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 the application 19/188,615 filed on 04/24/2025.
Claims 1 – 27 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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.
Claim 1 – 4, 8 – 15, 20 – 22, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARIOGLU (WO 2024124055 A1) in view of Archer et al. (US 2019/0122026 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SARIOGLU discloses: “an apparatus comprising:
a substrate for measuring, viewing, identifying, or inspecting a sample (e.g. cells, microorganisms) by an imaging device having a viewing zone [see page:3; lines: 27 – 28; In some aspects, the system further includes an imaging unit (e.g., a microscope) configured to image and/or screen retained cell clusters],
the substrate comprising an addressable array of encoded microstructures at a plurality of locations [see page:23; lines: 5 – 10; In some examples, the net-mesh structure forms a grid array having evenly spaced apertures within a filtering element such as that shown in FIG. 2. Reference to a “full net” means that the plurality of filtering elements are arranged to form a continuous array of apertures (i.e., without spaces between adjacent filtering elements)],
SARIOGLU does not explicitly disclose: “each encoded microstructure being associated with an indexed position on the substrate, wherein the encoded microstructures are computer-readable to allow a controller or a user to direct the imaging device to align at least a portion of the viewing zone to include a target location on the substrate based on the indexed position on the substrate”
However, Archer, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “each encoded microstructure being associated with an indexed position on the substrate, wherein the encoded microstructures are computer-readable to allow a controller [see para:0135; moving the sample, as well as the micro-localisation device which itself is secured, by means of a motorised and computerised movement stage, to a point P2 of coordinates (Xp2, Yp2) in the marker of the stage; checking that in this position, the imaging instrument is always in a zone of the sight of which the contrast and the magnification are suitable for the automatic reading of position] or a user to direct the imaging device to align at least a portion of the viewing zone to include a target location on the substrate based on the indexed position on the substrate [see para: 0140; Step d) is a step of measuring a point of interest on the sample. The user makes a movement of the whole sample and sight using the movement stage and positions the sample such that the imaging instrument takes measurements on the sample. The computerised movement stage provides the coordinates of a point of interest on the sample in the reference point of the stage, the user deduces from it, for changing reference point, the absolute coordinates of the point of interest in the reference point of the sight].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system relating to removing cell clusters from blood samples disclosed by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, in order to provide a means for improving locating problem by embedding computer-readable microcodes throughout the substrate and imaging devices can be calibrated or aligned by the user input or computer controller [Archer see para: 0135; 0140].
Regarding claims 2 - 4, the limitations on these claims is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of desired features to work with a specific characteristic according to the invention to achieve desired results.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the limitations on these claims is only a matter of design choice because it only requires mere selection of a desired microstructures that are encoded are uniformly distributed or using clear or transparent material, these common known in the art of knowledge.
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the features in this claim is commonly known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate what is known in the art the teaching of the SARIOGLU and Archer reference due to the fact that the combining would solve the locating problem by embedding computer-readable microcodes throughout the substrate so each visible code corresponds to a known position.
Regarding claim 11, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, SARIOGLU discloses: “wherein the substrate comprises a well plate [see page: 31; lines: 5 – 11; In some aspects, the system is included as a testing kit. In one example, the high-flow filter assembly is operatively coupled to a testing vessel (blood tubes, falcon tubes, -well and multi-well plates, cell strainer, etc.). In some aspects, a testing vessel having a bodily fluid and a filter can be placed in a centrifuge or gravity-based filter such that the bodily fluid moves through the filter assembly to separate cell clusters from the bodily fluid. Advantageously, the disclosed testing kits can be used as low-cost diagnostic tools in remote parts of the world].
Regarding claim 12, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, SARIOGLU discloses: “wherein the substrate comprises a filter [see page: 2; lines: 5 – 8; In various aspects, disclosed herein is a system for the in-line removal of cell clusters from a bodily fluid (e.g., blood sample) of a subject using a high-flow filter assembly having a micro-structure filter substrate that forms a plurality of filtering elements (e.g., semipermeable microwells)].
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Furthermore, SARIOGLU discloses: “wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive a signal of an image from the imaging device, wherein the image includes a representation of at least one encoded microstructure from the addressable array present in in the image [see page:24; lines: 18 – 25; FIGS. 7A-7D each show SEM images of example net- mesh filters and molds used to produce the net-mesh filter according to the present disclosure. The elements in the system can further use a combination of sterilizable and disposable components. In this regard, the in-line detection system can be reused at low-cost with a decreased risk for the development of infections after use. For example, the high- flow filter assembly and other components having direct contact with the fluid sample can include materials that are able to be sterilized using methods such as Ethylene Oxide Sterilization, autoclaving and UV radiation]; and
SARIOGLU does not explicitly disclose: “determine a reference position of the at least one encoded microstructure present in the image relative to the substrate”.
However, Archer, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “determine a reference position of the at least one encoded microstructure present in the image relative to the substrate [see para: 0012; An imaging system and an image processing system make it possible to recognise the position and the orientation of the alignment marks and to determine a system of reference coordinates. Zones of interest of the sample can be referenced in this system of reference coordinates and can be found later on the same instrument or on another instrument, while the sample remains secured to the sample stage supporting the alignment marks].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system relating to removing cell clusters from blood samples disclosed by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, in order to provide a means for improving locating problem by embedding computer-readable microcodes throughout the substrate so each visible code corresponds to a reference position [Archer see para: 0012].
Regarding claim 14, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, SARIOGLU discloses: “wherein the imaging device comprises an optical microscope, a confocal microscope, or an electron microscope (e.g., SEM, TEM, CryoEM) [see page: 3; lines: 27 – 28; In some aspects, the system further includes an imaging unit (e.g., a microscope) configured to image and/or screen retained cell clusters].
Regarding claim 15, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 13 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
SARIOGLU does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the computing device is further configured to output the determined reference position of the at least one encoded microstructure (e.g., to a memory unit)”.
However, Archer, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the computing device is further configured to output the determined reference position of the at least one encoded microstructure (e.g., to a memory unit) [see para: 0123; This configuration is essential for ensuring that the determination of the coordinates in the reference point of the micro-localisation device 100 is independent from the imaging instrument and from the magnification used. Indeed, operations of transferring coordinates require the initial knowledge of the arrangement of the zones 1, 2, 3, 4 in the micro-localisation device 100. And see para: 0139; 0140].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system relating to removing cell clusters from blood samples disclosed by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, in order to provide a means for improving locating problem by embedding computer-readable microcodes throughout the substrate so each visible code corresponds to a reference position [Archer see para: 0123].
Regarding claim 20, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the features in this claim is commonly known in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate what is known in the art the teaching of the SARIOGLU and Archer reference due to the fact that the combining would solve the locating problem by embedding computer-readable microcodes throughout the substrate so each visible code corresponds to a known position.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 13.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 13 and 15.
Regarding claim 25, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 23 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, SARIOGLU discloses: “wherein the target location is determined based on an input from a user (e.g., via a graphical user interface) [see page:18; lines: 17 - 20; The display may also be capable of receiving input (such as, e.g., where the display includes a touch-screen and is capable of receiving touch input and accordingly transmitting information to the processor)
Regarding claim 27, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 25 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
SARIOGLU does not explicitly disclose: “further comprising:
receiving a second image of at least one of the encoded microstructures from the imaging device, and, based on the encoding formed in the encoded microstructures, identifying a movement of a sample disposed on the substrate”.
However, Archer, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “further comprising: receiving a second image of at least one of the encoded microstructures from the imaging device, and, based on the encoding formed in the encoded microstructures, identifying a movement of a sample disposed on the substrate [see para: 0034; In a specific embodiment, the measuring apparatus further includes a system for moving the sample stage integrating a measuring device for moving the sample stage in a system of coordinates of this movement system, the control unit being configured to control a movement of the sample stage in the system of coordinates of the micro-localisation device. Preferably, the microscopy apparatus includes a stage for moving in translation, along one, two or three transverse directions, the movement stage including at least one micro-localisation device].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system relating to removing cell clusters from blood samples disclosed by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, in order to detect if there is movement of a sample disposed on the substrate using computer image processing technique [Archer see para: 0034].
Claim 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARIOGLU (WO 2024124055 A1) in view of Archer et al. (US 2019/0122026 A1) and further in view of Haddad (US 2022/0076517).
Regarding claim 5, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
SARIOGLU and Archer does not explicitly disclose: “wherein each of the encoded microstructures are formed to encode a distinctive barcode”.
However, Haddad, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein each of the encoded microstructures are formed to encode a distinctive barcode [see para: 0042; A barcode is an encoded image (representation of data), usually displayed with black and white lines, but also in other variations, in various patterns that contains information that is readable by a machine].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Haddad to provide distinctive barcode such as alpha-numeric symbol which are known in the art [Haddad see para: 0042].
Regarding claim 6, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
SARIOGLU and Archer does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the distinctive barcode comprises a Postal Alpha Numeric Encoding Technique (PLANET) barcode”.
However, Haddad, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the distinctive barcode comprises a Postal Alpha Numeric Encoding Technique (PLANET) barcode [see para: 0042; A barcode is an encoded image (representation of data), usually displayed with black and white lines, but also in other variations, in various patterns that contains information that is readable by a machine. Barcodes may take various forms including non-specific 1dimensional (1D) linear barcodes, 2-dimensional (2D) matrix barcodes, specialized augmented postal codes such as Postal Alpha Numeric Encoding Technique (PLANET), Postal Numeric Encoding Technique (POSTNET), Intelligent Mail barcodes, and other electronic product codes (EPC-s)].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Haddad to provide distinctive barcode such as alpha-numeric symbol which are known in the art [Haddad see para: 0042].
Regarding claim 7, SARIOGLU and Archer disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
SARIOGLU and Archer does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the distinctive barcode comprises an alpha-numeric symbol”.
However, Haddad, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the distinctive barcode comprises an alpha-numeric symbol [see para: 0042; A barcode is an encoded image (representation of data), usually displayed with black and white lines, but also in other variations, in various patterns that contains information that is readable by a machine. Barcodes may take various forms including non-specific 1dimensional (1D) linear barcodes, 2-dimensional (2D) matrix barcodes, specialized augmented postal codes such as Postal Alpha Numeric Encoding Technique (PLANET), Postal Numeric Encoding Technique (POSTNET), Intelligent Mail barcodes, and other electronic product codes (EPC-s)].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by SARIOGLU to add the teachings of Archer as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Haddad to provide distinctive barcode such as alpha-numeric symbol which are known in the art [Haddad see para: 0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 – 19, 23, 24 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heino et al (US 20130077160 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights