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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-15, 17-22 and 25 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
As to claim 1, claim recites “contacting said sample with a first surface and taking a plurality of measurements of said biomolecule on said first surface and using the measurements to determine the mobility of said biomolecule on said surface; (ii) repeating step (i) using a second surface and determining the mobility of said biomolecule on said surface; (iii) using the mobility of the biomolecule determined in step (i) and step (ii) to construct a profile for said biomolecule; (iv) comparing the profile obtained in step (iii) with at least one reference profile to identify the biomolecule” steps without tied into any specific structure to perform the steps.
Though the claim is drawn to a process claim they are not tied to a particular apparatus, requiring structuring structural elements of the apparatus to perform the method steps, nor do they transform one form of matter into another form of matter. They merely appear to be abstractions that may be accomplished with the mind.
Therefore, this could be considered an abstract idea.
Regarding the limitation of “(iii) using the mobility of the biomolecule determined in step (i) and step (ii) to construct a profile for said biomolecule; (iv) comparing the profile obtained in step (iii) with at least one reference profile to identify the biomolecule”, does not tie the determination steps to a machine and is an abstract idea because they are considered mental steps. Further, data/information could be used in the determination (i.e. this appears to refer to provided insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering, Collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected, Collecting and comparing known information, Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Comparing data to determine a risk level, Comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data, Comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options, Data recognition and storage (Content Extraction), Diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results, Obtaining and comparing intangible data and Organizing information through mathematical correlations).
Viewing all the additional claim limitations individually, or as an ordered combination, the claim(s) as a whole do (does) not add significantly more to the abstract idea
The additional elements i.e., “to determine the mobility of said biomolecule on said surface; (ii) repeating step (i) using a second surface and determining the mobility of said biomolecule on said surface” steps that are routine and conventional in the
art, i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity. Here are the closes the prior art: (Sandoghdar (US2018275097).
Additionally, the claims fail to recite any limitations that purport to improve the functioning of a specific claimed device, effect an improvement to the technology or technical field, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claim(s), these claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are related to abstract ideas and do not add any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17-22 and 25 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (Arieli et al. (US20160338585)) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
As to claim 1, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to disclose the claimed limitations such as, “using a second surface and determining the mobility of said biomolecule on said surface; using the mobility of the biomolecule determined in step (i) and step (ii) to construct a profile for said biomolecule; comparing the profile obtained in step (iii) with at least one reference profile to identify the biomolecule” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Arieli only teaches: FIG. 1 shows a preferred embodiment according to the present invention in which an optical system 10 is used for measuring a biological tissue or a biological substance such as the lipid and the aqueous layers of an eye 210 over a large area. The system comprises a combination of a spectrometer 250 and/or an interferometer 140 and a color camera 270…¶0103; the light emanates from a broadband light source 100 and is collimated by lenses 110 and 120. The light is folded by a mirror 130 or optionally by an interferometer 140 with movable mirrors. The interferometer can alternatively be disposed in the imaging path (to be described below) instead of the illumination path. (It is noted that FIG. 1 shows interferometer 140 disposed in both the illumination path and in the imaging path…¶0105.
Claims 2-15, 17-22 and 25 are allowable due to their dependencies.
The closest references, Arieli et al. and Troxler (US 10739133) alone or in combination disclose some features of the claimed invention but do not disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877