation of the pixel values of the pixels included in the at least one column, or a variation coefficient of the pixel values of the pixels included in the at least one column, or at least one of a difference between a relatively large representative value and a relatively small representative value among representative values of all rows, which is derived based on a plurality of pixels existing in different columns in the same row in the assay region image, a standard deviation of the representative values of all the rows or a variation coefficient of the representative values of all the rows, and determine a processing content related to the main determination based on the presence or absence of the abnormality (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]. Ding teaches the determination of errors/abnormalities and non-uniformities; [5, 91-95]). As to claim 13, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the processing content includes any one of whether or not to perform the main determination or a method of presenting a determination result of the main determination (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte; [91-94, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352]. Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 16, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor that the assay region may be stained in a case where the abnormality is present (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results, where if there was an error and the determination was not made then this would be result displayed; [99, 229]). As to claim 17, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor a determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is absent, or present the determination result of the main determination with reservation indicating that the assay region image has an abnormality or not present the determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is present and in a case where the determination result of the main determination is positive (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 18, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to perform the main determination, and perform the abnormality determination in a case where a determination result is positive (Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 19, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor a determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is absent, and present the determination result of the main determination with reservation indicating that the assay region image has an abnormality or not present the determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is present (The modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al (WO 2021092595 where US 20220404342 is used as the corresponding document; hereinafter “Ding”; already of record) in view of Georgescu et al (US 20180260609; hereinafter “Georgescu”; already of record) and further in view of Poulsen et al (US 20180259449; hereinafter “Poulsen”) or Tan et al (Translation of WO 2017067023; hereinafter “Tan”) or Cote et al (US 20130321700; hereinafter “Cote”) . As to claim 1, Ding teaches an immunochromatographic assay apparatus (Ding; Figs. 1-2, [54]) comprising: a loading part in which a cartridge including a carrier having a spotting region on which a sample is spotted and an assay region in which a color development state changes depending on whether the sample is positive or negative, is attachably and detachably loaded; an imaging unit that images the assay region; a monitor; and a processor configured to perform a main determination, which is a determination of whether the sample is positive or negative, based on an assay region image of the assay region imaged by the imaging unit, wherein in a case where a development direction of the sample in the carrier is a row direction and a direction intersecting the row direction is a column direction, the assay region is a line-shaped region extending along the column direction, the assay region image is an image in which a plurality of pixels are two-dimensionally arranged in a matrix form having a plurality of rows and columns, and the processor is configured to perform the main determination using residual pixels excluding one or more low-density pixels having a relatively low density in each of the columns of the assay region image; select a plurality of pixels from a pixel having a minimum pixel value to a pixel of a preset order as one or more high-optical density pixels corresponding to pixels having relatively low pixel values; acquire residual pixels by excluding the one or more high-optical density pixels to suppress an erroneous determination caused by a portion having a partially high density in the assay region; derive a representative value using the residual pixels; perform the main determination using the derived representative values of the respective columns; and display a result of the main determination on the monitor. (Ding teaches a VFA/LFA strip that is carrier with bars/lines/columns for analytes in figure 1; [29, 42]. Ding teaches an imaging device with an adapter/slider/holder as the loading part to connect the carrier to the imager; [7, 221-225, 236-239], Fig. 2. Ding teaches a display; [99, 223]. Ding teaches a processor, where the processor determines the presence or absence of the sample/analyte; [91, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352]. Ding teaches dividing up each of the imaged assay region into subregions, which create a heatmap/matrix of the pixels and determine highest and lowest pixel values; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches removing the highest pixel values from the heatmap/matrix to help in the determination; [284-285]. Ding teaches that the pixels are formed by a matrix with corresponding coordinates, where when the highest value pixels are removed, the pixels with coordinates next to the highest value are also removed; [284-286]. Therefore, because there are neighboring pixel coordinates for the plurality of pixels, then there is at least a plurality of pixels in each the row and column forming a matrix. The removal of high value pixels, as errors, are iteratively removed from the list such that each local peak is removed whereby this occurs for a plurality of pixels and would occur for at least two columns out of the matrix/heatmap. As best understood, the examiner notes that a larger pixel value correlates to a lower pixel density, while a smaller pixel value correlates to a higher pixel density, as described in [127-128] of applicants instant specification. Ding teaches displaying the results; [99, 223]). Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. Ding teaches that using all of the optical data can cause the analysis to include unwanted errors where it is desirable to correct the data (Ding; [5, 91-94]), and that algorithms are used to help determine actual analytes from false positives (Ding; [295]). Although Ding teaches excluding outlier pixels, including low-density pixels, Ding also suggests in another embodiment that high-density pixels can be removed (Ding suggest that smaller heatmap/matrix pixel values, which correlate to higher pixel density, can be removed during analysis; [293]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte based on an exclusion of pixels of Ding to have excluded high-density pixels as suggested by Ding because Ding teaches that using all of the optical data can cause the analysis to include unwanted errors or false positives (Ding; [5, 295]) and Ding suggests that removing the outliers as the highest and smallest values helps to improve the assay results (Ding; [284-285, 293]). However, if it is deemed that Ding does not specifically teach the main determination excludes one or more high-density pixels, then Georgescu teaches the analogous art of analysis of samples images where pixels that are high density or low density can be excluded (Georgescu teaches that during the analysis, that removal of outlying pixels helps to create a noise free analysis; [21]. Georgescu teaches that pixels that are too bright (higher pixel value which equals lower pixel density) or pixels that are too dark (lower pixel value which equals higher pixel density) can be removed to create a noise-free analysis; [21, 25, 27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte based on an exclusion of low-density pixels of Ding to have excluded high-density pixels as taught by Georgescu because Georgescu teaches that excluding low density and high density pixels are obvious variants (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]) and because Georgescu teaches that excluding the high density pixels creates a noise free analysis (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]). The modification of Ding and alternatively over Ding and Georgescu does not specifically teach that for each column that the high density (lower value) pixels identified and removed and that a value for each column is derived in the determination. However, Ding teaches a matrix and heatmap and removing values that are erroneous, and because Georgescu also teaches that stains mix in a linear fashion [22] where the outliers are noise and the inaccurate optical density pixels should be removed [21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination and derivation of values by removing high density pixels from the matrix of modified Ding to have done so for each column in the matrix as this would achieve a similar result of removing the erroneous values from the determination process. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the high-density values were removed from all of the aggregate data, then the values could also be removed from each row or each column that creates the data, achieving the same purpose and predictable result of ensuring that the erroneous data was removed that is desired by both Ding (Ding; [5, 91-94]) and Georgescu (Georgescu; [21, 25, 27]). (See MPEP 2143 I. A and MPEP 2143 I. B). Nonetheless, Poulsen, and Tan each teach the analogous art of analysis of test strips (Poulsen; [4], Fig. 5. Tan; page 1) and Cote teaches the analogous art of image analysis (Cote teaches pixel image analysis; [300, 500, 519, 579, 661, 1132], Fig. 22, 24) where Poulsen, Tan and Cote teach a matrix of pixels including columns and rows is imaged and each column is evaluated to remove values that make the determination erroneous (Poulsen teaches a matrix array of pixels in rows and columns, where values in each column that cause erroneous determinations are excluded; Fig. 5, [17, 74, 85, 93, 135, 187]. Tan teaches that the images are sliced into pixels with multiple rows and columns, and that at each row or column of pixels the values are compared with a range to determine if there is a difference, and if so then those values outside of the range are set as the boundary and are removed, where this occurs constantly for each column or row as a shift; pages 12-14. Cote teaches pixel image analysis, where there are multiple columns of images, and where the pixel data is isolated to data values that are within an offset in order to correct the values to make the determination more accurate; [300, 500, 519, 579, 661, 1132], Fig. 22, 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte using pixel values of modified Ding to have evaluated the pixels within a plurality of columns as in Poulsen because Poulsen teaches that it is known to evaluate test strips based on an array of rows and columns to remove unwanted data (Poulsen; [164, 187]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte using pixel values of modified Ding to have evaluated the pixels within a plurality of columns as in Tan because Tan teaches that slicing and removing pixels outside of the desired range helps to remove unwanted pixel data for each column (Tan; pages 13, 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determination of the presence of the analyte using pixel values of modified Ding to have removed data values below an offset in multiple columns of pixels as in Cote because Cote teaches that pixel data is isolated to data values that are within an offset in order to correct the values to make the determination more accurate (Cote; [300, 500, 519, 579, 661, 1132], Fig. 22, 24). As to claim 2, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select a plurality of pixels from a highest density pixel to a pixel of preset order in each of the columns as the high-density pixels (The modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high-density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations). As to claim 3, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the number of pixels selected as the high-density pixels is the same in each of the columns (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations). As to claim 4, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein for each of the columns, the processor is configured to derive a representative value of each of the columns using the residual pixels, and perform the main determination using the derived representative values of the respective columns (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 5, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to derive, as the representative value of each of the columns, a pixel value of one pixel selected from the residual pixels in each of the columns according to a preset reference or an average pixel value of two or more pixels selected from the residual pixels in each of the columns according to a preset reference (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 6, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the imaging unit is an image sensor that images an observation region including the assay region to output an observation image including the observation region, the observation image is an image in which a plurality of pixels are two-dimensionally arranged in a matrix form, and the processor is configured to generate a profile in the row direction based on the representative values of the respective columns in the observation image, and extract an assay region profile corresponding to the assay region from the generated profile or extract the assay region image corresponding to the assay region from the observation image based on the profile (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]). As to claim 7, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to divide the assay region image into a plurality of areas extending in the row direction, derive an average value or a center value of each column in the areas, which is obtained by using at least a part of a plurality of pixels included in each of the columns, and generate an area profile in the row direction for each of the areas by using the derived average value or the derived center value, and in the main determination, execute a condition determination processing using the area profile derived for each of the areas (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]). As to claim 8, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to execute, as the condition determination processing, at least one of the first, second, or third condition determination processing for determining whether or not a value derived based on the area profile satisfies a preset condition, and determine that the sample is negative in a case where even one of the conditions is not satisfied in the executed condition determination processing, or determine that the sample is positive in a case where all the conditions are satisfied in the executed condition determination processing, the first condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which a differential area profile obtained by differentiating the area profile for each of the areas is used, a position in the row direction showing a highest maximal value in the differential area profile is derived for each of the areas, a standard deviation at a plurality of the derived positions in the low direction is derived, and whether or not a first condition that the standard deviation is less than a preset first threshold value is satisfied is determined, the second condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which the differential area profile for each of the areas is added, a difference between the highest maximal value in the added addition differential area profile and an average value of maximal value other than the highest maximal value is derived, and whether or not a second condition that the difference is larger than a preset second threshold value is satisfied is determined, and the third condition determination processing is a condition determination processing, in which the area profiles for each of the areas are added, and whether or not the third condition that a value at the position in the row direction which is preset in the addition area profile is larger than the third threshold value is satisfied is determined (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 9, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute, as the condition determination processing, all of the first condition determination processing, the second condition determination processing, and the third condition determination processing (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 10, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to, in the main determination, determine that the sample is negative in a case where the maximum position, which is a position in the row direction showing a maximum density in the assay region profile, is located in any of both end regions of the assay region profile, in a case where the maximum position is not located in any of both the end regions, derive a center position of the assay region in the row direction and a width of the assay region, which are defined based on the maximum density and the maximum position, execute a pre-condition determination processing for determining whether or not a pre-determination condition that the maximum density is not less than a preset fourth threshold value and the center position and the width are within preset ranges is satisfied, and determine that the sample is negative in a case where the pre-determination condition is not satisfied, and execute the condition determination processing in a case where the pre-determination condition is satisfied (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]). As to claim 11, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to, in the main determination, in a case where it is determined in the pre-condition determination processing that the pre-determination condition is satisfied, determine whether or not the maximum density is not less than a preset fifth threshold value larger than the fourth threshold value before executing the condition determination processing, determine that the sample is positive in a case where the maximum density is not less than the fifth threshold value, and execute the condition determination processing in a case where the maximum density is less than the fifth threshold value (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]). As to claim 12, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform an abnormality determination for determining presence or absence of an abnormality in the assay region image, using, as a determination index, at least one of a difference between a relatively large pixel value and a relatively small pixel value in at least one column in the assay region image, a standard deviation of the pixel values of the pixels included in the at least one column, or a variation coefficient of the pixel values of the pixels included in the at least one column, or at least one of a difference between a relatively large representative value and a relatively small representative value among representative values of all rows, which is derived based on a plurality of pixels existing in different columns in the same row in the assay region image, a standard deviation of the representative values of all the rows or a variation coefficient of the representative values of all the rows, and determine a processing content related to the main determination based on the presence or absence of the abnormality (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches heatmap/matrix of the pixels which create a profile in rows and columns; [6, 275, 282-286, 293]. Ding teaches determining the center; [282, 284]. Ding also teaches the signal average can be used as a representative value; [94, 118]. Ding teaches various algorithms including using a reference/threshold; [296, 297]. Ding teaches correcting using the standard deviation; [5, 91-94]. Ding teaches the determination of errors/abnormalities and non-uniformities; [5, 91-95]). As to claim 13, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the processing content includes any one of whether or not to perform the main determination or a method of presenting a determination result of the main determination (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte; [91-94, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352]. Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 16, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor that the assay region may be stained in a case where the abnormality is present (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results, where if there was an error and the determination was not made then this would be result displayed; [99, 229]). As to claim 17, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor a determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is absent, or present the determination result of the main determination with reservation indicating that the assay region image has an abnormality or not present the determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is present and in a case where the determination result of the main determination is positive (In as much as claimed and as best understood (see 112(b) rejection above, the modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 18, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the processor is configured to perform the main determination, and perform the abnormality determination in a case where a determination result is positive (Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). As to claim 19, modified Ding teaches the immunochromatographic assay apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to display on the monitor a determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is absent, and present the determination result of the main determination with reservation indicating that the assay region image has an abnormality or not present the determination result of the main determination in a case where the abnormality is present (The modification of the determination of the presence of the analyte based on exclusion of pixels of Ding to exclude the high density pixels of Ding/Georgescu has been discussed above; see claim 1 citations. Ding teaches making the determination of the presence or absence of the sample/analyte or determining abnormality/error; [5, 91-95, 249, 304, 332, 344, 348, 352] Ding teaches presenting/displaying results; [99, 229]). Other References Cited 07-96 The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include; Tamura, A (US 20140073062; hereinafter “Tamura”; already of record) teaches detecting pixel values; [42, 43, 48]. Uchida et al (US 20110244590; hereinafter “Uchida”; already of record) teaches determining pixel density [67-70] in a matrix [63]; Fig. 4A. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue on page 8 of their remarks that column by column processing of pixel data is not abstract because it cannot be performed without the processor and imaging unit. The examiner disagrees. The selection, deriving, and determination of pixel data is all an abstract idea. The examiner notes a table of values that are either selected or not selected (see Figure 11 in the instant disclosure), where this is a mental process that could be done as a mental process, with pencil and paper, or via a general purpose computer. Although a processor is used, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III is clear that using a computer/controller to perform the abstract idea does not preclude the steps from being considered an abstract idea. The use of the imaging device is just using the assay apparatus and imaging unit to gather data to be used in the abstract idea. However, data gathering to be used in the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, this is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to just generally applying the abstract idea per MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or also is just generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h), which are not particular practical applications. Applicants argue on page 8 of their remarks that column by column processing/exclusion of pixel data to suppress erroneous determinations integrates the exception because it is an improvement in the assay apparatus itself. The examiner disagrees. The claim is just using a conventional imaging unit to run the assay, where the assay device itself is conventional and is used in its conventional fashion. Therefore, the conventional use of the analyzer to gather data is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. Further, it appears applicants are arguing the improvement is in the determination of pixel data/erroneous determination, which is the abstract idea itself. However, the improvement must in a particular technology and cannot be the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a), paragraphs 4-7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered, but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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. /Benjamin R Whatley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 3 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 5 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 7 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 8 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 9 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 10 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 11 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 12 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 13 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 14 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 15 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 16 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 17 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 18 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 19 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 20 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 21 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 22 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 23 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 24 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 25 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 26 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 27 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 28 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 29 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 30 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 31 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 18/450,720 Page 32 Art Unit: 1798
Prosecution Insights