DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's amendment of May 1, 2026 overcomes the following:
Double patenting rejections
Claim objections
Applicant has amended claims 21-22, 26, and 39-40. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 1, 2026 with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amended claims resulted in changes to the scope and contents which also raised new indefiniteness issue(s); therefore, the grounds of rejection are modified accordingly. It is noted that previously applied prior arts, although not relied upon in this Office action (OA) due to indefiniteness issue(s) raised by amended claims indicated below, are still considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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 21-40 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 21 now recites the limitation “at least some embedding in the sequence of embeddings correspond to respective time points in the set of time-series image data” in lines 9-10 of the claim. However, the claimed “some embedding” term is not defined by the claims and the examiner was not able to find what the claimed “some embedding” term means in the specification of this application.
For example, Par. [0107-108] of the specification of this application indicate “An embedding is a vector representation of a phenotypic state of the live biological cells… Each embedding of the one or more sequences of embeddings can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… Each embedding of the sequence of embeddings, as described above, captures rich semantic information of the imaging data… the summary embedding incorporates temporal information of the set of time-series image data”.
Par. [0143-161] of the specification of this application also indicate “the summary embedding includes a temporal dimension… the temporal information associated with the sequence of embeddings comprises a temporal relationship between a first embedding in the sequence of embeddings and a second embedding in the sequence of embeddings… each embedding can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… a time stamp associated with each embedding in the sequence of embeddings”.
However, the examiner was not able to find where the specification of this application provides a clear and measurable standard for the claimed “some embedding” term, as now claimed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 21 further recites the limitation “determining a summary embedding” in line 11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, or if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “embedding” different from any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 22-38 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “a temporal relationship between a first embedding in the sequence of embeddings and a second embedding in the sequence of embeddings” in lines 3-4 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “first embedding” and “second embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in claim 21, or if the claimed “first embedding” and “second embedding” recited in claim 22 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “embedding” different from any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in claim 21, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 39 now recites the limitation “at least some embedding in the sequence of embeddings correspond to respective time points in the set of time-series image data” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, the claimed “some embedding” term is not defined by the claims and the examiner was not able to find what the claimed “some embedding” term means in the specification of this application.
For example, Par. [0107-108] of the specification of this application indicate “An embedding is a vector representation of a phenotypic state of the live biological cells… Each embedding of the one or more sequences of embeddings can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… Each embedding of the sequence of embeddings, as described above, captures rich semantic information of the imaging data… the summary embedding incorporates temporal information of the set of time-series image data”.
Par. [0143-161] of the specification of this application also indicate “the summary embedding includes a temporal dimension… the temporal information associated with the sequence of embeddings comprises a temporal relationship between a first embedding in the sequence of embeddings and a second embedding in the sequence of embeddings… each embedding can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… a time stamp associated with each embedding in the sequence of embeddings”.
However, the examiner was not able to find where the specification of this application provides a clear and measurable standard for the claimed “some embedding” term, as now claimed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 39 further recites the limitation “determining a summary embedding” in line 7 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, or if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “embedding” different from any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 40 now recites the limitation “at least some embedding in the sequence of embeddings correspond to respective time points in the set of time-series image data” in lines 7-8 of the claim. However, the claimed “some embedding” term is not defined by the claims and the examiner was not able to find what the claimed “some embedding” term means in the specification of this application.
For example, Par. [0107-108] of the specification of this application indicate “An embedding is a vector representation of a phenotypic state of the live biological cells… Each embedding of the one or more sequences of embeddings can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… Each embedding of the sequence of embeddings, as described above, captures rich semantic information of the imaging data… the summary embedding incorporates temporal information of the set of time-series image data”.
Par. [0143-161] of the specification of this application also indicate “the summary embedding includes a temporal dimension… the temporal information associated with the sequence of embeddings comprises a temporal relationship between a first embedding in the sequence of embeddings and a second embedding in the sequence of embeddings… each embedding can represent morphological or positional characteristics of the cell or cellular substructures and/or processes at a particular time point… a time stamp associated with each embedding in the sequence of embeddings”.
However, the examiner was not able to find where the specification of this application provides a clear and measurable standard for the claimed “some embedding” term, as now claimed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 40 further recites the limitation “determining a summary embedding” in line 9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, or if the claimed “summary embedding” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “embedding” different from any of the claimed “some embedding” previously recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8am - 5pm Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights