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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yip et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0166785).
Regarding claim 1, Yip et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0166785) discloses:
A slide number estimation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory that is configured to store instructions (see, for example, paragraph [0436]); and
at least one processor (see, for example, paragraph [0436]) that is configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a slide image, the slide image being an image of a specimen slide obtained from a tissue piece of a subject (Figure 39, paragraphs [0428]-[0429], a histology slide is provided of tissue);
estimating a number of tumor cells included in a region of interest of the specimen slide using the slide image (Figure 39, paragraphs [0428]-[0429], as a result of the imaging analysis, the tumor cell count is obtained for the tissue sample on the slide); and
estimating a number of the specimen slides to be obtained from the tissue piece for conducting a predetermined test, based on the estimated number of tumor cells (Figure 39, paragraphs [0010], [0428]-[0429], based on the number of cells, a number of slides necessary for analysis is obtained)
Regarding claim 2, Yip et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to:
estimate a number of tumor cells included in the region of interest for each of a plurality of the specimen slides other than the specimen slide from which the slide image is obtained among the plurality of the specimen slides obtained from the tissue piece (paragraphs [0423], [0428]-[0429], characteristics such as cell counts are obtained from the plurality of slides); and
estimate the number of specimen slides to be obtained from the tissue piece based on the number of tumor cells estimated for the region of interest of each of the specimen slides (Figure 39, paragraphs [0010], [0428]-[0429], based on the number of cells, a number of slides necessary for analysis is obtained)
Regarding claim 3, Yip et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to:
acquire the slide image of a first specimen slide and the slide image of a second specimen slide (paragraphs [0423], [0428]-[0429], each of the slides is viewed one at a time (e.g., a first slide and a second slide))
estimate a number of tumor cells included in each of the region of interest of the first specimen slide and the region of interest of the second specimen slide (paragraph [0423], the number of cells is estimated for each slide); and
estimate the number of tumor cells included in the region of interest of each of the plurality of the specimen slides obtained from a part of the tissue piece between the first specimen slide and the second specimen slide (paragraph [0428], the cell detection model is used for a total cell count across a “NSP” (number of slides))
Regarding claim 6, Yip et al. additionally discloses:
estimate an amount of a predetermined substance included in the region of interest from the estimated number of tumor cells (paragraphs [0015], [0128], [0224], [0428], DNA yield is predicted); and
estimate the number of specimen slides to be obtained from the tissue piece based on the estimated amount of the predetermined substance and the amount of the predetermined substance required for the predetermined test (paragraph [0429], the number of necessary slides is predicted)
Regarding claim 7, Yip et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the predetermined test is a gene panel test (paragraph [0013], [0165], [0232], [0393], various gene panels), and
wherein the predetermined substance is DNA (paragraphs [0232], [0422]-[0423], the required DNA yield is assessed)
Regarding claim 8, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the structural elements of apparatus claim 2 perform all of the steps of method claim 9. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the structural elements of apparatus claim 3 perform all of the steps of method claim 10. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the structural elements of apparatus claim 6 perform all of the steps of method claim 13. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the structural elements of apparatus claim 7 perform all of the steps of method claim 14. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by, for example, paragraph [0436] of Yip et al.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by, for example, paragraph [0436] of Yip et al.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to claim 3 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by, for example, paragraph [0436] of Yip et al.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by, for example, paragraph [0436] of Yip et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682