DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 7/8/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed-out information referred to therein has not been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 8 and 9 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. Claim 1 recites “ obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge ” and claim 8 recites “ wherein the manufacturing process comprises .” Claim 1 seems to not positively recite the manufacturing process of a sample cartridge and claim 8 tries to further limit the manufacturing process. Claim 8 is therefore unclear if the method of detecting a defect requires the method steps of a manufacturing process or not. Claim 1 recites “ obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge ” and claim 9 recites “ wherein the manufacturing process comprises .” Claim 1 seems to not positively recite the manufacturing process of a sample cartridge and claim 8 tries to further limit the manufacturing process. Claim 9 is therefore unclear if the method of detecting a defect requires the method steps of a manufacturing process or not. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 7, 10, 11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2022/0114720, hereinafter Weinstein . Regarding claim 1, Weinstein teaches a method of detecting a defect in a sample cartridge (paragraphs [0021], [0032] and [0033]) , the method comprising: obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors (paragraph [0123]) during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (paragraph [0131]) ; comparing one or more data sets to a baseline data set of the manufacturing process and/or sample cartridge, the baseline being associated with acceptable sample cartridges (paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) ; and identifying a defect of the sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets from the baseline (paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) . Regarding claim 2, Weinstein teaches wherein the defect is determined in an automated process in real-time during manufacturing of the sample cartridge (paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) . Regarding claim 3, Weinstein teaches wherein obtaining one or more data sets comprises obtaining a plurality of images (paragraph [0138]) from one or more RGB cameras and/or IR cameras (paragraph [0124]) , wherein the one or more data sets comprise a thermal image (paragraph [0124]) . Regarding claim 4, Weinstein teaches wherein identifying based on a variance utilizes an algorithm derived by machine/deep learning based on a plurality of data sets associated with acceptable sample cartridges and a plurality of data sets associated with cartridge defects (paragraph [0140]) . Regarding claim 5, Weinstein teaches extracting a feature from the one or more images that corresponds to a feature of the sample cartridge (paragraph [0138]) . Regarding claim 6, Weinstein teaches wherein the one or more data sets comprise a plurality of consecutive images obtained during the manufacturing process (paragraph [0138]) . Regarding claim 7, Weinstein teaches w herein the one or more data sets comprise a plurality of image from differing viewpoints during the manufacturing process (paragraph [0127]) . Regarding claim 10, Weinstein teaches wherein the one or more external sensors comprise an RGB camera (paragraph [0124]) . Regarding claim 11, Weinstein teaches wherein the one or more external sensors comprise an IR camera (paragraph [0124]) . Regarding claim 14, Weinstein teaches wherein the one or more external sensors comprise a high-resolution camera that obtains a high-resolution optical image (paragraph [0124]) . Regarding claim 15, Weinstein teaches wherein the variance comprises a deviation of an extracted feature from a corresponding feature of a baseline high-resolution image (paragraphs [0138]-[0140]). Regarding claim 16, Weinstein teaches wherein the data sets are input into a model that classifies the sample cartridge as pass or fail based on a defect prediction (paragraph [0140]) . Regarding claim 17, Weinstein teaches wherein the model is trained based on supervised and unsupervised machine learning (paragraph [0140]) . Regarding claim 18, Weinstein teaches wherein the model accesses the data sets through a cloud-based data sharing, training and prediction platform (paragraph [0125]) . Regarding claim 19, Weinstein teaches wherein the data sets are obtained from an automation module of the automated manufacturing line of the cartridge (paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) . Regarding claim 20, Weinstein teaches wherein the one or more external sensors comprise an RGB camera and an infrared camera (paragraph [0124]) . 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. The factual inquiries 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 . 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. Claim(s) 1, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 8,474,226, hereinafter Izquierdo in view of Weinstein . Regarding claims 1 and 8, Izquierdo teaches a method using a sample cartridge (abstract) , the method comprising: a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (abstract) wherein the manufacturing process comprises welding of a lid apparatus (abstract) on a cartridge body of the sample cartridge (abstract) . Izquierdo fails to teach obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge; comparing one or more data sets to a baseline data set of the manufacturing process and/or sample cartridge, the baseline being associated with acceptable sample cartridges; and identifying a defect of the sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets from the baseline. Weinstein teaches a method of detecting a defect in a sample cartridge (Weinstein , paragraphs [0021], [0032] and [0033]), the method comprising: obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors (Weinstein, paragraph [0123]) during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (Weinstein, paragraph [0131]); comparing one or more data sets to a baseline data set of the manufacturing process and/or sample cartridge, the baseline being associated with acceptable sample cartridges (Weinstein, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]); and identifying a defect of the sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets from the baseline (Weinstein, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) and ultrasonic welding (Weinstein, paragraph [0086]) of the material so that the device can detect and monitor defects in a sealing region of the container ( Weinstein, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the ultrasonic welding and method of detecting a defect described in Weinstein in the manufacturing process described by Izquierdo because it would allow for the detect ion and monitor ing defects in a sealing region of the container (Weinstein, abstract). Regarding claims 1 and 9 , Izquierdo teaches a method using a sample cartridge (abstract), the method comprising: a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (abstract) wherein the manufacturing process comprises heat sealing of a lid apparatus (abstract) on a cartridge body of the sample cartridge (abstract) . Izquierdo fails to teach obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge; comparing one or more data sets to a baseline data set of the manufacturing process and/or sample cartridge, the baseline being associated with acceptable sample cartridges; and identifying a defect of the sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets from the baseline. Weinstein teaches a method of detecting a defect in a sample cartridge (Weinstein, paragraphs [0021], [0032] and [0033]), the method comprising: obtaining one or more data sets from one or more external sensors (Weinstein, paragraph [0123]) during a manufacturing process of a sample cartridge (Weinstein, paragraph [0131]); comparing one or more data sets to a baseline data set of the manufacturing process and/or sample cartridge, the baseline being associated with acceptable sample cartridges (Weinstein, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]); and identifying a defect of the sample cartridge based on a variance of the one or more data sets from the baseline (Weinstein, paragraphs [0138]-[0140]) so that the device can detect and monitor defects in a sealing region of the container (Weinstein, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the method of detecting a defect described in Weinstein in the manufacturing process described by Izquierdo because it would allow for the detection and monitoring defects in a sealing region of the container (Weinstein, abstract). Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein in view of CN 111721768, hereinafter Zhu . Regarding claims 12 and 13, Weinstein teaches all limitations of claim 1; however, Weinstein fails to teach the one or more external sensors comprise an ultrasound microphone and the one or more data sets further comprise an ultrasound audio spectrum that is compared to a baseline of ultrasound audio of a successful weld, wherein the characteristic comprises peaks and/or variations in the ultrasound audio spectrum. Zhu teaches a fusion welding system which utilizes an ultrasonic detection module which is able to extract the internal position of the welding seam, shape size and texture information providing internal information about the seam (Zhu, page 3, paragraph 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an ultrasound microphone and added the data from the microphone to the device because it would be able to extract the internal position of the welding seam, shape size and texture information providing internal information about the seam (Zhu, page 3, paragraph 7). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0386 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7am-5pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7698 . 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. /MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796