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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first device and a second device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zordan et al. (US20220156482) hereafter Zordan (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are show/disclosed in multiple figures 1-7/ embodiments i.e “in some embodiments”).
1. Regarding claim 1, Zordan discloses a method (figs 1-7, para 0007 shows and discloses a method) comprising:
pre-training a feature encoder using cell images (fig 2, para 0007 shows and discloses pre-training a feature encoder using cell images);
performing unsupervised clustering on the cell images to generate a plurality of clusters, wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters
PNG
media_image1.png
387
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is based on a number of cells in a carrier
PNG
media_image2.png
261
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 3 shows the sample (i.e carrier) with numbers of cells for unsupervised clustering resulting in the plurality of clusters meeting the claim limitations, examiner also notes that fig 6 sample S (i.e a carrier) with number of cells meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “carrier” are not required by the claim);
implementing a classifier to fine-tune supervised classification (figs 2, 4-5 paras 0007, 0017-0018 and 0032 shows and discloses implementing a classifier to fine-tune supervised classification); and
performing real-time classification of cells during active sorting using the classifier (figs 2, 5 and paras 0007, 0032 shows and discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
393
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
performing real-time classification of cells during active sorting using the classifier meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments of Zordan are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be an accurate and faster (speed) method/system at (paras 0030-0031).
2. Regarding claim 2, Zordan discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising populating a plurality of carriers with a plurality of cells (fig 4 shows populating
PNG
media_image1.png
387
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
plurality of carriers (samples) with sort population 1, sort population 2, No sort population etc meeting the claim limitations).
3. Regarding claim 3, Zordan discloses the method of claim 2 further comprising acquiring images of the carriers to generate the cell images (figs 2-6 shows
.
PNG
media_image3.png
393
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
further comprising acquiring images of the carriers (samples) to generate the cell images).
4. Regarding claim 4, Zordan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the feature encoder detects a target cell, a secretor cell or a secretion (para 007, 0036 discloses wherein the feature encoder detects a target cell (i.e living cell, examiner notes that the specifics of a target cell is not required by the current claim), .
5. Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1 wherein a cluster of the plurality of clusters includes a single cell in each carrier (figs 3-6, para 0030 shows and discloses “if a cell is a cell to sort” i.e a single cell in each carrier (sample) meeting the above claim limitations).
6. Regarding claim 7, Zordan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters is based on intensity and/or location of a fluorescence secretion signal (figs 6, paras 0027, 0042 shows and discloses wherein each cluster of the plurality of clusters is based on intensity and/or location of a fluorescence secretion signal).
7. Claim 8 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Para 0008 discloses an apparatus.
8. Claim 9 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 2. See the explanation of claim 2.
9. Claim 10 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 3. See the explanation of claim 3.
10. Claim 11 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 4. See the explanation of claim 4.
11. Claim 12 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 5. See the explanation of claim 5.
12. Claim 14 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 7. See the explanation of claim 7.
13. Claim 15 is a corresponding system claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Para 0009, fig 7 discloses the system.
14. Claim 16 is a corresponding system claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
15. Claim 17 is a corresponding system claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
16. Claim 18 is a corresponding system claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
17. Claim 19 is a corresponding system claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
18. Claim 21 is a corresponding system claim of claim 7. See the corresponding explanation of claim 7.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zordan in view of NPL4 (Targeted Release of Probiotics from Enteric Microparticulated Formulations, Cristina Yus et al., MDPI, 2019, Pages 1-14) herefatre NPL4.
19. Regarding claim 6, Zordan discloses the method of claim 1. Zordan discloses the carrier as seen in the disclosure. Zordan is silent and however fails to disclose wherein the carrier comprises a double emulsion.
NPL4 discloses the carrier comprises a double emulsion (page 3 section 2.1 discloses the carrier (i.e the sample) comprises double emulsion meeting the claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, NPL4 and Zordan are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of cell data processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an optimized process on page 3 last line. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL4 in the method of Zordan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
20. Claim 13 is a corresponding apparatus of claim of claim 6. See the corresponding explanation of claim 6.
21. Claim 20 is a corresponding system claim of claim 6. See the corresponding explanation of claim 6.
.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 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 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights