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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Amendments filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s)
1, 3–19
Independent Claim(s)
1, 18, and 19
Amended Claim(s)
1, 3, 15, 18, and 19
Canceled Claim(s)
2
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on 12/02/2025.
In view of Applicant’s amendments [Remarks] filed on 12/02/2025 with
respect to U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation have been carefully considered. However, according to MPEP 2181, 35 USC 112(f) is applicable to claim limitation if it meets the 3-prong analysis set forth in the previous Office Action. Applicant did not specifically point out why any of these prongs have not been met, and as such, the claims continue to be treated under 112(f) by, e.g., modifying the “means” or generic placeholder with specific structure, with careful consideration that no new matter is introduced.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant arguments [Remarks] filed on 12/02/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections have been carefully considered and the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks with respect to independent claims 1, 18, and 19, on bottom of page 13 to page 16, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the reference being used in the current rejection and the arguments are now rejected by newly cited art Tsuzuki et al. (JP 2014/209861 A) as explained in the body of the rejection below.
Regarding Wiles’s reference, Applicant argues, on the bottom of page 14 to the top of page 15 and at the top of page 16, the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
71
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
276
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wiles discloses capturing, after culturing, the test image under the same imaging condition as the reference image previously captured by applying an acquisition configuration for an entire series of images [¶0144]. The limitation of “storing, in association with an individual identification information” is taught by Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A) with the image data storage unit that stores information such as, an image ID, a culture medium ID, and the captured culture medium image data [¶0060].
Regarding Hayashi, the Applicant argues, on page 16, the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
520
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hayashi (US 2016/0203605 A1) teaches a registration section that registers the image of the test individual in an initial state as a reference image [¶0040], as disclosed in the claim limitation, while Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) teaches the setting section setting the imaging condition, storing imaging condition, reading and setting the imaging condition [¶0029, 0026, 0048, 0049]. Applicant argues that Hayashi’s registration relates to information-management rather than coordinates control of camera/illumination settings, but Hayashi’s reference discloses the registration section registering a reference image, not control of camera/illumination settings. With the new amendments, Tsuzuki teaches storing and receiving the imaging condition [¶0060, 0067]. In response to applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching or motivation for the combination of Wiles and Hayashi, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wile’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to evaluate the accuracy of a count in real-time. In addition, both references monitor the growth of colonies.
Regarding Sakamoto, the Applicant argues, in page 17, the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
196
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sakamoto teaches saving conditions with identification information by registering the information in the recipe information [¶0050], along with the identification information or region of interest (ROI) in the image data [¶0047].
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an imaging section that captures a test individual and generates an image” in claims 1, 3–4, 9, 13, 18;
“a registration section that registers the image ... configured to cause the storage section to store the imaging condition ... configured to cause the storage section to store the illumination condition ... registers identification information” in claims 1, 4, 11;
“a residue identifying section that identifies a residue ... identifies a position of a residue ... recognizes a marker ... recognizes a container ... obtains relative displacements” in claims 1, 5–8, 17;
“a counting section that counts a number of colonies ... configured to read the reference image ... configured to set a mask area” in claims 1, 11, 14, 17–18;
“a storage section that stores, in association with identification information of the test individual, (i) the reference image and (ii) the imaging condition” in claims 1, 4, 11, 15;
“a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information” in claims 1, 4;
“a setting section that sets an imaging condition ... configured to read, from the storage section, an imaging condition .... sets an illumination condition ... configured to read, from the storage section, the illumination condition” in claims 1, 4;
“an illumination section that illuminates the test individual” in claim 4;
“display section that displays the reference image ... displays the count table ... displays an icon ... display the at least one piece of information” in claims 9, 11, 14, 15;
“table management section that creates a count table” in claim 11;
“cell identifying section that identifies a target cell” in claim 11;
“designation section that designates the reference image” in claim 15;
“display control section that reads at least one piece of information” in claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“an imaging section that captures a test individual and generates an image” in
claims 1, 3–4, 9, 13, 18 corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 11. An imaging section (for example, the main camera 11) that captures an image of the test individual, Applicant’s Pub [¶0232].
“a registration section that registers the image ... configured to cause the
storage section to store the imaging condition ... configured to cause the storage section to store the illumination condition ... registers identification information” in claims 1, 4, 11 corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 30. The MCU 30 may function as a registration section that registers data in the database, Applicant’s Pub [¶0237].
“a residue identifying section that identifies a residue ... identifies a position of
a residue ... recognizes a marker ... recognizes a container ... obtains relative displacements” in claims 1, 5–8, 17 corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 20 or Fig. 4 – element 30. The MCUs 20 and 30 function as a residue identifying section that identifies a residue, Applicant’s Pub [¶0274].
“a counting section that counts a number of colonies ... configured to read the
reference image ... configured to set a mask area” in claims 1, 11, 14, 17–18 corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 30 or Fig. 4 – element 30. The MCU 20 or the MCU 30 is an example of a counting section that counts colonies, Applicant’s Pub [¶0229].
“a storage section that stores the reference image and identification
information” in claims 1, 4, 11, 15 corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 25 or Fig. 4 – element 35. The storage device 25 includes, for example, a read-only memory (ROM) ... and a random access memory (RAM) ... The MCU 30 may store the reference image in the storage device 35 in association with the identification information, Applicant’s Pub [¶0013, ¶0166]
“a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information” in
claims 1, 4 corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 30, 32, 33, 11, or 10. The MCU 20 receives a user input that is input from the operation section 8 via an operation receiving section ... The MCU, they keyboard 32, the pointing device 33, the main camera 11, and the front camera 10 function as a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information, Applicant’s Pub [¶0013 & 0276].
“a setting section that sets an imaging condition ... configured to read, from
the storage section, an imaging condition .... sets an illumination condition ... configured to read, from the storage section, the illumination condition” in claims 1, 4 corresponds to Fig. element 30. The MCU 30 and the UI 300 are examples of a setting section that sets an imaging condition, Applicant’s Pub [¶0278].
“an illumination section that illuminates the test individual” in claim 4
corresponds to Fig. 3 – element 12, 13, or 14. An illumination section (for example, the ring illumination devices 12 and 13 or the coaxial illumination device 14) that illuminates the test individual, Applicant’s Pub [¶0232].
“display section that displays the reference image ... displays the count table
... displays an icon ... display the at least one piece of information” in claims 9, 11, 14, 15 corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 37. Note that the display device 37 functions as a display section that displays at least one of the reference image, Applicant’s Pub [¶0275].
“table management section that creates a count table” in claim 11
corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 30. The table management section (for example, the MCU 30) may create a count table, Applicant’s Pub [¶0230].
“cell identifying section that identifies a target cell” in claim 11 corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 30 or 33. The MCU 30, the pointing device 33, and the like are examples of a cell identifying section that identifies a target cell, Applicant’s Pub [¶0229].
“designation section that designates the reference image” in claim 15 corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 30. The MCU 30 and the UI 310 may function as a designation section that designates the reference image, Applicant’s Pub [¶0293].
“display control section that reads at least one piece of information” in claim
15 corresponds to Fig. 4 – element 36. The display control section 36 are an example of a display control section that displays the count table, Applicant’s Pub [¶0229].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles et al. (US 2018/0112173 A1) (hereafter, “Wiles”) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) (hereafter, “Sakamoto”) and further in view of Tsuzuki et al. (JP 2014/209861 A) (hereafter, “Tsuzuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Wiles discloses a colony counting device [a system for evaluating growth in a culture media inoculated with a biological sample, para 0016] comprising: an imaging section [Figure 1; image acquisition device 130 (e.g., camera) for providing high quality imaging of plated media, para 0040] that captures a test individual and generates an image of the test individual [one or more digital images of the medium and biological sample are captured ... digital imaging of the medium may be performed multiple times during the incubation process (e.g., at the start of incubation, at a time in the middle of incubation, at the end of incubation) so that changes in the medium may be observed and analyzed ... a second digital image is captured at time t2. Time t2 is a time after t1 at which the colonies in the imaged plate have had an opportunity to grow even more, para 0046, 0067]; a residue identifying section [the processor 110 may be hardware that performs one or more operations, para 0042] that identifies a residue included in the reference image registered by the registration section [associated with the identification information of the test individual received by the receiving section] [a global list of colony candidates is collected based on the first and second digital images ... each of the colony candidates included in the global list is sorted. Sorting the colony candidates involves identifying, for each candidates, whether the candidate is in fact an artifact or a colony, para 0069, 0070], and identifies a position of the residue in a test image being captured under the imaging condition associated with the reference image [at each time point the image can be a given acquisition configuration, either for the entire series of a single acquisition configuration, para 0144] corresponding to the residue included in the reference image based on a displacement of each of two or more common characteristic portions between the reference image and the test image that is generated by the imaging section [the coordinates may be used in later steps to help align the first digital image with other digital images of the plate taken from different angles and/or different times. In some cases, the imaged plate may be a specific landmark (e.g., an off-center dot or line), such that coordinates of the pixel(s) covering the landmark in the first image may be assigned to the pixel(s) covering the same landmark in the other images ... in cases where multiple images of an object on the plate are collected, the coordinates of an object’s location may be determined. Image data of the object collected at a subsequent time may then be associated with the previous image data based on the coordinates, and then used to determine the change in the object over time, para 0066, 0150] and is an image of the test individual after culturing [a second digital image is captured at time t2. Time t2 is a time after t1 at which the colonies in the imaged plate have had an opportunity to grow even more, para 0067]; and a counting section [the processor 110 may be hardware that performs one or more operations, para 0041] that counts a number of colonies included in the test image while excluding image data at the identified position of the residue [if the colony candidate is determined to be present in both images (meaning that there was no significant growth between the two images), then the colony candidate is identified as an artifact ... if the colony candidate is not present in the second image (meaning that it was only present in the first image and then disappeared), then the colony candidate is identified as an artifact (e.g., a piece of dust that was likely blown off the plate between t1 and t2), para 0086, 0087] from a count as a colony based on the position of the residue identified by the residue identifying section [sorting the colony candidates involves identifying, for each candidate, whether the candidate is in fact an artifact or a colony ... the sorted colony candidates that were identified as colonies are counted, para 0070, 0071].
Wiles fails to explicitly disclose a setting section that sets an imaging condition in the imaging section; a registration section that registers the image of the test individual in an initial state generated by the imaging section as a reference image; a storage section that stores, in association with identification information of the test individual, (i) the reference image and (ii) the imaging condition applied to the imaging section when the test individual in the initial state was captured when the reference image is registered by the registration section; a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information of the test individual for reading the reference image registered by the registration section and for reading the imaging condition associated with the reference image; [a residue identifying section that identifies a residue included in the reference image registered by the registration section] associated with the identification information of the test individual received by the receiving section.
However, Sakamoto teaches a setting section that sets an imaging condition in the imaging section [the correction unit 17 (condition setting unit) creates correction information for correcting the amount of illumination light in the imaging process of the microscope unit 30, para 0029].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Sakamoto to determine the required imaging condition based on the region of interest, as recognized by Sakamoto.
Neither Wiles nor Sakamoto appears to explicitly disclose a registration section that registers the image of the test individual in an initial state generated by the imaging section as a reference image; a storage section that stores, in association with identification information of the test individual, (i) the reference image and (ii) the imaging condition applied to the imaging section when the test individual in the initial state was captured when the reference image is registered by the registration section; a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information of the test individual for reading the reference image registered by the registration section and for reading the imaging condition associated with the reference image; [a residue identifying section that identifies a residue included in the reference image registered by the registration section] associated with the identification information of the test individual received by the receiving section.
However, Tsuzuki teaches a registration section that registers the image of the test individual in an initial state generated by the imaging section as a reference image [the application control unit 120 performs initial registration to register culture medium information in the server device 40 when the culture of the specimen beings after capturing the culture medium image data or at a predetermined timing, para 0066]; a storage section that stores, in association with identification information of the test individual, (i) the reference image [the image data storage unit 102 stores the captured culture medium image data ... an image ID for managing each image data ... a culture medium ID 66, para 0060] and (ii) the imaging condition applied to the imaging section when the test individual in the initial state was captured when the reference image is registered by the registration section [the image data storage unit 102 stores ... various metadata corresponding to each image data such as the time of capture, para 0060]; a receiving section that receives an input of the identification information of the test individual for reading the reference image registered by the registration section and for reading the imaging condition associated with the reference image [when the application control unit 120 ... stores the current time as the image capture time together with a predetermined image ID in the image data storage unit 102 as metadata for the culture medium image data, and transmits them together when transmitting the culture medium image data to the server device 40, para 0067]; [a residue identifying section that identifies a residue included in the reference image registered by the registration section] associated with the identification information of the test individual received by the receiving section [the culture medium information DB 401 stores the following information: (1) culture medium ID; (2) imaged culture medium image data ... (7) ID (ID when labeled) and number of colonies of each colony candidate that will become a colony ... these nine pieces of data are recorded in association with each other, para 0086].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and incorporate the teachings of Tsuzuki to accurately detect and count colonies including registering culture medium information in relation to the colonies, as recognized by Tsuzuki.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsuzuki with Wiles and Sakamoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, which claim 1 is incorporated, Wiles fails to explicitly disclose the setting section is configured to read, from the storage section, an imaging condition associated with the identification information of the test individual received again by the receiving section after culturing of the test individual and set the imaging condition in the imaging section, and the imaging section is configured to capture the test individual after culturing according to the imaging condition set by the setting section and acquire the test image for counting the colonies.
However, Sakamoto teaches the setting section is configured to read, from the storage section, an imaging condition associated with the identification information of the test individual received again by the receiving section after culturing of the test individual and set the imaging condition in the imaging section [when the maximum contrast value within the ROI is obtained, the correction unit 17 determines the amount of illumination light to be emitted by the illumination unit 31 using the maximum contrast value and the set contrast value registered in the recipe information, para 0049], and the imaging section is configured to capture the test individual after culturing according to the imaging condition set by the setting section and acquire the test image for counting the colonies [when the corrected light amount and transmittance are output by the corrector 17 ... the imaging control unit 11a causes the image acquisition unit 33 to perform imaging processing again at the same position, thereby acquiring image data, para 0052, 0054].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference and incorporated the teachings of Sakamoto to determine the required imaging condition based on the region of interest, as recognized by Sakamoto.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsuzuki with Wiles and Sakamoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, which claim 3 is incorporated, Wiles fails to explicitly disclose an illumination section that illuminates the test individual, wherein the setting section is configured to set an illumination condition in the illumination section, the registration section is configured to cause the storage section to store the illumination condition set in the illumination section in association with identification information of the test individual when the test individual before culturing is captured, the setting section is configured to read, from the storage section, the illumination condition associated with the identification information of the test individual received again by the receiving section after culturing the test individual, and set the illumination condition in the illumination section, and the imaging section is configured to capture the test individual in a state in which the test individual after culturing is illuminated according to the illumination condition set by the setting section and acquire the test image for counting the colonies.
However, Sakamoto teaches an illumination section that illuminates the test individual [the microscope unit 30 is configured .... with an imaging function, and has an illumination unit 31, para 0030], wherein the setting section is configured to set an illumination condition in the illumination section [the correction unit 17 (condition setting unit) creates correction information for correcting the amount of illumination light in the imaging process of the microscope unit 30, para 0029], the registration section is configured to cause the storage section to store the illumination condition set in the illumination section in association with identification information of the test individual when the test individual before culturing is captured [the imaging control unit 11a reads out the maximum contrast value in each ROI as the brightness of each target ... the storage unit 12 also stores recipe information, para 0047, 0026], the setting section is configured to read, from the storage section, the illumination condition associated with the identification information of the test individual received again by the receiving section after culturing the test individual, and set the illumination condition in the illumination section [when the maximum contrast value within the ROI is obtained, the correction unit 17 determines the amount of illumination light to be emitted by the illumination unit 31 using the maximum contrast value and the set contrast value registered in the recipe information, para 0049], and the imaging section is configured to capture the test individual in a state in which the test individual after culturing is illuminated according to the illumination condition set by the setting section and acquire the test image for counting the colonies [when the corrected light amount and transmittance are output by the corrector 17 ... the imaging control unit 11a causes the image acquisition unit 33 to perform imaging processing again at the same position, thereby acquiring image data, para 0052, 0054].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles in view of Sakamoto and incorporate the teachings of Tsuzuki to determine the required brightness based on the region of interest, as recognized by Sakamoto.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsuzuki with Wiles and Sakamoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, which claim 1 is incorporated, Wiles discloses wherein the residue identifying section recognizes a container accommodating the test individual, a residue adhering to the test individual, or a part of the test individual as at least one characteristic portion of the two or more common characteristic portions [a residue adhering to the test individual (the examiner interprets the claim limitation to require one step as recited): a global list of colony candidates is collected based on the first and second digital images ... each of the colony candidates included in the global list is sorted. Sorting the colony candidates involves identifying, for each candidate, whether the candidate is in fact an artifact or a colony ... one or more digital images of the medium and biological sample are captured, para 0069, 0070, 0046].
Regarding claim 17, which claim 1 is incorporated, Wiles discloses wherein the residue identifying section identifies a position of the residue in the reference image [coordinate are assigned to one or more pixels of the first digital image ... the coordinates may be polar coordinates, having a radial coordinate ... and an angular coordinate, para 0066], and obtains relative displacements between a position and a rotation angle of the test image and a position and a rotation angle of the reference image based on the two or more common characteristic portions [the coordinates may be used in later steps to help align the first digital image with other digital images of the plate taken ... at different times ... at 408, the second digital image is aligned with the first digital image based on the previously assigned coordinates, para 0066, 0068], and the counting section is configured to set a mask area in the test image based on the position of the residue and the relative displacements [objects in the second digital image are identified based on the contrast information ... the objects may be given a specific label or mask, such that pixels with the same labels share certain characteristics, para 0075], and count the number of colonies from the test image in which the mask area is set [it is determined whether the object is a colony candidate based on the characterized features ... if at 508, the object is determined to be a colony candidate, then at 510, it is added to the global list of colony candidate, para 0079, 0081].
Regarding claim 18, (drawn to a colony counting device) the proposed combination of Wiles in view of Sakamoto and further in view of Tsuzuki explained in the rejection of colony counting device claim 1 renders obvious the steps of the colony counting device claim 18, because these steps occur in the operation of the device as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, (drawn to a control method) the proposed combination of Wiles in view of Sakamoto and further in view of Tsuzuki explained in the rejection of colony counting device claim 1 renders obvious the steps of the control method claim 19, because these steps occur in the operation of the device as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 19.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A), as applied above, and Robinson et al. (US 2020/0401787 A1) (hereafter, “Robinson”).
Regarding claim 5, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose wherein the residue identifying section recognizes a marker given on a peripheral edge portion of an upper surface or a lower surface of a cylindrical transparent container accommodating the test individual as at least one characteristic portion of the two or more common characteristic portions.
However, Robinson teaches wherein the residue identifying section recognizes a marker given on a peripheral edge portion of an upper surface or a lower surface [Figure 1; the illustrated plates 100 add a fiducial marker on the base of the Petri dish or other culture plate, e.g., a small barcode in a known location on the base. Images of the plate created by an image capture device may be orientated using the fiducial marker ... 1-dimensional (1-D) (104 in Fig. 1A) or 2-D barcodes (104 in Fig. 1B) can be used, para 0042, 0044] of a cylindrical transparent container accommodating the test individual as at least one characteristic portion of the two or more common characteristic portions [the substrate may be a Petri dish ... the substrate and the medium may be substantially transparent, para 0032, 0049].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Robinson to help orientate the images based on the marker, as recognized by Robinson.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robinson with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, which claim 5 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose wherein the residue identifying section recognizes the marker having a linear shape as the at least one characteristic portion.
However, Robinson teaches wherein the residue identifying section recognizes the marker having a linear shape as the at least one characteristic portion [Figure 1; the illustrated plates 100 add a fiducial marker on the base of the Petri dish or other culture plate, e.g., a small barcode in a known location on the base, para 0042].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Robinson to help orientate the images based on the marker, as recognized by Robinson.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robinson with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, which claim 5 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose wherein the cylindrical transparent container includes an inner transparent container which has a bottomed cylindrical shape and in which a culture medium is formed and a cylindrical outer transparent container serving as a lid of the inner transparent container, and the residue identifying section recognizes a marker given on a peripheral edge portion of a bottom surface of the inner transparent container as the at least one characteristic portion of the two or more common characteristic portions.
However, Robinson teaches wherein the cylindrical transparent container includes an inner transparent container which has a bottomed cylindrical shape and in which a culture medium is formed and a cylindrical outer transparent container serving as a lid of the inner transparent container [the substrate may be a Petri dish .... the substate and the medium may be substantially transparent, para 0049], and the residue identifying section recognizes a marker given on a peripheral edge portion of a bottom surface of the inner transparent container as the at least one characteristic portion of the two or more common characteristic portions [Figure 1; the illustrated plates 100 add a fiducial marker on the base of the Petri dish or other culture plate, e.g., a small barcode in a known location on the base, para 0042].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Robinson to properly illuminate the culture medium for imaging, as recognized by Robinson.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robinson with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A), as applied above, and Akira et al. (WO 2016/136915 A1) (hereafter, “Akira”).
Regarding claim 9, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose a display section that displays the reference image acquired from the test individual before culturing and a moving image of the test individual after culturing acquired by the imaging section in a superimposed manner.
However, Akira teaches a display section that displays the reference image acquired from the test individual before culturing and a moving image of the test individual after culturing acquired by the imaging section in a superimposed manner [Fig. 5; a colony detection result correction screen 310 in which a frame indicating the detection of a colony is superimposed at the position where the colony was detected on the partial image of the petri dish image ... the display control unit 15b causes the client terminal 30 to display an editing screen for correcting the colony detection results corresponding to the specimen number, para 0061, 0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Akira for accurate colony detection, as recognized by Akira.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Akira with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A) and Akira (WO 2016/136915 A1), as applied above, and Robinson (US 2020/0401787 A1).
Regarding claim 10, which claim 9 is incorporated, Wiles fails to explicitly disclose a stage on which the test individual is placed.
However, Sakamoto teaches a stage on which the test individual is placed [The substrate holding device 40 has a plate-like shape, holds the substrate W, and has a stage 41 that is movable, para 0022].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference and incorporate the teachings of Sakamoto for a movable stage to properly position the object, as recognized by Sakamoto.
Neither Wiles, Sakamoto, Tsuzuki, nor Akira appears to explicitly disclose an alignment member that is provided on the stage and assists manual alignment by a user with respect to the test individual placed on the stage, wherein the alignment member has a shape formed to come into contact with a container accommodating the test individual at at least two points to support the container.
However, Robinson teaches a stage on which the test individual is placed [the sample holder 412 may be sized and shaped for holding the substrate, para 0056]; and an alignment member that is provided on the stage and assists manual alignment by a user with respect to the test individual placed on the stage, wherein the alignment member has a shape formed to come into contact with a container accommodating the test individual at at least two points to support the container [an x-z moving stage (the examiner interprets the stage to be an alignment member) group for holding and moving the laser 404 or the sample holder 412, para 0057].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles in view of Sakamoto and further in view of Tsuzuki and Akira and incorporate the teachings of Robinson to position the text individual for imaging, as recognized by Robinson.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Robinson with Wiles, Hayashi, and Akira to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A), as applied above, and Hayashi et al. (US 2016/0203605 A1) (hereafter, “Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 11, which claim 1 is incorporated, Wiles discloses count the number of colonies included in the test image [contrast information of the second digital image is determined .... it is determined whether the object is a colony candidate based on the characterized features ... if at 508 the object is determined to be a colony candidate, then at 510, it is added to the global list of colony candidates, para 0074, 0079, 0081] while reducing the residue included in the reference image [contrast information of the second digital image is determined ... object in the second digital image are identified based on the contrast information ... if the difference in brightness between the adjacent pixels and their background, or between the pixels and their brightness in the first digital image, is about the same (e.g., within a predetermined threshold amount), then the pixels may be considered to belong to the same object ... if the colony candidate is determined to be present in both images (meaning that there was no significant growth between the two images), then the colony candidate is identified as an artifact, para 0074, 0075, 0086].
Neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose a table management section that creates a count table including a cell to which a count result of each of a plurality of the test individuals is input and stores the count table in a storage section; a display section that displays the count table created by the table management section; and a cell identifying section that identifies a target cell from among a plurality of the cells included in the count table displayed on the display section, wherein the registration section that registers identification information of the test individual and the reference image in association with the target cell, and the counting section is configured to read the reference image associated with the target cell from the storage section when the target cell is identified, and input or associate the counted number of colonies to or with the target cell.
However, Hayashi teaches a table management section that creates a count table including a cell to which a count result of each of a plurality of the test individuals is input [the registering unit 12 may also upload, to the terminal device 30 in real time, the colony image and the inspection information ... and registers the inspection information, para 0040] and stores the count table in a storage section [Figure 3; the inspection information storing unit 13b is a storing unit that stores therein inspection information. An example of the inspection information that can be used here includes data associated with the items, such as a specimen number ... the number of colonies, the storage destination of a colony image, and the like, para 0042]; a display section that displays the count table created by the table management section [Figure 7 & 8; in Fig. 7, from among the colony images associated with the inspection information illustrated in Fig. 3, the colony image with the Lot No. of 3241 of the factory 3A and the colony image with the Lot No. of 8573 of the factory 3B are illustrated ... Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 illustrate a case in which, as an example of the information related to the colony image, the number of counts, the dilution rate, and the like are displayed, para 0066]; and a cell identifying section that identifies a target cell from among a plurality of the cells included in the count table displayed on the display section [Figure 4 & 5; Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 each illustrate a case in which the various kinds of conditions are specified by using the pull-down menus ... for example, in the example of the condition specifying screen illustrated in Fig. 4 ... the inspection item of “general viable bacteria” is specified as the condition, para 0050, 0052], wherein the registration section that registers identification information of the test individual and the reference image in association with the target cell [the registering unit 12 ... registers the inspection information in the inspection information storing unit 13b ... the acquiring unit 15 searches for the inspection information stored in the inspection information storing unit 13b in accordance with the specification of the condition, para 0040, 0052], and the counting section is configured to read the reference image associated with the target cell from the storage section when the target cell is identified [Figure 7 & 8; Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 illustrate a case in which, as an example of the information related to the colony image, the number of counts, the dilution rate, and the like are displayed, para 0066], and input or associate the counted number of colonies to or with the target cell [Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 illustrates a display example of a case in which the colony images are acquired in accordance with the condition specified by the condition specifying screen 200 illustrated in Fig. 4 ... Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 illustrate a case in which, as an example of the information related to the colony image, the number of counts ... are displayed, para 0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to check for potential errors, as recognized by Hayashi.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, which claim 11 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose wherein the count table includes a first cell and a second cell for each of the test individuals, the first cell indicates whether or not the reference image has been acquired, the second cell is associated with the first cell and indicates the number of colonies, and the target cell is the second cell.
However, Hayashi teaches wherein the count table includes a first cell and a second cell for each of the test individuals [Figure 3; the inspection information that can be used here includes data associated with the items, such as ... the number of colonies, the storage destination of a colony image, para 0042], the first cell indicates whether or not the reference image has been acquired [“the storage destination” indicates the storage destination in which a colony image is stored and, for example, a path for the storage destination that stores therein a file of the colony image, para 0042], the second cell is associated with the first cell and indicates the number of colonies [the “number of colonies” indicates the number of colonies that are cultured in a petri dish, para 0042], and the target cell is the second cell [Figure 7 & 8; Fig. 7 & Fig. 8 illustrate a case in which, as an example of the information related to the colony image, the number of counts ... are displayed, para 0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to display the colony image and the number of colonies to check for potential errors, as recognized by Hayashi.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose a designation section that designates the reference image from among a plurality of candidate images stored in the storage section; and a display control section that reads at least one piece of information of a type of a culture medium, a dilution factor, a name of the test individual, and the identification information of the test individual associated with the reference image designated by the designation section from the storage section, and cause a display section to display the at least one piece of information.
However, Hayashi teaches a designation section that designates the reference image from among a plurality of candidate images stored in the storage section [the calculating unit 16 sets a single image from among the colony images acquired by the acquiring unit 15 as a reference image, para 0059]; and a display control section that reads at least one piece of information of a type of a culture medium [the inspection information storing unit 13b is a storing unit that stores therein inspection information. An example of the inspection information that can be used here includes data associated with the items ... it is possible to store the number of colonies in a petri dish created for each inspection item (the examiner interprets an inspection item to be a type of a culture medium), such as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, general viable bacteria, para 0042], a dilution factor [the dilution rate, para 0042], a name of the test individual [a foodstuff ... the “foodstuff” indicates the foodstuff to which the food products to which a specimen is collected belongs, para 0042], and the identification information of the test individual [a specimen number ... the “specimen number” mentioned here indicates a specimen number of a specimen, para 0042] associated with the reference image designated by the designation section from the storage section [the selecting unit 17 selects, as a pair, the colony image in which the similarity between the reference image is the lowest and the reference image, para 0065, 0064], and causes a display section to display the at least one piece of information [Figure 7-8; the output unit 18 is a processing unit that outputs two colony images selected by the selecting unit 17 as images that are arranged side by side ... Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 are schematic diagrams each illustrating an example of an inspection quality investigation screen. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 illustrates a display example of a case in which the colony images are acquired in accordance with the condition specified by the condition specifying screen, para 0065, 0066].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to improve inspection quality, as recognized by Hayashi.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, which claim 15 is incorporated, Wiles fails to explicitly disclose wherein the identification information of the test individual is identification information of a container accommodating the test individual.
However, Tsuzuki teaches wherein the identification information of the test individual is identification information of a container accommodating the test individual [Figure 2; the culture medium ID 66 is formed of a barcode such as a two-dimensional barcode or alphanumeric characters, and is imaged together with the film-type culture medium 60 when the film-type culture medium 60 is photographed .... the film-type culture medium 60 includes a base sheet 61 formed of a film and a circular frame 62 (hereinafter referred to as the “circular frame”) formed on the base sheet 61 with the center of the base sheet 61 as the reference, a culture layer 63 for cultivating bacteria provided within the frame, a cover sheet 64 for covering the culture layer 63, para 0047, 0046].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Hayashi to easily determine which test individuals meet inspection quality based on their identification information, as recognized by Hayashi.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hayashi with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A), as applied above, and further in view of Kawanabe et al. (JP 2003/195173 A) (hereafter, “Kawanabe”).
Regarding claim 13, which claim 12 is incorporated, neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose wherein the imaging section captures an image of the test individual before culturing to acquire the reference image when the first cell is clicked, and captures an image of the test individual after culturing using an imaging condition associated with the first cell to acquire the test image when the second cell is clicked.
However, Kawanabe teaches wherein the imaging section captures an image of the test individual before culturing to acquire the reference image when the first cell is clicked [Figure 2; to capture the image being observed, click the still image capture button 215, para 0023], and captures an image of the test individual after culturing using an imaging condition associated with the first cell to acquire the test image when the second cell is clicked [when the moving image import button 216 is clicked, the moving image of the image displayed in the live image box 204 starts to be captured, and the image being captured is displayed in the preview box 212, para 0023].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Kawanabe to compare images, as recognized by Kawanabe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kawanabe with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiles (US 2018/0112173 A1) in view of Sakamoto (JP 2014/178284 A) and further in view of Tsuzuki (JP 2014/209861 A), as applied above, and further in view of Kato et al. (JP 2022/069610 A) (hereafter, “Kato”).
Regarding claim 14, which claim 1 is incorporated, Wiles discloses wherein the counting section has a first mode in which an influence of the residue is mitigated [Figure 13; contrast information of the second digital image is determined. The contrast information may be gathered on a pixel-by-pixel basis ... objects in the second digital image are identified based on the contrast information ... if the colony candidate is not present in the second image (meaning that it was only present in the first image and then disappeared), the colony candidate is identified as an artifact, para 0074, 0075, 0087] and a second mode in which the influence of the residue is not mitigated [a global list of colony candidates is collected based on the first and second digital images. The global list of colony candidates may identify any objects in the first and second digital images, para 0069].
Neither Wiles, Sakamoto, nor Tsuzuki appears to explicitly disclose the colony counting device further comprising a display section that displays an icon for selecting the first mode or the second mode.
However, Kato teaches the colony counting device further comprising a display section that displays an icon for selecting the first mode or the second mode [the selection mode of the icon (700) displayed in is switched between the first mode for selecting a single icon (700) and the second mode for selecting a plurality of icon (700), para 0028].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiles’s reference in view of Sakamoto and Tsuzuki and incorporate the teachings of Kato to obtain reliable analysis results, as recognized by Kato.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kato with Wiles, Sakamoto, and Tsuzuki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0111370 A1 to Tran et al. discloses a method for colony enumeration that includes identifying colony forming units in a combined image with a pretrained deep learning model and identification characteristics of the colony forming units to an interaction component that projects the characteristics onto the combined image.
WO 2021/180376 A1 to Schafer discloses a method for counting microbiological colonies that prepares a sample, takes an image with a camera, displays the image on a screen, determines an image region, and counts the number of colonies by adding together all image regions identified as colonies.
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 TOLUWANI MARY-JANE IJASEUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/TOLUWANI MARY-JANE IJASEUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676