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: 1, 12, 15; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-11 has been withdrawn. Claims 1 – 11 are allowed
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-18 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 claims 12-18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
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: the laser line is a contour line projected along an external surface of the tissue sample,
a profiling camera configured to capture images of the laser line upon the external surface of 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, wherein the three-dimensional tissue profile is a three-dimensional contour of the external surface of the tissue sample.
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.
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: a laser line generator configured to project a laser line onto the platform and the tissue sample, wherein the laser line is a contour line projected along an external surface of the tissue sample;
a profiling camera configured to capture images of the laser line upon the external surface of the tissue sample as the platform and tissue sample are rotated; and wherein the three-dimensional tissue profile is a three-dimensional contour of the external surface of the tissue sample.
Claims 2-11 are allowed on the same basis as claim 1 for dependency reasons.
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.”
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 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandkuijl et al. (US 2023/0013375 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) in view of Vorobyova et al. (US 2024/0378734 A1; pub. Nov. 14, 2024).
Regarding claim 12, Sandkuijil et al. disclose: An apparatus for imaging and analyzing a tissue sample (para. [0081]), the apparatus comprising: a platform configured to support a tissue sample, wherein the platform comprises a plurality of fiduciary markers positioned in the platform (para. [0011]-[0012]); a first imaging apparatus configured to capture a first image of the tissue sample and the fiduciary markers on the platform, wherein the first imaging apparatus comprises a first imaging modality (para. [0011]-[0012], [0081]); a second imaging apparatus configured to capture a second image of the tissue sample and the fiduciary markers on the platform (para. [0011]-[0012], [0081]), wherein the second imaging apparatus comprises a second imaging modality (para. [0011]-[0012], [0081]), wherein the second imaging modality is different from the first imaging modality, and wherein the first imaging apparatus is in a different location from the second imaging apparatus (para. [0011]-[0012], [0081]); and an image analyzer/processor configured to convert the first image into an overlay image (para. [0151]), wherein the image analyzer/processor is configured to adjust 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. [0151]).
Sandkuijil et al. are silent about: 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.
In a similar field of endeavor, Vorobyova et al. disclose: 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 (para. [0368]) 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 Sandkuijl et al. with the teachings of Vorobyova et al.
Regarding claim 13, Sandkuijl et al. Sandkuijil 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, Sandkuijl et al. disclose: the platform is configured to be relocated from the first imaging apparatus to the second imaging apparatus, and wherein the first imaging apparatus is physically separated from the second imaging apparatus such that the first imaging apparatus and the second imaging apparatus are physically separate systems (para. [0012]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandkuijl et al. (US 2023/0013375 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) 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 Sandkuijl 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 Sandkuijl et al. (US 2023/0013375 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023) 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 Sandkuijl et al. and Vorobyova et al. with the teachings of Grubbs.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sandkuijl 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 Sandkuijl 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 9-6PM.
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
Prosecution Insights