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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Preliminary amendment submitted on 08/02/2024. By this amendment, original claims 1-22 are amended and therefore, amended claims 1-15, 17 and 19-22 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-15, 17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In analyzing under step 1, is the claim to a process, machine manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
The claim(s) 1, 10 and 14 recite(s) the abstract limitations such as “… obtaining input hypercube data comprising voxel data, raw channel data, and decoding round data for a sample; performing an initial iteration of codeword data determination, wherein performing the initial iteration comprises: generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data; performing initial uncorrected codeword determination, based on the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data, to generate initial uncorrected codeword data; and performing one or more codeword correction operations, based on the initial uncorrected codeword data, to generate initial corrected codeword data; performing one or more subsequent iterations of codeword data determination, wherein subsequent iterations are performed based on the input hypercube data and based on feature data, unmixed fluorescence data, uncorrected codeword data, and corrected codeword data from one or more previous iterations, wherein each of the one or more subsequent iterations generates respective corrected codeword data; determining, based on corrected codeword data generated by one or more of the subsequent iterations, that one or more convergence conditions have been satisfied; and in accordance with determining that the one or more convergence conditions have been satisfied, generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical algorithm and calculation but for the recitation of generic computer processor such as “a system for spectral unmixing and decoding for in situ analysis, comprising one or more processors configured to cause the system to” (see claim 10) and “a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions for spectral unmixing and decoding for in situ analysis embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:” (see claim 14)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under mathematical algorithm and calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components and software module, then it falls within the “Mathematical Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The generic processor can (1) obtain an input data (such as hypercube data) and (2) perform/calculate …an initial…data determination comprising the following steps: (a) generating initial feature data and unmixed fluorescence data, (b) perform/calculate …initial …determination, (c) perform…operation, (d) perform/calculate …initial …determination…(last) generating an output…
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract limitation.
In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a generic processor such as ““a system for spectral unmixing and decoding for in situ analysis, comprising one or more processors configured to cause the system to” (see claim 10) and “a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions for spectral unmixing and decoding for in situ analysis embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:” (see claim 14) for data manipulation based on mathematical calculation.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing data manipulation.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1-10, 13-15, 17, 19-22 not recite any additional elements except a generic processor for data generation. Accordingly, the additional generic elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a generic processor and software module which are high level of generality performing data generation
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
It is noted that claims 11-12 are not rejected under abstract idea.
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.
Claims 14-15, 17, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Any claim not specifically mentioned, is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim 14 recites “a computer readable storage medium”
Paragraph 0295 of specification merely discloses that a computer-readable storage medium can be any medium, such as storage 440, that can contain or store programming for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Therefore, the claims can be reasonably interpreted to cover signals per se, therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. It is suggested to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Any claim not specifically mentioned, is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data”
[0010], [0019] and [0023] appear to repeat the limitation “generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data” above. However, the specification [0010], [0019] and [0023] do not provide a method of how to generate/calculate an initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data from the input hypercube data.
As such, the limitation “generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data” is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “performing initial uncorrected codeword determination, based on the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data, to generate initial uncorrected codeword data”
Examiner carefully reviewed the entire specification.
The specification appears repeat the recited limitation above. However, the specification does not recite a method of generate an initial uncorrected codeword data from the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data
As such, the limitation “performing initial uncorrected codeword determination, based on the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data, to generate initial uncorrected codeword data” is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “performing … based on the initial uncorrected codeword data, to generate initial corrected codeword data”
Examiner carefully reviewed the entire specification.
The specification appears repeat the recited limitation above. However, the specification does not recite a method generate initial corrected codeword data from the uncorrected codeword data.
As such, the limitation “performing … based on the initial uncorrected codeword data, to generate initial corrected codeword data” is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “…convergence conditions have been satisfied, generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data”
Examiner carefully reviewed the entire specification.
The specification appears repeat the recited limitation above.
However, the specification does not recite a method of how to determine that convergence conditions have been satisfied.
However, the specification does not recite a method of how to “generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data”
As such, the limitation “as “…convergence conditions have been satisfied, generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data” is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 19-22 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.
Any claim not specifically mentioned, is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “obtaining input hypercube data comprising voxel data, raw channel data, and decoding round data for a sample”
The recited limitation such as “obtaining input hypercube data comprising voxel data, raw channel data, and decoding round data for a sample” renders this limitation indefinite because Applicant fails to provide a method of how to obtain hypercube data that comprises voxel data, raw channel data, and decoding round data for a sample
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data”
The recited limitation such as “generating, based on the input hypercube data, initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data” renders this limitation indefinite because Applicant fails to provide a method of generate initial feature data and initial unmixed fluorescence data from the input hypercube data.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “performing initial uncorrected codeword determination, based on the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data, to generate initial uncorrected codeword data”
The recited limitation such as ““performing initial uncorrected codeword determination, based on the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data, to generate initial uncorrected codeword data” renders this limitation indefinite because Applicant fails to provide a method of generate initial uncorrected codeword data from the initial feature data and the initial unmixed fluorescence data
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “performing … based on the initial uncorrected codeword data, to generate initial corrected codeword data”
The recited limitation such as “performing … based on the initial uncorrected codeword data, to generate initial corrected codeword data” renders this limitation indefinite because Applicant fails to provide a method of generate corrected codeword from the uncorrected codeword.
Claims 1, 10 and 14 recite limitation such as “convergence conditions have been satisfied”
The recited limitation such as ““convergence conditions have been satisfied” renders this limitation indefinite because it is unclear when the convergence condition is satisfied.
The recited limitation such as “generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data”
The recited limitation such as “generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data” renders this limitation indefinite because Applicant fails to provide a method of generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data.
Examiner carefully reviewed the entire specification.
The specification appears repeat the recited limitation above.
However, the specification does not recite a method of how to determine that convergence conditions have been satisfied.
However, the specification does not recite a method of how to “generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data”
As such, the limitation “as “…convergence conditions have been satisfied, generating a first output comprising an optimized estimate of fluorescence data, and an optimized estimate of uncorrected codeword data, and an optimized estimate of corrected codeword data” is rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111