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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Amendment and Request for Reconsideration, filed on 07/08/2025. This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are independent claims. Claims 1, 9 and 10-11 have been amended. Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9 and 10) the overlay content disclosed in cited portions of Siegel is "a specimen from the same patient from a previous point in time and/or a specimen from a different patient with a similar physical condition and/or any other relevant, similar characteristics, patient and/or specimen data, tasks or commands e.g. to other users, reminders, etc." and is not information equivalent to the field of view map image.
In response, Applicant’s Specification (p. 4, Fig. 1) discloses a pathological specimen is captured in a field of view; (p. 6, 9) a specimen portion having a select magnification, display position and time corresponds to field of view information and (p. 13, Fig. 5) pieces of field of view information are used to generate field of view map images.
Thus, Seigel’s disclosure of overlay information represented as region(s) of interest detected in a pathology of a specimen (p. 5, ll. 25-26) corresponds to the field of view map image. Therefore, Siegel discloses a field of view map image.
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9 and 10) Siegel does not express or inherently disclose this information (e.g. field of view map image) as being obtained by:
* quantifying a display magnification and observation time of a partial image corresponding to an extracted field of view information; and
* generating a field of view map image to visually present at least one of the quantified display magnification or the quantified observation time of the partial image corresponding to the extracted field of view.
In response, Siegel discloses performing comparison of specimen or tissue samples (p. 25, ll. 17-19) and changing the magnification changes the observed field of view (Fig. 14; p. 33, ll. 23-25). Siegel additionally discloses determination of the potential pathology region of interest is based on tracking the observer's line of sight (user's gaze); and determining a "locked" gaze onto a specific point exceeding a predefined time period, typically about 250ms, would also trigger an image acquisition and storage into the database as a potential pathology (p. 5-6, ll. 32-5). Further Siegel discloses reporting the magnification of the selected one of the plurality of objectives, which is currently in use to the data processing unit (p. 8, ll. 20-25); and a relative position of the slide with respect to the original point can be determined and displayed to the user, marked on the acquired and stored images and delivered to the report. (p. 5, ll. 27-29); label the image captured by the digital camera if the place in the field of view that the user is attentive to remains stationary for duration longer that a preset threshold duration (p. 9, ll. 14-17).
Therefore, Siegel discloses
* quantifying a display magnification and observation time of a partial image corresponding to an extracted field of view information; and
* generating a field of view map image to visually present at least one of the quantified display magnification or the quantified observation time of the partial image corresponding to the extracted field of view.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
Hiroshi Hasegawa et al., CN 104412304 A (Para 58, 100, Fig. 13, 14) discloses the track is recorded in a following manner, namely the transparent mask image overlapped on the entire pathological image and display time and the observation magnification of a particular area changes the transparency of the mask image according to the disease pathologist based. position of the track is a transparency of the display region using a pathological image reduced (based on the colour of the mask image) to record and display time of a region is represented by the degree of transparency (based on depth of colour mask image); displaying and recording the history control unit 52 periodically along with the operation of the display position and observation magnification on the user changing the observation instrument and displayed on the screen changes (S2).
Shinichi Mizutani et al, CN 102081699 A discloses (Para 9) (a) for the object to be observed (for example, biological tissue slice) associated with a first observation image, is associated and to store the first position information and first observation magnification information; and (b): (i) the display device displaying image of phase associated with the object to be observed. (ii) indicate the first observation image of the first position information, and (iii) indicate the first observation magnification information of the first observed image; (Para 20) In one exemplary embodiment, the first observation image is observed through a microscope. the instructions cause the processor to make the display device indicates the observer first observing image of the amount of time. (See, Fig. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Gabriel Siegel et al., W0 2018/042413 A1.
Independent claim 1, Siegel discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor comprising hardware, the processor being configured to:
control a display to, over time, display a plurality of partial images of a captured image generated by capturing an image of an observation target (i.e. a system including a microscope, the system enabling acquisition of digital images from the optical imaging plane, and a display of pointers and digital information as an overlay on the optical image of the specimen. The overlaid information may include digital textual data, dimensional measurements, image enhancements, previously acquired images or image parts, etc., in addition to other types of user generated data. – p. 4, ll. 17 -22; Every time a slide is at rest an image is acquired and stored into the database is tagged as a potential region of interest for a detection of pathology. – p. 5, ll. 25-26);
for each of the plurality of partial images (i.e. Every time an image is acquired it is stored into the database. If geometric forms are drawn and/or measured - the area is tagged as a potential pathology – p. 5, ll. 19-20):
generate field of view information (i.e. the present invention is the method of mass, automatic selection of specimen areas where digital images are acquired, labeled and stored. Those images might further be used for training algorithms for automated detection of pathologies – p. 5, ll. 9-11; a gaze follower integrated into at least one of the oculars for enabling system for image capturing and image projecting to follow and determine the place in the field of view that the user is attentive to – p. 9, ll. 10-13) by associating:
display position information indicating a position of a display area corresponding to the each of the plurality of displayed partial images (i.e. using feature tracking image processing techniques such as active contours, a relative position of the slide with respect to the original point can be determined and displayed to the user, marked on the acquired and stored images and delivered to the report. – p. 5, ll. 27-29); and
time information indicating a display time of the each of the plurality of displayed partial images (i.e. determination of the potential pathology region of interest is based on tracking the observer's line of sight (user's gaze); and determining a "locked" gaze onto a specific point exceeding a predefined time period, typically about 250ms, would also trigger an image acquisition and storage into the database as a potential pathology – p. 5-6, ll. 32-5);
record the field of view information in a memory (i.e. trigger an image acquisition and storage into the database as a potential pathology; Using the above methods, a database including images tagged as "pathological" (those marked with the geometric shapes and/or measurements or actively acquired by the user), "highly suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer stopped and resumed the scanning process) and "low level suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer locked his gaze onto a particular area on the slide).– p. 5-6, ll. 32-10); and
determine an observation time during which the each of the plurality of partial images is continuously displayed based on the display position information and the time information (i.e. According to some examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, some potential areas of interest could be determined by monitoring the operator gaze locking on a particular area while scanning the slide and searching for pathologies or anomalies. In such event of operator's gaze locks for more than a pre-defined period of time, ranging typically between 0.5 to 5 seconds, a camera image acquisition will be triggered – p. 24, ll. 1-5; Using the above methods, a database including images tagged as "pathological" (those marked with the geometric shapes and/or measurements or actively acquired by the user), "highly suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer stopped and resumed the scanning process) and "low level suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer locked his gaze onto a particular area on the slide).– p. 5-6, ll. 32-10);
from the plurality of field of view information generated for the plurality of partial images, extract a field of view information having the observation time longer than or equal to a threshold (i.e. According to some examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, user generated data creation module 810 can be configured to receive input from the human interface device 130, and then to create data which will be overlaid utilizing the optical overlay module 280 – p. 24, ll. 14-17; Further examples of how the user generated data creation module 810 can be utilized by the user includes utilizing human interface device 130 to collect written notes, voice notes, receive commands of different images that the user may wish to see simultaneously while viewing the image in order to compare the images e.g., a specimen from the same patient from a previous point in time – p. 24, ll. 24-28. It is inherent that tagged/labeled “pathological” images may be selected from the database for viewing.);
generate a field of view map image corresponding to the extracted field of view information (i.e. display of pointers and digital information as an overlay on the optical image of the specimen - p. 4, ll. 17-22; data created via the user generated data creation module 810 can be combined with data generated via the image capture module 200 – p. 24-25, ll. 30-2), the field of view map image being obtained by:
quantifying a display magnification and the observation time of the partial image corresponding to the extracted field of view information (i.e. and for comparison of specimen or tissue samples – p. 25, ll. 17-19; changing the magnification changes the observed field of view – Fig. 14; p. 33, ll. 23-25; determination of the potential pathology region of interest is based on tracking the observer's line of sight (user's gaze); and determining a "locked" gaze onto a specific point exceeding a predefined time period, typically about 250ms, would also trigger an image acquisition and storage into the database as a potential pathology – p. 5-6, ll. 32-5); and
generating the field of view map image to visually present at least one of the quantified display magnification or the quantified observation time of the partial image corresponding to the extracted field of view (i.e. report the magnification of the selected one of the plurality of objectives which is currently in use to the data processing unit – p. 8, ll. 20-25; a relative position of the slide with respect to the original point can be determined and displayed to the user, marked on the acquired and stored images and delivered to the report. – p. 5, ll. 27-29; label the image captured by the digital camera if the place in the field of view that the user is attentive to remains stationary for duration longer that a preset threshold duration – p. 9, ll. 14-17); and
control the display to display the field of view map image (i.e. In the example that the user wishes to view an image as an overlay, the user generated data creation module 810 may receive data from human interface device 130, which may be utilized by the image comparison module 270 to select the appropriate image to overlay 940, and which may be utilized by the optical overlay module 280 to overlay this image 450. As a further example of overlaying an image, the data processing unit 190 may utilize the image capture module 200, and/or image analysis module 820 and/or data analysis module 300 to automatically decide on which image to display as an overlay 460. -p. 30, ll. 11-17).
