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: claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-20 are pending below. Claims 6, 13 and 16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remark and Claims, filed July 10th 2026, with respect to over Cheverton (US 2007/0116350) in view of GALLAGHER-GRUBER et al (US 2021/090238) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Remarks pages 10-11, applicant argued independent claims 1, 8, and 18 have been amended to incorporate features from allowable claim 6 or 13. Accordingly, claims 6 and 13 have been canceled. Claim 16 has also been canceled without prejudice. The amendments to the remaining claims are editorial in nature and do not introduce new matter. Please see the claims for the amendment. The 35 USC 103 rejection and Double Patent has been withdrawn due to these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is stated to be dependent on claim 13, which has been cancelled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,593,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,593,590 anticipate the instant claims as presented claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton (US 2007/0116350) in view of Liu et al (US 2017/0357911).
Claim 15:
Cheverton (US 2007/0116350) teaches the following subject matter:
A method for converting an assay image using a machine learning model, the method comprising:
receiving a first image, captured by a first optical sensor, of a sample holder containing a sample, wherein the sample holder is fabricated with a standard of patterned structural elements at predetermined positions (figure 1 cameras 12 and 14 with sample holder 2 and 4 and paragraph 0021-0024 with mold that are cylindrical or flat with alignment guides 26 (predetermined positions));
identifying a first region in the first image based on locations of one or more structural elements of the patterned structural elements in the first image (0021-0024 teaches mold that are cylindrical or flat with alignment guides 26);
determining a spatial transform associated with the first region based on a mapping between the locations of the one or more structural elements in the first image and predetermined positions of one or more structural elements in the sample holder (0021-0024 teaches mold that are cylindrical or flat with alignment guides 26, where alignment are mapping between).
Cheverton teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following:
applying the spatial transform to the first region in the first image to calculate a transformed first region; and applying the machine learning model to the transformed first region in the first image to generate a second region.
Liu et al teaches the following subject matter: applying the spatial transform to the first region in the first image to calculate a transformed first region; and applying the machine learning model to the transformed first region in the first image to generate a second region (figure 3 step 310 and 0070, and 0082 teaches using of machine learning as well as OPC correction 999 of target to matches (spatial transform)).
Cheverton and Liu et al are both in the field of image analysis in the field of target/sample analysis using machine learning such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Cheverton by Liu et al such analysis accurately position the patterning device a feature into classes to target feature as disclosed by Liu et al in paragraph 0008.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Newly independent claim 1, similarly claims 8 and 18, regarding improving imaging for based assay with guided training with sample holder with sample with layer of a thickness of 200um or less with first machine learning trained with monitoring markers using high-quality imaging system. The novelty involves the use of CycleGAN comprising of forward GAN for first discrimination and backward GAN for further discriminator, thus transform the imaged region of interest with registering four structural elements at four corners of the corresponding regions. Each region may not be a rectangular region corresponding to its physical shape in the true dimension space as fabricated on the inner surface of sample holder device. Instead of a rectangular, each region may be warped into a quadrilateral due to these distortions, this method corrects such distortions. Cited prior art, Cheverton (US 2007/0116350), teaches some of the subject matter such as sample holder, monitoring of plurality of markers for with different quality of imaging system in figure 1 and 0021, and 0022-0024, but does not develop further develop the claimed novelty combination elements cited above for improving imaging of assay. This novel approach is not fairly contemplated or fairly taught in the prior arts and/or by well-known to one skill in the art. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 17-20 are allowed, once claim 17 overcome the rejection above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou et al (US 2018/0202903) teaches BIO/CHEMICAL ASSAY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR SIMPLIFIED STEPS, SMALL SAMPLES, ACCELERATED SPEED, AND EASE-OF-USE – 0008 teaches a liquid sample can be placed in between two plates that are separated by spacers and analyzed. In theory, the volume of sample analyzed can be calculated by multiplying the area of the sample that is analyzed by the thickness of the sample that is analyzed.
Lalpuria et al (US 2009/0257632) teaches Method For Measuring The Area Of A Sample Disposed Within An Analysis Chamber - area of an analysis chamber covered by a biologic fluid sample quiescently residing within the chamber is provided. The chamber has a first panel with an interior surface, and a second panel with an interior surface, both of which panels are transparent. The method includes the steps of: a) illuminating the sample residing within the analysis chamber at one or more wavelengths operable to highlight interfaces between the sample and air, and to highlight a constituent within the sample; b) imaging the sample along the one or more wavelengths, and producing image signals representative of the interaction of the one or more wavelengths with the sample; c) determining a location of at least one interface between the sample and air, using the image signals; d) determining a location of one or more constituents within the sample relative to the at least one sample-air interface using the image signals; and e) determining an area of the chamber containing the sample, using the location of the one or more constituents and the at least one sample-air interface.
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 TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights