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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2023 and 3/25/2025 have been considered and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: AM, IM. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“culture unit”, in claim 1 (“The specification teaches culture units as culture chambers (R11 to R22)” - para. [0014]);
“imaging units”, in claim 1 & 12 (“The specification teaches imaging units as camera units (CA1 to CA4)” - para. [0060]));
“storage unit”, in claim 1 & 12 (“The specification teaches the storage unit as a memory card - para. [0025]);
“correction unit”, in claim 1 & 12;
“determination unit”, in claim 1 (“The specification teaches the determination unit as a machine learning judgement machine” - para. [0048]);
“presentation unit” in claim 5 (“The specification teaches the display module 52 functions as a presentation unit” - para. [0043]);
“image focal depth change unit”, in claim 9;
“broadcast units”, in claim 11;
“display unit”, in claim 12 (“The specification teaches the display unit as a display module 52 (in the form of a liquid crystal panel or computer display)” - para. [0071]);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the correction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation of “correction of matching positions of the recess parts with respect to the imaging units” is unclear, as the specification and FIG. 11 fails to teach how the positions (between the recess parts and imaging units) are matched.
Claim limitation “correction unit” (claim 1 & 12), “image focal depth change unit” (claim 9), “broadcast unit” (claim 11) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide the corresponding structure to perform these structures and it appears that these structures are basically software operations and an alarm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-11 are included in this rejection because they depend from rejected claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim 12 is rejected because of claim limitation “correction unit” present in claim 1’s rejection.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of correcting the stored image (correction unit), captures a plurality of images of different focus positions during the imaging (image focal depth change unit), and broadcast that the tray that accommodates the treatment egg determined to have been fertilized has been specified (broadcast unit).
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-11 are included in this rejection because they depend from rejected claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim 12 is rejected because of claim limitation “correction unit” present in claim 1’s rejection.
It should be further noted that in light of the specification, it is unclear what structure is the correction unit, image focal depth change unit, and broadcast unit. At best, the correction unit appears to be a software operation, but the specification does not provide an explanation of the corresponding structure. For purposes of examination, if a process or element corrects either the image or the position of an embryo based on the image, this will be interpreted as meeting this claim limitation. If a process or element changes the focal depth in the imaging, this will be interpreted as meeting the image focal depth change unit limitation. If a process or element broadcasts that the tray that accommodates the treatment egg determined to have been fertilized has been specified, this will be interpreted as meeting this claim limitation.
Appropriate corrective action is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noritaka Fukunaga (JP 2019170404 A and corresponding machine translation) in view of Wu et al. (US 20190162712 A1)
It should be noted that while JP 2019134252 A has a common inventor with the instant application, the JP 2019134252 A reference was published more than a year before the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, Noritaka Fukunaga teaches an embryo culture device (See annotated FIG. 1 below, device 10) that keeps in a culture environment a treatment egg (“embryo culture device that stores a plurality of trays containing fertilized treated eggs and maintains them in a culture environment” - para. [0009] of MT) having been subjected to insemination (in-vitro fertilization) treatment (“This embryo culture device 10 is used to culture eggs that have been subjected to in vitro fertilization treatment” – para. [0022] of MT), the embryo culture device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
539
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a culture unit (R11 to R22) that accommodates a plurality of trays (“a culture unit that holds the multiple trays in the culture environment” – para. [0009] of MT) each including a plurality of recess parts (See Annotated FIG.6 below, well 95) that can each accommodate a treatment egg (FIG. 6, treated egg 25) (“the tray may include a plurality of recesses for holding treated eggs “ – para. [0010] of MT), and keeps the plurality of trays in the culture environment (“stores a plurality of trays containing fertilized treated eggs and maintains them in a culture environment.” – para. [0009] of MT). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of imaging units (FIG. 6 - camera module 51, provided with CA1 to CA4) (“multiple imaging units may be provided for one tray in order to image all of the recesses” – para. [0009] of MT) that are each provided in association with each one of the trays held in the culture unit (“According to this embryo culture device, an imaging unit is provided for each of the multiple trays held in the culture environment” – para. [0009] of MT), and continuously or intermittently image at least two or more of the plurality of recess parts among locations of the trays at once (See annotated FIG 5. – regions U1-U4) (“imaging unit may capture images of at least some of the recesses at one time” - para. [0010] of MT). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
PNG
media_image3.png
457
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a storage unit that divides and stores an image captured by each of the imaging units per area including the plurality of recess parts. (“One captured image shows four wells 95, i.e., four treated egg 25, and the image may be saved as is on the memory card 59, or may be divided into four and saved for each treated egg 25” - para. [0046]). Specifically, a memory card 65 records the images captured by the camera module (para. [0034]). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
a determination unit that determines using the corrected image whether or not the treatment egg is fertilized. (“an embryo culture device may be provided with a fertilization determination unit that determines whether at least one of the treated eggs in the tray has been fertilized based on the image captured by the imaging unit” – para. [0017] of MT). Specifically, machine learning is performed from the input images read from the memory card into this machine-learned judgement machine (para. [0049]). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Noritaka Fukunaga fails to teach the following limitation:
A correction unit
Regarding Limitation I, Wu et al. teaches a system for culturing a fertilized egg of an organism in the field of animal husbandry (para. [0057]) that for claim 1 includes a correction image (image 69; FIG 5; para. [0109]) that urges the operator to transfer a fertilized egg to the correct vessel. This is initiated by the notification unit (unit 34, FIG. 1; para [0075]; it should be noted that this unit is labeled as element 33 in FIG. 1 and should be labeled as 34). This is being interpreted as the correction unit of the install application since it corrects the image and position of the fertilized egg. Wu et al. also teaches that the notification unit (interpreted as a correction unit) aids in preventing mix-up of different fertilized embryos (para. [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the notification/correction unit of Wu et al. in Noritaka Fukunaga’s embryo culture device because the correction unit aids in preventing mix-ups of different fertilized embryos. This method of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wu et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wu et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device according to claim 1. Modified Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches wherein the imaging units image all of the plurality of recess parts provided to the trays at once. “The embryo culture device of the first embodiment described above is provided with a time lapse unit 50 for each of the 12 culture chambers R11 to R22, and can intermittently capture images of the treated eggs 25 contained in the tray 91.” Modified Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches “The image capturing process (step S310) is performed by simultaneously or sequentially driving the four camera units CA1 to CA4 present in the camera module 51 of one time lapse unit 50” (para. [0044] of MT).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device according to claim 1. Modified Noritaka Fukunaga fails to teach specifically a presentation unit that presents the contents of the abnormality caused. Wu et al. teaches a display apparatus (element 40, display apparatus – acting as the presentation unit)), where the notification unit 34 generates a notification image including the determination result. Specifically, the normality or abnormality is presented to the user in this step (Step 120, FIG. 2) (para [0094]). Wu et al. also teaches that, as a result, mix-ups can be prevented and corrections to the operation. (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Note: the step of presenting the abnormality would not materially change the intended result or function of the method depending on whether taken place during the determination step or imaging step.
It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to use Wu et al.’s teaching of presenting abnormalities in Noritaka Fukunaga embryo culture device because they would ultimately aid in preventing mix-ups and correcting operations. This method of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wu et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wu et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device of according to claim 1. Modified Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches a culture unit that includes a plurality of culture chambers partitioned per tray. (“In such an embryo culture device, the culture section may be configured to include a plurality of culture chambers partitioned by the trays. (para. [0011] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga).
Regarding claim 8, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device of according to claim 7. Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches that the imaging units are each provided on at least one surface of an upper surface, a side surface, and a bottom surface of each of the culture chambers facing the locations of the trays (“the imaging unit may be provided on at least one of the top, side, and bottom surfaces of the culture chamber, facing the location of the tray.” (para. [0012] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device of according to claim 8. Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches wherein:
The imaging units each include an imaging focal depth change unit that captures a plurality of images of different focus positions during imaging (“the imaging unit may include a focal depth changing unit that captures multiple images with different focus positions during the imaging” (para. [0013] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga); Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The storage unit stores the plurality of images of the different focus positions as a set of images (“and the memory unit may store the multiple images with different focus positions as a single image” (para. [0013] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga)
Regarding claim 10, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device of according to claim 1. Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches that the device further comprises a light guide that guides light from a light source, and irradiates with the light at least a location of the treatment egg on each of the plurality of tray. “The above-described embryo culture device may further include a light guide that guides light from a light source to illuminate at least the area where the treated eggs are present in each of the plurality of trays. This allows the target to be illuminated and makes it easier to photograph the treated egg” (para. [0016] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga).
Regarding claim 11, modified Noritaka Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device of according to claim 1. Noritaka Fukunaga also teaches that the device further comprises a broadcast unit that are provided in association with the plurality of trays held in the culture unit, and, when the determination unit decides that the treatment egg in at least one of the recess parts has been fertilized, broadcast that the tray that accommodates the treatment egg determined to have been fertilized has been specified. (para. [0017] of MT - Noritaka Fukunaga). Specifically, Noritaka Fukunaga teaches an alarm that identifies the tray containing the treated egg. (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding claim 12, Noritaka Fukunaga teaches an imaging device that is attached to a culture unit of an embryo culture device that accommodates a plurality of trays (“As a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided an imaging device that is attached to a culture section of an embryo culture device that stores a plurality of trays” - para. [0019]) each including a plurality of recess parts (“tray may include a plurality of recesses for holding treated eggs” - para. [0010]) that can each accommodate a treatment egg having been subjected to insemination treatment, and keeps the plurality of trays in the culture environment (“stores a plurality of trays containing fertilized treated eggs and maintains them in a culture environment.” – para. [0019], the image device comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
391
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of imaging units (FIG. 6 - camera module 51, provided with CA1 to CA4) (“multiple imaging units may be provided for one tray in order to image all of the recesses” – para. [0009] of MT) that are each provided in association with each one of the trays held in the culture unit (“According to this embryo culture device, an imaging unit is provided for each of the multiple trays held in the culture environment” – para. [0009] of MT), and continuously or intermittently image at least two or more of the plurality of recess parts among locations of the trays at once (See annotated FIG 5. – regions U1-U4) (“imaging unit may capture images of at least some of the recesses at one time” - para. [0010] of MT). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
PNG
media_image3.png
457
602
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a storage unit that divides and stores an image captured by each of the imaging units per area (U1-U4) including the plurality of recess parts. (“One captured image shows four wells 95, i.e., four treated eggs 25, and the image may be saved as is on the memory card 59, or may be divided into four and saved for each treated egg 25” - para. [0046]). Specifically, a memory card 65 records the images captured by the camera module (para. [0034]). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
a display unit that displays the corrected image (“a display unit that displays the stored images for each tray” - para. [0009]). Specifically, the captured image may be displayed on the display module 52 so that the embryologist can determine whether or not fertilization is possible (para. [0049]). (Note: this claim element was invoked via 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Noritaka Fukunaga fails to teach the following limitation:
A correction unit
Regarding limitation I, Wu et al. teaches a system for culturing a fertilized egg of an organism in the field of animal husbandry (para. [0057]) that for claim 12 includes a correction image (image 69; FIG 5; para. [0109]) that urges the operator to transfer a fertilized egg to the correct vessel. This is initiated by the notification unit (unit 34, FIG. 1; para [0075]; it should be noted that this unit is labeled as element 33 in FIG. 1 and should be labeled as 34). This is being interpreted as the correction unit of the install application since it corrects the image and position of the fertilized egg. Wu et al. also teaches that the notification unit (interpreted as a correction unit) aids in preventing mix-up of different fertilized embryos (para. [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the notification/correction unit of Wu et al. in Noritaka Fukunaga’s embryo culture device because the correction unit aids in preventing mix-ups of different fertilized embryos. This method of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Wu et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wu et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 12.
Claim 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noritaka Fukunaga (already referenced above), Wu et al. (already referenced) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tenney et al. (CN 112204380 A and corresponding MT).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device according to claim 1. Modified Fukunaga fails to teach explicitly that the correction is a correction of matching positions. Tenney et al. teaches a transformation step as part of the method (Figure 12) of detecting and characterizing micro-objects (including embryos) (Page 3). Tenney et al. specifically teaches an alignment engine that performs a transformation step, allowing a second image to be optically aligned with a first image (Page 50 of MT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Tenney et al.’s teaching of an alignment engine that performs a transformation step in modified Fukunaga correction unit because the alignment engine would perform optical alignment on the image. Furthermore, the use of a transformation step in an alignment engine performs the same function as a correction of matching positions. This method (transformation step) of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tenney et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tenney et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device according to claim 1. Modified Fukunaga fails to teach that the correction is a correction of matching an imaging condition. Tenney et al. teaches a pre-processing step that includes calculating a distortion correction for each received image (Page 50 of MT). Tenney et al. also teaches that this pre-processing step is specifically to reduce abnormalities in image data (Page 3 of MT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Tenney et al.’s teaching of a distortion correction in modified Noritaka Fukunaga’s correction unit because distortion corrections reduce abnormalities in the image data and is applied to each image. This method of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tenney et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tenney et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noritaka Fukunaga (already referenced above), Wu et al. (already referenced) as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Watanabe et al. (WO 2018105298 A1 and attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Fukunaga teaches the embryo culture device according to claim 5. However, modified Fukunaga fails to teach that the abnormality is at least one of the four listed abnormalities in Claim 6. Watanabe et al. teaches an information processing device (abstract), wherein Watanabe et al. teaches that it is not desirable to overwrite and store past image data in order to ensure the accuracy of the evaluation of the embryo (para. [0036] of MT). Watanabe et al. also teaches that huge amounts of image data is often stored, causing the possibility that image data cannot be stored. (para. [0036] of MT). These teachings align with the fourth abnormality listed in claim 6 “that the image cannot be normally divided or stored”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Watanabe et al.’s teaching of image data not able to be stored in modified Noritaka Fukunaga’s embryo culture because overwriting and saving over past image data is not desirable for ensuring accuracy of the evaluation of embryo growth (para. [0036]). Watanabe et al.’s teaching of limited storage capacity aligns with the fourth abnormality listed. Thus, this method of improving Noritaka Fukunaga’s device was within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Watanabe et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Watanabe et al. and Noritaka Fukunaga to obtain the invention specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIUS FRANCIS YOH whose telephone number is (571)272-3489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30-5 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/JULIUS FRANCIS YOH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799