Claim 2, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the display to display a superimposed image in which the field of view map image is superimposed on the captured image (i.e. display of pointers and digital information as an overlay on the optical image of the specimen. The overlaid information may include digital textual data, dimensional measurements, image enhancements, previously acquired images or image parts, etc., in addition to other types of user generated data. – p. 4, ll. 17 -22).
Claim 3, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the display to display the field of view map image and the captured image side by side (i.e. A further example, but not limited to, can be in the case where the user is viewing specimens stained with kappa/lambda, such that there are two identical slices of the same specimen stained differently, and after viewing the first stain and capturing an image with the image acquisition module, can view the captured image and then switching slides in order to view both the captured image and second slide simultaneously – p. 27, ll. 12-19).
Claim 6, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to extract the field of view information identified from, as an extraction condition, the magnification information indicating the specific display magnification and observation time information that is based on a display time in specific duration, from among the field of view information that are recorded in the memory (i.e. According to some examples of the presently disclosed subject matter, user generated data creation module 810 can be configured to receive input from the human interface device 130, and then to create data which will be overlaid utilizing the optical overlay module 280 – p. 24, ll. 14-17; Further examples of how the user generated data creation module 810 can be utilized by the user includes utilizing human interface device 130 to collect written notes, voice notes, receive commands of different images that the user may wish to see simultaneously while viewing the image in order to compare the images e.g., a specimen from the same patient from a previous point in time – p. 24, ll. 24-28).
Claim 7, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to generate the specific duration based on a timing at which specific information is input to the input device (i.e. In such event of operator's gaze locks for more than a pre-defined period of time, ranging typically between 0.5 to 5 seconds, a camera image acquisition will be triggered – p. 24, ll. 1-5; Using the above methods, a database including images tagged as "pathological" (those marked with the geometric shapes and/or measurements or actively acquired by the user), "highly suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer stopped and resumed the scanning process) and "low level suspicious" (those acquired automatically when the observer locked his gaze onto a particular area on the slide).– p. 5-6, ll. 32-10);
Claim 8, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: extract an area of interest in the captured image based on the field of view information (i.e. detecting patterns in the specimen in order to determine characteristics using known techniques – p. 25, ll. 13-15); calculate image feature data of each of areas in the captured image (i.e. calculating metrics between points on the specimen – p. 25, ll. 9-10); and extract, in the captured image, a candidate observation area that has image feature data similar to the image feature data of the area of interest (i.e. leverage big data and determine diagnosis based on comparison with similar datasets – p. 25, ll. 16-19).
Independent claim 9, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Independent claim 10, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claim 11, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 apply herein.
Claim 12, Siegel discloses the information processing apparatus according to The information processing apparatus according to wherein, in generating the field of view map image, the processor is configured to generate the field of view map image to visually present both the quantified display magnification and the quantified observation time of the partial image corresponding to the extracted field of view (i.e. report the magnification of the selected one of the plurality of objectives which is currently in use to the data processing unit – p. 8, ll. 20-25; a relative position of the slide with respect to the original point can be determined and displayed to the user, marked on the acquired and stored images and delivered to the report. – p. 5, ll. 27-29; label the image captured by the digital camera if the place in the field of view that the user is attentive to remains stationary for duration longer that a preset threshold duration – p. 9, ll. 14-17).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached on 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615