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 .
Claims status: amended claims: 12, 15; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 view of a new primary reference regarding independent claims 1 & 12.
A US PGPUB of Tsia et al. is being used in the rejection of claim 1 using different embodiments of Tsia et al. The PGPUB of Tsia et al. is equivalent to the WO used in the previous rejection.
Applicant argues in pg.7 of the remarks regarding claims 1-11 that Tsia et al. are silent about: "a laser line generator configured to project a laser line onto the platform and the tissue sample; a profiling camera configured to capture images of the laser line upon the tissue sample as the platform and tissue sample are rotated; and an image analyzer/processor configured to determine a plurality of laser line profiles from the captured images of the laser line, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to determine a three-dimensional tissue profile of the tissue sample from the plurality of laser line profiles,". The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tsia et al. teach a tissue sample on a rotating platform (fig.3A), "a laser line generator configured to project a laser line onto the platform and the tissue sample” (para. [0012], [0069] teach illuminating a rotating assay sample platform with a line-scan illumination); generating a 3D image of the sample on the rotating platform while the sample on the platform is being illuminated by the laser generating line (para. [0072]-[0073]. [0108]).
Regarding claims 12 -18, a new primary reference Fujimoto et al. is currently being used in the present rejection.
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, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Tsia et al. disclose in a first embodiment: an apparatus for imaging and analyzing a tissue sample, the apparatus comprising:
a rotating table (fig.3A spinning platform) configured to support and rotate a platform supporting a tissue sample (fig.3A Assay element);
a laser line generator configured to project a laser line onto the platform and the tissue sample (para. [0012], [0069]).
In the first embodiment Tsia et al. are silent about:
a profiling camera configured to capture images of the laser line upon the tissue sample as the platform and tissue sample are rotated; and
an image analyzer/processor configured to determine a plurality of laser line profiles from the captured images of the laser line, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to determine a three-dimensional tissue profile of the tissue sample from the plurality of laser line profiles.
In a further embodiment Tsia et al. disclose:
a profiling camera configured to capture images of the laser line upon the tissue sample as the platform and tissue sample are rotated (para. [0072]-[0073]); and
an image analyzer/processor configured to determine a plurality of laser line profiles from the captured images of the laser line, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to determine a three-dimensional tissue profile of the tissue sample from the plurality of laser line profiles (para. [0072]-[0073], [0108]) motivated by the benefits for improving the scanning precision for long-term continuous scanning operation (Tsia et al. para. [0108]).
In light of the benefits for improving the scanning precision for long-term continuous scanning operation as taught by Tsia et al., 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 two embodiments of Tsia et al.
Regarding claim 7, Tsia et al. disclose: an imaging camera and a light source, wherein the imaging camera is configured to capture images of the tissue sample on the platform (see rejection of claim 1). Tsia et al. are silent about: the light source is configured to evenly illuminate the tissue samples in the captured images.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the light source evenly illuminate the tissue samples in the captured images motivated by the benefits for uniform imaging.
Regarding claim 11, Tsia et al. disclose: in combination with the platform, wherein the platform comprises a plurality of fiduciary markers configured to define a placement of the tissue sample on the platform with respect to the fiduciary markers (para. [0104]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021) in view of Hulme “Methods to Determine the Microscopic and Macroscopic Swelling Behavior of Annulus Fibrosus” University of Calgary, Alberta, June, 2002, pg.1-182.
Regarding claim 2, Tsia et al. are silent about: the laser line is a laser line profile defining a cross- sectional profile of the tissue sample along the laser line, and wherein the laser line profile defines a thickness of the tissue sample.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hulme discloses: the laser line is a laser line profile defining a cross- sectional profile of the tissue sample along the laser line, and wherein the laser line profile defines a thickness of the tissue sample (pg.24 1st para., pg.43-44, pg.47) motivated by the benefits for generating a profile of the tissue surface (Hulme pg.48 last para.).
In light of the benefits for generating a profile of the tissue surface as taught by Hulme, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsia et al. with the teachings of Hulme.
Regarding claim 3, Tsia et al. and Hulme disclose: the three-dimensional tissue profile is defined by a plurality of the laser line profiles across the tissue sample (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021) in view of Hulme “Methods to Determine the Microscopic and Macroscopic Swelling Behavior of Annulus Fibrosus” University of Calgary, Alberta, June, 2002, pg.1-182 and further in view of Lockwood et al. (US 2004/0057335 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2004).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: the rotating table comprises a weighing apparatus configured to weigh the tissue sample.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lockwood et al. disclose: the rotating table comprises a weighing apparatus configured to weigh the tissue sample (para. [0053]-[0054]) motivated by the benefits for improving measurement accuracy (Lockwood et al. para. [0053]-[0054]).
In light of the benefits for improving measurement accuracy as taught by Lockwood et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsia et al. and Hulme with the teachings of Lockwood et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021) in view of Ford et al. (US 2006/0190185 A1; pub. Aug. 24, 2006).
Regarding claim 5, Tsia et al. are silent about: an identification reader configured to read a unique identification on the platform, wherein the identification reader is an optical code reader or an RFID reader, such that the identification is a machine-readable optical code or a RFID device, respectively.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ford et al. disclose: an identification reader configured to read a unique identification on the platform, wherein the identification reader is an optical code reader or an RFID reader, such that the identification is a machine-readable optical code or a RFID device, respectively (para. [003], [0036], [0071]) motivated by the benefits improving testing accuracy (Ford et al. para. [0069]-[0070]).
In light of the benefits for improving testing accuracy as taught by Ford et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsia et al. with the teachings of Ford et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021) in view of Beins et al. (US 4,890,997; pub. Jan. 2, 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Tsia et al. are silent about: in combination with the platform, wherein the rotating table comprises a mounting hub comprising a centration pin and an orientation and rotary drive pin, wherein the platform comprises a centration registration hole configured to receive the centration pin, such that the platform is centered upon the rotating table, wherein the platform further comprises a rotary drive hole configured to receive the orientation and rotary drive pin, such that the platform is properly oriented upon the rotating table, and wherein the rotary drive pin is configured to rotate the platform when inserted into the rotary drive hole of the platform.
In a similar field of endeavor, Beins et al. disclose: in combination with the platform, wherein the rotating table (abstract) comprises a mounting hub comprising a centration pin and an orientation and rotary drive pin (a rotating plate 5 is mounted on a central member comprising a centering pin 35. Fig.5, and a drive pin 17 fig.3), wherein the platform comprises a centration registration hole configured to receive the centration pin (the rotary plate 5 is driven by pin 17 that engages with hole 18 of the central member 9), such that the platform is centered upon the rotating table (the rotating plate is at the center of the housing), wherein the platform further comprises a rotary drive hole configured to receive the orientation and rotary drive pin, such that the platform is properly oriented upon the rotating table (the rotating plate 5 is detachably mounted on a drive shaft 15 via pin 17, inherently requiring a rotary drive fig.3), and wherein the rotary drive pin is configured to rotate the platform when inserted into the rotary drive hole of the platform (the rotary plate 5 is driven by the pin 17 when engaged with hole 18 (see fig.3) of central member 9 (see fig.2)) motivated by the benefits for a sample that can be irradiated from the top and the bottom (Beins et al. col.2 L383-39).
In light of the benefits for a sample that can be irradiated from the top and the bottom as taught by Beins et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsia et al. with the teachings of Beins et al.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsia et al. (US 2021/0381979 A1; pub. Dec. 9, 2021) in view of Pogue et al. (US 2021/0113146 A1: pub. Apr. 22, 2021).
Regarding claim 8, Tsia et al. are silent about: the image analyzer/processor is configured to generate written descriptions of the tissue sample.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pogue et al. disclose: the image analyzer/processor is configured to generate written descriptions of the tissue sample (para. [0061]-[0063]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating benign and malignant tissues (Pogue et al. para. [0063]).
In light of the benefits for differentiating benign and malignant tissues as taught by Pogue et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Tsia et al. with the teachings of Pogue et al.
Regarding claim 9, Pogue et al. disclose: the written descriptions comprise diagnostic anatomical feature descriptions comprising one or more of quantity of samples in the tissue sample, dimensions of each sample of the tissue sample, weight of the tissue sample, tissue sample color, and tissue sample texture (para. [0061]-[0063]) motivated by the benefits for differentiating benign and malignant tissues (Pogue et al. para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Pogue et al. disclose: the image analyzer/processor is configured to send the written descriptions to an electronic medical records system (para. [0046]) motivated by the benefits for facilitating patient diagnostic (Pogue et al. para. [0046]).
Claims 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 2018/0259762 A1; pub. Sep. 13, 2018) in view of Vorobyova et al. (US 2024/0378734 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2024).
Regarding claim 12, Fujimoto et al. disclose: An apparatus for imaging and analyzing a tissue sample, the apparatus comprising: a platform configured to support a tissue sample (para. [0097]); a first imaging apparatus (fig.33 item 3303) configured to capture a first image of the tissue sample and fiduciary markers (para. [0136]-[0137]), wherein the first imaging apparatus comprises a first imaging modality (para. [0134]); a second imaging apparatus (fig.33 item 3308) configured to capture a second image of the tissue sample and fiduciary markers, wherein the second imaging apparatus comprises a second imaging modality, wherein the second imaging modality is different from the first imaging modality (para. [0123], [0134]), and wherein the first imaging apparatus is in a different location from the second imaging apparatus (para. [0097]); and an image analyzer/processor configured to convert the first image into an overlay image (para. [0058]).
Fujimoto et al. are silent about: the platform comprises a plurality of fiduciary markers, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to adjust a size and rotation of the second image with respect to the overlay image to achieve a same orientation and position of the tissue sample between the overlay image and the second image as defined by the positions of the fiduciary markers in the overlay image and the second image
In a similar field of endeavor, Vorobyova et al. disclose: the platform comprises a plurality of fiduciary markers (para. [0207]), wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to adjust a size and rotation of the second image with respect to the overlay image to achieve a same orientation and position of the tissue sample between the overlay image and the second image as defined by the positions of the fiduciary markers in the overlay image and the second image (para. [0322], [0263], [0415]) motivated by the benefits for improved diagnostic (Vorobyova et al. para. [0159]).
In light of the benefits for improved diagnostic as taught by Vorobyova et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fujimoto et al. with the teachings of Vorobyova et al.
Regarding claim 13, Fujimoto et al. and Vorobyova et al. disclose: the image analyzer/processor is configured to orient the second image to the overlay image by adjusting a first distance between the fiduciary markers in the second image with respect to a distance between the fiduciary markers in the overlay image, and by adjusting an angle between the fiduciary markers and the platform in the second image with respect to an angle between the fiduciary markers and the platform in the overlay image to achieve a same orientation between the first image and the second image (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 12).
Regarding claim 15, Fujimoto et al. disclose: the platform is configured to be relocated from the first imaging apparatus to the second imaging apparatus (para. [0097]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 2018/0259762 A1; pub. Sep. 13, 2018) in view of Vorobyova et al. (US 2024/0378734 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2024) and further in view of Pogue et al. (US 2021/0113146 A1: pub. Apr. 22, 2021).
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the first imaging apparatus is a visible light imager, and wherein the second imaging apparatus is an X-ray imager.
In a similar field of endeavor Pogue et al. disclose: the first imaging apparatus is a visible light imager, and wherein the second imaging apparatus is an X-ray imager (para. [0031], [0034], [0039]) motivated by the benefits for improved surgery outcome (Pogue et al. para. [0089]-[0090]).
In light of the benefits for improved dissection precision as taught by Pogue et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fujimoto et al. and Vorobyova et al. with the teachings of Pogue et al.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 2018/0259762 A1; pub. Sep. 13, 2018) in view of Vorobyova et al. (US 2024/0378734 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2024) and further in view of Grubbs (US 2016/0314716 A1; pub. Oct. 27, 2016).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: the image analyzer/processor is configured to annotate the locations of biologically occurring features in the tissue sample, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to produce an annotation overlay that comprises the annotations, and wherein the annotations represent guidelines for dissection.
In a similar field of endeavor, Grubbs disclose: the image analyzer/processor is configured to annotate the locations of biologically occurring features in the tissue sample, wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to produce an annotation overlay that comprises the annotations, and wherein the annotations represent guidelines for dissection (para. [0165]-[0166]) motivated by the benefits for improved dissection precision.
In light of the benefits for improved dissection precision, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fujimoto et al. and Vorobyova et al. with the teachings of Grubbs.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Fujimoto et al., Vorobyova et al. and Grubbs disclose: an annotations projector configured to project the annotations onto the tissue sample to guide dissection (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Fujimoto et al., Vorobyova et al. and Grubbs disclose: a robotic tissue handling system configured to cut and/or section the tissue sample as guided by the annotations projected onto the tissue sample (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884