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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, and 18 are pending. Claims 2, 6, 17, and 19-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.6-8, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, and 18 under this section of the Rules has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.9-14, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments of the independent claims has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, necessitated new grounds of rejection which are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20090260281 A1) in view of Pushkarsky et al. (US 20220187275 A1), Johansson et al. (US 20190333211 A1), Uchiho et al. (US 20210010054 A1), Topman et al. (WO 2012035504 A1), Ahn et al. (US 20150319826 A1), Gutierrez et al. (US 20190180420 A1), and Audenaert et al. (US 20100105561 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Conrad teaches "A computer program product for assessing the vigor of germinative units, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one programmable processor, causes at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising:"; (Conrad, Paras. 7 and 182-183, teaches a computer system for measuring the growth of seeds including a processor and program memory, i.e., computer program product comprising computer readable media executed by processors to assess the growth or vigor of germinative units);
"
"
"
"
"
"
"";
"wherein the germinative units are spores and the at least one germinative growth is germinative tubes, or the germinative units are seed and the at least one germinative growth is a radicle or a root"; (Conrad, Para. 73, teaches the germinative units are seeds and the growths are roots).
However, Conrad does not explicitly teach "processing an image of a sample comprising germinative units subjected to a chemical compound to generate a first binary image using a first process; processing the image of the sample to generate a second binary image using a second process; processing the first binary image and the second binary image of the sample comprising germinative units to identify at least one germinative growth, which is a growth germinating from a germinative unit, present in the image and determine the lengths of the at least one identified germinative growth; calculating an image average length of the determined length; processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length; determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Pushkarsky teaches "processing an image of a sample comprising germinative units subjected to a chemical compound to generate a first binary image using a first process"; (Pushkarsky, Paras. 37 and 76, teaches introducing a chemical substance to a plurality of target cells prior to measuring the dimensional change in order to characterize the respective toxicological and/or therapeutic effects on the target cells wherein the fluorescent image of the micropatterns is thresholded to yield a binary image, i.e., processing an image of a sample of germinative units which are also subjected to a chemical compound wherein a binary image is then generated using a first process being thresholding).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad by including the processing of an image of a sample of units subjected to a compound in order to generate a binary image taught by Pushkarsky. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it increases reproducibility and throughput (Pushkarsky, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to increase reproducibility of cell force measurements and increase throughput).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky does not explicitly teach "processing the image of the sample to generate a second binary image using a second process; processing the first binary image and the second binary image of the sample comprising germinative units to identify at least one germinative growth, which is a growth germinating from a germinative unit, present in the image and determine the lengths of the at least one identified germinative growth; calculating an image average length of the determined length; processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length; determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Johansson teaches "processing the image of the sample to generate a second binary image using a second process";(Johansson, Abstract, teaches a method for analysis of a digital image using a threshold to identify all pixels of the digital image above or below a certain intensity value to produce a first binary image, i.e., generate a first binary image using a first process, and using texture filtering to identify regions of high texture in the digital image to produce a second binary image in which all regions of high texture are pixels with a first state, i.e., process the image of the sample to generate a second binary image using a second process being the texture filtering, wherein the first and second binary images are overlayed to produce a combined binary image);
"processing the first binary image and the second binary image of the sample comprising germinative units to identify at least one germinative growth, which is a growth germinating from a germinative unit, present in the image";(Johansson, FIGS. 7a-7j and Abstract and Paras. 111 and 113, teaches the binary images from thresholding and texture filtering are combined to one image and a value relating to the amount of the substance is determined based on the area of the combined binary image with pixels wherein estimated pathogen growth is calculated as the ratio between the objects and the total image area from the combined images and wherein a thread-like change in morphology is seen and a swelling of the pathogen is seen, i.e., processing the first and second binary image of the sample by combining the images comprising the germinative units to identify germinative growth in which the growth in germinating from the unit being the thread-like growths or swelling growths from the initial pathogen unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad and Pushkarsky wherein the sample images include germinative units and growths being seeds and roots by including the processing of the image to generate two binary images via different processes and processing the two binary images to identify growths from units taught by Johansson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it determines the amount of a substance in an image (Johansson, Para. 1, teaches the motivation of combination to be to determine the amount of a substance shown in the image).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky and Johansson does not explicitly teach "and determine the lengths of the at least one identified germinative growth; calculating an image average length of the determined length; processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length; determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; "and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Uchiho teaches "and determine the lengths of the at least one identified germinative growth"; (Uchiho, Para. 62, teaches extracting a feature of a black portion recognized as bacteria from the binary image wherein the lengths of minor axis and major axis of the bacteria are calculated, i.e., determine lengths of the growths being the bacteria from the binary image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad, Pushkarsky, and Johansson wherein the binary image is a processed combination of two binary images generated via different processes by including the determination of lengths of the growths from the binary image taught by Uchiho. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the determination of growth (Uchiho, Para. 33, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the determination of growth of bacteria).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, and Uchiho does not explicitly teach "calculating an image average length of the determined length; processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length; determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Topman teaches "calculating an image average length of the determined length"; (Topman, Pg. 17 lines 1-7, teaches determining average size of cells within the image, i.e., image average length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, and Uchiho by including the calculation of an average length or size of the growths taught by Topman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it provides control over germinative growth (Topman, Pg. 1 lines 20-24, teaches the motivation of combination to be to allow for the accurate and careful control of germinative growth).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, and Topman does not explicitly teach “processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length; determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ahn teaches "processing a plurality of images of a sample comprising germinative units that are not subjected to a chemical compound and averaging the resulting image average lengths of the plurality of images to generate a sample average length"; (Ahn, FIG. 7A and Para. 165, teaches calculating the average size of a plurality of pupil images received from the object detector to compare the average size of the plurality of pupil images with the reference values wherein average pupil size is not calculated until a preset number of images of user's eyes have been received, i.e., processing a plurality of images of a sample of objects not being subjected to any compound and averaging all of the sizes or lengths of the plurality of images to generate a total average size or sample average length for comparison).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, and Topman wherein the objects are germinative units by including the averaging of image average lengths of a plurality of images to generate a total average or sample average length taught by Ahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves efficiency and convenience (Ahn, Paras. 5 and 355, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve efficiency and increase user convenience).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, and Ahn does not explicitly teach "determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length; and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gutierrez teaches "determining the effect of the chemical compound to which the germinative units have been exposed on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the image average length with the sample average length"; (Gutierrez, Para. 57, teaches quantifying cellular length and average width for thousands of bacteria one cell at a time using an automated computer routine of an image cytometer to evaluate bacteria size changes in response to hyperosmotic shock wherein it was found that both mean width and mean length of cellular populations systematically decreased as the solute concentration was increased, i.e., determine an effect of a chemical compound on the vigor of the germinative units by comparing the quantified cellular lengths and averaged widths with the mean widths and lengths of the entire cellular populations being the sample average length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, and Ahn by including the determination of an effect of a compound on the vigor or growth of germinative units by comparing an average length with a sample average length of the entire population taught by Gutierrez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the quality of images for quantitative analysis (Gutierrez, Para. 27, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the quality of images to allow for a quantitative characterization of the sample morphology compatible with high-throughput and automated methods).
However, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, and Gutierrez does not explicitly teach "and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Audenaert teaches "and comparing, based on the determined effect, sample average lengths of a plurality of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a chemical compound for treating the germinative units"; (Audenaert, FIG. 4 and Abstract and Paras. 26-27, 33, and 36, teaches chemical compounds that act as activators of lateral root formation wherein a compound screening protocol is used in which a 10,000 compound library was used for the screening wherein compounds were added to the seeds for a 24 hour incubation in which a dose-response analysis is performed to count root length and number of lateral roots using ImageJ freeware wherein 16 activator compounds with lateral root growth promoting activity were selected for further follow-up in which the selected activators had a less negative effect on root elongation in which root length was least affected with activator A11 at the given concentration, i.e., compare lengths of samples exposed to different chemical compounds based on the effect of the chemical on the root length and selecting a compound for treatment of the unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, and Gutierrez wherein lengths are sample average lengths of the plurality of samples by including the comparison of lengths of samples that have been exposed to different chemical compounds to select a compound for treating the germinative units based on the chemicals’ effects of taught by Audenaert. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves nutrient uptake and increases biomass (Audenaert, Para. 5, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve nutrient uptake and increase in biomass production).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the location of germinative units is determined by detecting substantially circular regions in the image"; (Topman, Pg. 39 and lines 3-4, teaches the structuring element having a circular or elliptical shape, i.e., detecting location of germinative units using circular regions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 11. Thus, the method recited in claim 11 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the length of the at least one germinative growth in the binary image is determined by determining the number of pixels associated with the at least one germinative growth and dividing the number of pixels in the at least one germinative growth by a width of a germinative growth"; (Topman, Pg. 14 lines 7-15 and Pg. 16 lines 18-22, teaches determining culture confluency, i.e., length of growth in the image, by counting number of pixels of the cell populated areas, i.e., pixels associated with growth, and dividing by total number of pixels in the culture, i.e., width of the growth).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 12. Thus, the method recited in claim 12 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1, wherein the germinative units are seeds and the at least one germinative growth is a radicle or a root"; (Conrad, Para. 73, teaches the germinative units are seeds and the growths are roots).
Claim 18 recites a system or apparatus with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert references discloses a processor configured to execute the steps (for example, see Conrad, Paragraph 172).
Claims 3-5, 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki (US 20190095679 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert does not explicitly teach "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the identifying of the at least one germinative growth in the binary image comprises processing the binary image to distinguish between a background of the image and the at least one germinative growth in the image".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the identifying of the at least one germinative growth in the binary image comprises processing the binary image to distinguish between a background of the image and the at least one germinative growth in the image"; (Aragaki, Abstract and Para. 41, teaches binarizing an image into a background region and a non-background region for each of the cell clusters, i.e., distinguishing between background of the image and growths).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert wherein the images are binary images by including the distinction between the background of the image and the indicated objects or growths in the image taught by Aragaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it automates the collection of morphological information (Aragaki, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to automate the detection of morphological information of cell clusters).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one germinative growth is distinguished from the background of the image using clustering"; (Aragaki, Paras. 41, 69, and 124, teaches using cluster regions to segment the background and non-background regions, i.e., using clustering).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 4. Thus, the method recited in claim 4 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 3, wherein the at least one germinative growth is distinguished from the background of the image by thresholding the image"; (Aragaki, Paras. 41, 69, and 124, teaches using a binarization threshold to separate the image into a background region and a non-background region, i.e., thresholding the image).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 5. Thus, the method recited in claim 5 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one germinative growth is identified by processing the binary image to identify connected components in the image"; (Aragaki, Para. 97, teaches identifying cell-clusters, i.e., growths, by identifying the plurality of schematic-shape regions or non-background regions as adjacent and connected to each other, i.e., connected components).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 7. Thus, the method recited in claim 7 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 7, wherein the identification of the at least one germinative growth in the binary image further comprises performing morphological closing on the connected components"; (Topman, Pg. 29 lines 1-11, teaches performing morphological closing to fill in small isolated holes in the combined image of the cells in culture, i.e., connected components).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 8. Thus, the method recited in claim 8 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 7, wherein the connected components with an area below a threshold value are determined to be at least one of non-germinated germinative units and contamination"; (Aragaki, Para. 124-125, teaches extracting and removing noise, i.e., non-germinated germinative units and contamination, by the filtering unit for regions of the cell clusters, i.e., connected components, if the size is smaller than a predetermined threshold, i.e., the area is below a threshold).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 9. Thus, the method recited in claim 9 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 9, wherein at least one of the non-germinated germinative units and contamination are disregarded in the calculating of the image average length"; (Topman, Pg. 17 lines 1-7 and Pg. 29 lines 1-11, teaches filtering out noise and artifacts from the combined image, i.e., disregarding non-germinated germinative units and contamination, wherein image average size of cells is determined after processing, i.e., average length).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 10. Thus, the method recited in claim 10 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 7, wherein the method further comprises determining the number of germinative growths in the binary image based on the number of connected components"; (Aragaki, Paras. 4 and 97, teaches determining morphological information about cell clusters and the number thereof, i.e., determining number of growths, wherein the number of growths are identified by the plurality of schematic-shape regions or non-background regions as adjacent and connected to each other, i.e., connected components).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki references presented in the rejection of Claim 3, applies to claim 13. Thus, the method recited in claim 13 is met by Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Aragaki.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Bassler et al. (US 20180346525 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert does not explicitly teach "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein identified germinative growths which contact the edge of the binary image are disregarded in the calculating of the image average length".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Bassler teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein identified germinative growths which contact the edge of the binary image are disregarded in the calculating of the image average length"; (Bassler, Para. 150, teaches removing cells if they were on the edge of the image wherein area of individual cells and average cell size is calculated, i.e., disregarding growths on image edge for average length calculation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert wherein the images are binary images by including the exclusion of objects at the edge of the image from the average length calculation taught by Bassler. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it creates an improved image by removing out of focus cells (Bassler, Para. 150, teaches the motivation of combination to be that it improves the quality of image by removing cells deemed to be out of focus).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, Audenaert, and Chen et al. (US 20150230466 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert does not explicitly teach "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the germinative units are spores and the at least one germinative growth is germinative tubes".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chen teaches "The computer program product as claimed in claim 1 wherein the germinative units are spores and the at least one germinative growth is germinative tubes"; (Chen, Para. 62, teaches germinative units being spores that germinate growths as germ tubes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Conrad in view of Pushkarsky, Johansson, Uchiho, Topman, Ahn, Gutierrez, and Audenaert by including the germinative units being spores and the growths being tubes taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it controls the growths of the organisms (Chen, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to control or combat the growth of microbial organisms).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights