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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated in the Remarks, throughout page 13, that Lee does not teach the “cell cycle deformations” and “executing. a cell cycle deformation function wherein the cell cycle deformation function identifies one or more cell cycle deformations based on a subset of the plurality of values of the diagnostic score for the first subsection” as claimed in claim 1. Applicant stated that Lee teaches detection of “physical, geometric shape” of the cells with regards to cell phase change based on the strain analysis. Further Applicant stated that these teachings of Lee does not provide “executing. a cell cycle deformation function wherein the cell cycle deformation function identifies one or more cell cycle deformations based on a subset of the plurality of values of the diagnostic score for the first subsection”. However Examiner disagrees because the primary reference of Mukhopadhy teaches “executing, by the processor, a function to generate a corresponding diagnostic index for the first subsection” (paragraph 126, 187; diagnostic index generation module (M1c) for the subsections; see Fig. 10 showing diagnostic index for each subsection in x position) “wherein the function identifies one or more cell cycle information based on a subset of the plurality of values of the diagnostic score for the first subsection” (paragraph 186; see Table 3 showing subset of plurality of diagnostic scores (plurality of values) associated with specific types of cancers). As shown in Table 3, subset of the diagnostic scores associated with different level of cancer which are cell cycle deformation since the growth is deregulated and abnormal for cancerous cells (paragraph 46; uncontrolled growth (deregulated)). However Mukhopadhy does not explicitly teach cell cycle deformation function per se that performs the above steps of “generate a corresponding diagnostic index for the first subsection” and “identifies one or more cell cycle deformation based on a subset of the plurality of values of the diagnostic score for the first subsection”.
Lee teaches cell cycle deformation function (page 2646; “an algorithm to evaluate the strain properties of the cell boundaries”) for identifying one or more cell cycle deformations (page 2650; last three paragraph; it identifies deformation patterns that are useful in “abnormal behavior” detection in the cell cycle as cell cycle deformations that are associated with deregulated cell cycle). Therefore Lee not only tracks the changes as stated by Applicant but it can detect these abnormal behaviors based on this deformation patterns to identify cancerous cells.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200090811 to Mukhopadhy in view of “Cell cycle phase detection with cell deformation analysis” to Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Mukhopadhy discloses a computer-implemented method comprising (paragraph 144; computer program):
receiving, by a processor of a computing device, a digital image of a biological sample, the digital image comprising an area segmented into a plurality of subsections (paragraph 58, 93, 93, 99, 106, 124; biological images segmented into subsections; microprocessor);
calculating, by the processor, a diagnostic score for a first subsection of the plurality of subsections, the diagnostic score comprising a plurality of values collectively associated with a nuclear heat and a nuclear area of one or more cells imaged in the first subsection of the biological sample (paragraph 23, 99, 106, 171, 186; diagnostic score generated from average of local heats of cells that are sorted by information ON surface values (plurality of values) of nuclear area);
executing, by the processor, a function to generate a corresponding diagnostic index for the first subsection (paragraph 126, 187; diagnostic index generation module (M1c) for the subsections; see Fig. 10 showing diagnostic index for each subsection in x position) wherein the function identifies one or more cell cycle information based on a subset of the plurality of values of the diagnostic score for the first subsection (paragraph 186; see Table 3 showing subset of plurality of diagnostic scores associated with specific types of cancers),
mapping, by the processor, the diagnostic index for the first subsection to a reference scale to determine whether the diagnostic index for the first subsection exceeds a threshold value on the cell cycle reference scale (paragraph 6, 23, 99-100, 186; diagnostic index mapped to reference diagnostic scale; paragraph 7, 100-102; Fig. 10 shows diagnostic index exceeding threshold values such as “0.1” to enter in the cancer margin of 1.32 to 1.59; specificity index mapped to the scale (exceed threshold) to identify specific cancer); and
determining, by the processor, a presence of one or more cell cycle anomalies associated with the first subsection based on the diagnostic index exceeding the threshold value (paragraph 7, 23; diagnostic index is mapped to scale to identify if subsection is cancerous/anamoly (in the cancer margin) for the reference scale such as shown in Fig. 10).
However Mukhopadhy does not disclose wherein the cell cycle deformation function identifies one or more cell cycle deformations.
Lee discloses wherein the cell cycle deformation function identifies one or more cell cycle deformations (page 2646; column 2, section 3; page 2647; algorithm (function) to “evaluate the strain properties” to determine shape changes; shape changes identifies the cell phases (cell cycle deformation); page 2650; column 1; deformation features used to detect shape changes during cell cycle division; cell deformation “over period of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Mukhopadhy as taught by Lee to provide cell cycle deformation function to identify cell cycle deformations.
The motivation to combine the references is to use principal strain analysis to analyze cell deformation during period of time such that accurate detection of change of shape during cell cycles can be achieved (page 2650; column 1).
Regarding claim 61, Mukhopadhyay discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the processor, a graphic representation of the first subsection on the digital image (paragraph 52, 98; generating displaying image ( graphic representation) which includes subsections), wherein the graphic representation comprises one or more of:
a two-dimensional shape comprising a boundary based on the diagnostic index exceeding the threshold value (paragraph 69, 126; see Fig. 10 showing box 72 (2D shape) having cancer boundary based on diagnostic index exceeding threshold associated with benign hyperplasia); or
a heat map within the two-dimensional shape, wherein the heat map represents a degree to which the diagnostic index of the corresponding first subsection exceeds the threshold value; and
outputting, by the processor, the graphic representation to an output device (paragraph 126; “final results” of modules including cancer boundary detection module output to LCD display).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19,50,52-53 and 56 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov/>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights