DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 3/30/2026 have been entered and made of record.
The Applicant has canceled claim(s) 10 and 23.
The application has pending claim(s) 1-9, 11-22, and 24.
Applicant’s arguments, see “REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 101 …” in pages 7-9, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-22, and 24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection at least because the Applicant has amended independent claim(s) 1 and 13 respectively.
Applicant’s arguments, see “REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 …” in page 7, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of the newly found prior art reference Azuma (US 2023/0419451 A1). Further discussions are addressed in the prior art rejection section below. Therefore claims 1-9, 11-22, and 24 are still not in condition for allowance because they are still not patentably distinguishable over the prior art reference(s).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at each of lines 4 and 11-12; and claim 13 at each of lines 4 and 13 respectively: “the image” should be -- the polarization image --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 16-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petitjean (US 2020/0372640 A1, as applied in previous Office Action) in view of Dimaio et al (WO 2017/074505 A1, as applied in previous Office Action) and further in view of Azuma (US 2023/0419451 A1).
Re Claim 1: Petitjean discloses a method comprising: performing polarization imaging of a sample to generate a polarization image of the sample (see Petitjean, [0108]-[0109], take the digital image of the sample using polarized imaging); segmenting the polarization image to form a plurality of image segments (see Petitjean, [0030], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], windowing into segment regions); obtaining spectral characteristics associated with at least some of the plurality of image segments, wherein obtaining the spectral characteristics comprises performing spectral analysis on the at least some of the plurality of image segments (see Petitjean, [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], obtaining and computing different parameter features for each windowed segment region); and identifying, using the respective spectral characteristics, a first subset of the at least some of the plurality of image segments as including a substance of interest (see Petitjean, Figs. 13-14 and 18, [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0094], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], to identify different classes including collagen classes).
However Petitjean fails to explicitly disclose where Dimaio discloses performing multi-spectral polarization imaging (see Dimaio, [0133]-[0134], [0171], multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light), identifying, using the respective spectral characteristics, a second subset of the at least some of the plurality of image segments as including artifacts (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198], some of the windowed segments include noise and artifacts based on comparing the measured signal to stage signals), and generating a denoised image of the sample using the first subset at least in part by removing the second subset from the polarization image (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198], removing noise and artifacts thereby regions of interest showed higher signal strength), wherein the method is for denoising images of samples (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198], removing noise and artifacts).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Petitjean’s method using Dimaio’s teachings by including the multi-spectral polarization noise and artifact removing process to Petitjean’s collagen identification / classification process in order to improve the signal strength of the collagen regions of interest (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198]).
However Petitjean as modified by Dimaio fails to explicitly disclose where Azuma discloses the polarization image including polarization information indicative of a birefringent substance present in the image (see Azuma, [0096], [0099]-[0101], [0115], images acquired based on a plurality of different polarization conditions for reducing birefringence derived artifacts), and identifying, using the respective spectral characteristics, a first subset of the at least some of the plurality of image segments as including a substance of interest based on spectral characteristics obtained from the polarization information indicative of the birefringent substance present in the image (see Azuma, [0061], [0096], [0099]-[0101], [0115], segmentation information that discriminates [into multiple segments] between a true structure of a sample and a birefringence derived artifact for reducing birefringence derived artifacts).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petitjean’s method, as modified by Dimaio, using Azuma’s teachings by including birefringence derived artifact reduction to Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio] denoising process in order to enhance the output image (see Azuma, [0061], [0096], [0099]-[0101], [0115]).
Re Claim 2: Petitjean further discloses wherein the substance of interest comprises collagen (see Petitjean, Figs. 13-14 and 18, [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0094], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], to identify different classes including collagen classes).
Re Claims 4-5: Although Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma fails to explicitly disclose wherein the artifact comprises calcium as recited in claim 4 or wherein the artifact comprises metal as recited in claim 5, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] noise and/or artifacts to include the limitations of wherein the artifact comprises calcium or wherein the artifact comprises metal. These limitations are exceedingly well known and typical in the imaging field of endeavor and therefore would be exceedingly obvious modifications toward Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] removing noise and artifacts processing in order to broaden the applicability of Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] removing noise and artifacts processing and further improve the image output by removing other various artifacts.
Re Claim 6: Dimaio further discloses wherein performing multi-spectral polarization imaging of the sample comprises illuminating the sample with a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting light at mutually distinct wavelength simultaneously (see Dimaio, [0130], [0133]-[0134], [0171], multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light and many LEDs at different wavelengths simultaneously). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 7: Dimaio further discloses wherein performing multi-spectral polarization imaging of the sample comprises illuminating the sample with a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting light at mutually distinct wavelength sequentially (see Dimaio, [0130], [0133]-[0134], [0171], multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light and many LEDs at different wavelengths serially). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 8: Petitjean further discloses wherein segmenting the polarization image to form the plurality of image segments comprises segmenting the polarization image pixel-wise so that each image segment corresponds to a pixel of the polarization image (see Petitjean, [0030], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], non-overlapping windowing into segment regions to identify pixels that correspond to collagen).
