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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental step that could be performed in the mind (e.g. reviewing data) and data analysis. See 2019 PEG, Section I(A)-(C) and Mental processes (identifying) insofar as they are recited at a high level and could be performed in the mind. See Oct. 2019 Update defining “mental processes”. The Abstract ideas are:
Claim 15
detected nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles and populations of particles are identified and differentiated from other detected particles and populations of particles, such as free or clusters of non-dielectric nanoparticles and unlabelled dielectric particles, by identifying particles as nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles when they have a higher ratio of parameter from parameter group i. to parameter from parameter group ii. than expected for dielectrical particles and having a lower such ratio than expected for individual non-dielectric nanoparticles or clusters thereof (data gathering/mental step of reviewing data and identifying one of the claimed parameters).
Claim 16
at least one parameter from each one of parameter groups i. and ii. in step b are used to categorize detected particles into particle populations with different population density maxima in the parameter space of the said at least two parameters (data analysis/classification).
Claim 17
the parameter or parameters to be detected from parameter group ii. comprises the imaginary part of the optical field or phase shift (data gathering/classification).
Claim 18
the imaginary part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group ii (data analysis/classification).
Claim 19
the real part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group i (data analysis/classification)
Claim 20
the imaginary part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group ii and that the real part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group i. (data analysis/classification)
Claim 21
the diffusion-based hydrodynamic size is used as an independent parameter relative to the other two to categorize the particles (data analysis)
Claim 22
the mass of nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles, less the label nanoparticles, is estimated and where the mass of the dielectric particle is derived from the Imaginary part of the optical field of the nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles (mathematical concept/data analysis)
Claim 23
the refractive index of nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles, less the label nanoparticles, is estimated and where the refractive index of the dielectric particle is derived from the Imaginary part of the optical field of the nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles in combination with the estimated hydrodynamic radius of the dielectric particle (mathematical concept/data analysis)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
As to claim 15, the claim does not recite a particular machine or transformation, nor any use of the identifying the particles to a parameter to effect a change in a device. The “identifying” steps are data manipulations. No improvement to computer functionality or another technology is recited. Under MPEP 2106.05(d), mere data gathering and classification are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, Claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to claim 16, “at least one parameter from each one of parameter groups i. and ii. in step b are used to categorize detected particles into particle populations with different population density maxima in the parameter space of the said at least two parameters” is placing parameters on data to classifying data is mere data gathering/sorting are considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to claim 17, “the parameter or parameters to be detected from parameter group ii. comprises the imaginary part of the optical field or phase shift” using parameter data to identify particles in groups is mere data analysis is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception.
As to claim 18, “the imaginary part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group ii” using parameter data to identify particles in groups is mere data analysis and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception.
As to claim 19, “the real part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group I” using parameter data to identify particles in groups is mere data analysis and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception.
As to claim 20, “the imaginary part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group ii and that the real part of the optical field is used as a parameter in parameter group i” using parameter data to identify particles in groups is mere data analysis and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception.
As to claim 21, “the diffusion-based hydrodynamic size is used as an independent parameter relative to the other two to categorize the particles” using different parameter data to identify additional particle groups is mere data analysis/data collection and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception.
As to claim 22, “the mass of nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles, less the label nanoparticles, is estimated and where the mass of the dielectric particle is derived from the Imaginary part of the optical field of the nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles” mere data analysis does not improve the operation, nor do they effect a transformation of an article and to not integrate the exception.
As to claim 23, “the refractive index of nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles, less the label nanoparticles, is estimated and where the refractive index of the dielectric particle is derived from the Imaginary part of the optical field of the nanoparticle-labelled dielectric particles in combination with the estimated hydrodynamic radius of the dielectric particle” mere data analysis does not improve the operation, nor do they effect a transformation of an article and to not integrate the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for claims found do not integrated (15-23); The remaining process (e.g. sample is prepared by mixing; the sample are optically detected) appear to be well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) activities in the field of dielectric particle detection; Digitech Image Teach., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F .3d 1344(Fed. Cir. 2014)(generating and manipulating data without a device improvement is abstract). Under Berkheimer v. HP, 881 F .3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), any assertion that steps are WURC should be supported by evidence. On the present record, the claims themselves recite generic particle preparation/detection and data classification without specific unconventional techniques or architectures. The claims do not recite a specific algorithmic improvement to the functioning of the dielectric particle sensor (cf. McRO v. Bandai; Thales Visionix v. United States).
Conclusion:
Claim 15: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. Recites abstract data gathering/mental step of reviewing data concepts; not integrated into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 16: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. The classification and data generation of parameters data into populations does not integrate or add significantly more.
Claim 17: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. The designation of which parameters are used in the parameter groups, parameter refinements does not integrate or add significantly more.
Claim 18: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. The using of a parameter data to identify particles, parameter refinements does not integrate or add significantly more.
Claim 19-20: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. Designating parameter data in a group does not integrate or add significantly more.
Claim 21: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. Adding additional parameters to the categorized data does not integrate or add significantly more.
Claim 22-23: Ineligible Under U.S.C 101. The data analysis/ mathematical concept of estimation of particles from the parameters does not integrate or add significantly more.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 25, 2026