Re Claim 9: Petitjean further discloses wherein segmenting the polarization image to form the plurality of image segments comprises segmenting the polarization image pixel-wise so each image segment corresponds to a group of pixels of the polarization image (see Petitjean, [0030], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], non-overlapping or overlapping windowing into segment regions to identify pixels or regions that correspond to collagen).
Re Claim 11: Dimaio further discloses providing the denoised image of the sample as input to a machine learning model (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198], removing noise and artifacts thereby regions of interest showed higher signal strength, [0200], [0306], the data acquired in this experiment is added to a spectral reference database thereby updating the dynamic library to train the adaptive computer algorithm). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 12: Dimaio further discloses wherein performing spectral analysis on the at least some of the plurality of image segments comprises obtaining spectra associated with the at least some of the plurality of image segments and comparing the spectra to known spectra associated with a plurality of known samples (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198]-[0199], some of the windowed segments include noise and artifacts based on comparing the measured signal to hand-picked clinical stage signals or previously identified signals / images). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
As to claim 13, the claim is the corresponding system claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1. Further, Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma further discloses a system for denoising images of samples (see Dimaio, [0171], [0190]-[0191], [0198], removing noise and artifacts, [0514]-[0516], computer processor implemented), comprising: a multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus configured to generate a polarization image of a sample (see Dimaio, [0133]-[0134], [0171], acquisition device configured for multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light); and a computer hardware processor configured to perform the method (see Dimaio, [0514]-[0516], computer processor implemented). See claim 1 for obviousness and motivation statements.
As to claim 14, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 2 respectively.
As to claim 16, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 4 respectively.
As to claim 17, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5 respectively.
Re Claim 18: Dimaio further discloses wherein the multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting light at mutually distinct wavelength simultaneously, and wherein the system further comprises a controller configured to cause the LEDs to emit light simultaneously (see Dimaio, [0130], [0133]-[0134], [0171], acquisition device configured multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light and many LEDs at different wavelengths simultaneously and controlled by one or more drivers). See claim 13 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 19: Dimaio further discloses wherein the multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus comprises a broadband light source, and a plurality of narrowband color filters (see Dimaio, [0130], [0133]-[0134], [0171], acquisition device configured multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light and multiple broadband light sources and multiple narrowband light sources with selectable filters). See claim 13 for obviousness and motivation statements.
Re Claim 20: Dimaio further discloses wherein the multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting light at mutually distinct wavelength simultaneously, and wherein the system further comprises a controller configured to cause the LEDs to emit light (see Dimaio, [0130], [0133]-[0134], [0171], acquisition device configured multispectral imaging of the sample using polarized light and many LEDs at different wavelengths simultaneously and controlled by one or more drivers). See claim 13 for obviousness and motivation statements. Further, although Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma fails to explicitly disclose to cause the LEDs to emit light in accordance with time-domain multiplexing (TDM), the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus to include the limitations of to cause the LEDs to emit light in accordance with time-domain multiplexing (TDM). These limitations are exceedingly well known and typical in the imaging via LEDs field of endeavor and therefore would be exceedingly obvious modifications toward Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus in order to broaden the applicability of Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] multi-spectral polarization imaging apparatus and further improve the imaging via LEDs of the sample.
As to claim 21, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 8 respectively.
As to claim 22, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 9 respectively.
As to claim 24, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 12 respectively.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma, and further in view of Shaked et al (WO 2023/203380 A1, as applied in previous Office Action). The teachings of Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma have been discussed above.
Re Claim 3: Although Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma further discloses wherein the substance of interest comprises a protein coagulation (see Petitjean, Figs. 13-14 and 18, [0030], [0036]-[0037], [0094], [0108]-[0109], [0118], [0127], to identify different classes including collagen classes, Dimaio, [0179], and including protein coagulation), Petitjean as modified by Dimaio and Azuma however fails to explicitly disclose where Shaked discloses wherein the substance of interest comprises an amyloid (see Shaked, [0172], segmenting to identify pixels with amyloid).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petitjean’s method, as modified by Dimaio and Azuma, using Shaked’s teachings by including the segmentation and identification of amyloid to Petitjean’s [as modified by Dimaio and Azuma] segmentation and identification of collagen and protein coagulation in order to broaden and improve the applicability of the identification to other various proteins (see Shaked, [0172]).
As to claim 15, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 3 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al ‘459 discloses the detected signals from the two polarization channels are combined to form a polarization independent interference signal, which removes artifacts due to fiber bending or birefringence in the biological tissue under study; Cote et al ‘321 discloses the motion induced corneal birefringence artifact and removing or eliminating such an artifact; Chen et al ‘801 discloses removing artifacts due to fiber bending or birefringence in the biological sample.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached on (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights