DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 05/01/2026 have been considered. Claims 1-11 as amended are pending in the application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-6, 8 and 10 each recite the limitation “the controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 7 depends upon claim 2 and therefore inherits the deficiency raised with regards to claim 2 above.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 8 and therefore inherits the deficiency raised with regards to claim 8 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami U.S. Publication 2015/0279033, in view of Watanabe et al. US Publication 2022/0005188 (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Referring to claim 1, Murakami teaches a data analysis apparatus comprising:
a computer configured to accept an operation of selection of an image data regarding cells as an analysis data item(s) acquired by an analyzer (as shown in Figure 2 for example, user selection of a portion 207 of a pathological specimen image) (Murakami: paragraphs [0058]-[0061] and [0263]-[0264]; this is further shown in Figures 13A-13E), to accept an operation of selection of a script(s) to be used to analyze a cell image data based on the image data regarding the cells (as shown in Figure 2 for example, the user can select a script such as “SCATTERING IMAGE DATA GENERATION” from menu 208 to apply to the selected portion of the specimen image) (Murakami: paragraphs [0058]-[0061] and [0263]-[0264]; this is further shown in Figures 13A-13E), to accept an operation of adjustment of a parameter(s) to be used to execute the script(s) (as shown in Figures 13A-13E for example, the user can adjust settings for the following parameters: “Viewpoint Setting”, “Scattering Image Data Calculation Setting” and “Transmitted Light Component Suppression Setting”) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]), and to analyze the cell image data by executing the script(s) based on the adjusted parameter(s) (when the user adjusts the parameters for the various settings, analysis processing is executed with respect to the selected portion of the specimen image) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]);
a storage configured to store a plurality of scripts including a first script and a second script, and the parameters corresponding to each of the plurality of scripts (a main memory or storage device stores an image display application and the functions/settings related to an image data generation program) (Murakami: paragraphs [0056]-[0057], [0427] and [0445]); and
a display configured to display an analyzed cell image data as analysis result obtained by the analysis of the cell image data by the computer (as shown in Figure 13A for example, analysis processing results for the selected portion of the specimen image is displayed) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]);
wherein the computer is configured to:
display a first display area, a second display area, and a third display area displayed on the display, the parameter(s) in the first display area (setting screens shown in Figures 13B-13E displaying parameters “Viewpoint Setting”, “Scattering Image Data Calculation Setting” and “Transmitted Light Component Suppression Setting”) (Murakami: paragraphs [0264]-[0265]), the analyzed cell image data in the second display area (display area 1302 showing the results from the scattering image data generation processing) (Murakami: paragraphs [0264]-[0265]), and a selector in the third display area that accepts a selection of the script to be executed (menu 208 or menu 1310 that allows the user to select functions such as “Scattering Image data Generation” or “N/C ratio calculation”) (Murakami: paragraph [0267]), and
when the selector in the third display area accepts the operation of selection of either the first script or the second script to be executed, read the parameter(s) corresponding to the selected script from the storage and display the read parameter(s) in the first display area of the single parameter adjustment screen (when the user selects one of the plurality of functions shown in menu 208 of Figure 2, the parameters corresponding to the functions are read from the memory/storage device and displayed in the setting screens shown in Figures 13B-13E) (Murakami: paragraph [0264], [0427] and [0445]), and
wherein the computer is configured to dynamically reconfigure the script(s) based on a parameter adjustments received via the parameter adjustment screen, and execute the reconfigured script(s) to convert the cell image data into the analysis result representing the analyzed cell image data (dynamically reconfigure, i.e. execute the function, each time the settings parameters in Figures 13B-13E are changed) (Murakami: paragraph [0374]).
However, Murakami fails to explicitly teach that the first display area, second display area and third display area are simultaneously displayed in a single parameter adjustment screen. Similar to Murakami, Watanabe also teaches applying a script to cell image data (using recipe parameters to apply processing to a specimen image) (Watanabe: paragraph [0085]). In addition, Watanabe teaches displaying a single parameter adjustment screen comprising a first area, second area and third area (the UI shown in Figure 4 includes a first display area 103, a second display area 107A/107B and a third display area 101) (Watanabe: paragraphs [0176]-[0178]).
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 first display area, second display area and third display area taught by Murakami with the display of three areas in a single screen, as taught by Watanabe. Displaying multiple areas in a single screen, as taught by Watanabe, is a simple and known display technique that provides the advantage of allowing the user to simultaneously view multiple desired information. Using this known technique of displaying multiple areas in a single screen to provide the predicable level of display advantage in Murakami would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Murakami was ready for improvement to incorporate the display advantages, as taught by Watanabe.
Referring to claim 2, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to make the display to display a parameter adjustment screen for adjusting the parameter(s) in accordance with an operation provided by a user, and to accept an operation of adjustment of one or more parameters in the parameters on the parameter adjustment screen (Figures 13B-13E show various screens that allow the user to adjust the parameters of the various settings) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 3, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to accept an operation(s) of adjustment of a plurality of parameters on a common adjustment screen as the adjustment screen (Figures 13B-13E show examples of common adjustment screens that allow the user to adjust a plurality of parameters) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 4, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to display the data before the script is applied, and test output data that is obtained by applying to the data the script whose parameter(s) is/are adjusted on a test basis sided by side on the parameter adjustment screen (as shown in Figure 13A for example, the data before and after analysis processing are displayed side by side on the left-side region 1301 and right-side region 1302) (Murakami: paragraph [0264]).
Referring to claim 5, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to accept the operation(s) of selection of the script(s) on the adjustment screen (user selection to execute a selected processing function) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 6, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to selectively display the data before the script is applied, and test output data that is obtained by applying to the data the script whose parameter(s) is/are adjusted on a test basis on a screen for accepting an operation that is provided by the user to instruct to display the parameter adjustment screen on the display (Figure 13A shows the display of the data before the analysis processing function is applied on the left-side region 1301 and output data from applying the analysis processing function to the data on the right-side region 1302) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]).
Referring to claim 7, Murakami, as modified by Watanabe, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
each script includes a machine learning generation algorithm for generate machine learning data items to be used for machine learning (the generating unit performs machine learning to generate evaluation recipes) (Watanabe: paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0102]-[0109], [0229] and [0234]), and an analysis algorithm for analyzing the data (the image processing functions provide for image analysis processing algorithms, such as “Scattering Image Data Generation” and “N/C ratio calculation”) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267], [0362]-[0374] and [0582]; this is further shown in Figures 13B-13E and 16A-16D); and
the controller is configured to make the display to display, on a dataset generation screen that is displayed on the display when generating a dataset including the machine learning data items, the adjustment screen for adjusting a parameter(s) of the machine learning algorithm in accordance with the operation provided by the user (for example, the screens shown in Figures 13B-13E allow the user to adjust the parameters) (Murakami: paragraphs [0263]-[0267]; Watanabe: paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0102]-[0109], [0229] and [0234]), and to make the display to display, on an analysis flow generation screen that is displayed when generating an analysis flow that includes a plurality of analysis algorithms combined with each other, the adjustment screen for adjusting a parameter(s) of the analysis algorithms in accordance with the operation provided by the user (for example, Figures 2 and 13A-13E show a plurality of analysis algorithms, i.e. a plurality of function processing that can be selected from the menu) (Murakami: [0263]-[0267]).
Claim 11 recites a method embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the apparatus embodiment of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami U.S. Publication 2015/0279033, in view of Watanabe et al. US Publication 2022/0005188 (hereinafter “Watanabe”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asai U.S. Publication 2016/0034234.
Referring to claim 8, Murakami, in view of Watanabe (hereinafter the “combination of Murakami/Watanabe”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, the combination of Murakami/Watanabe teaches a parameter definition file that defines parameter adjustment information relating to adjustment of the parameter(s) (Figure 13D shows selection of parameters from a drop-down list for Method, Viewpoint Weighting Function 1 and Viewpoint Weighting Function 2) (Murakami: paragraphs [0450], [0454] and [0541]), and to correlate the script(s) and the parameter definition file that are previously registered on the registration screen with each other and store the script(s) and the parameter definition file correlated with each other (as shown in Figure 13D for example, the parameters for Viewpoint Weighting Function 1 and Viewpoint Weighting Function 2 have been calculated in advance and stored in the memory) (Murakami: paragraphs [0450], [0454] and [0541]). However, the combination of Murakami/Watanabe fails to explicitly teach displaying a registration screen for previously registering the script(s) and the parameter definition file. Similar to the combination of Murakami/Watanabe, Asai also teaches a display that accepts adjustments to parameters (using edit button 83 shown in Figure 2 to change parameter values) (Asai: paragraph [0037]). In addition, Asai teaches wherein the controller is configured to make the display to display a registration screen for previously registering the script(s) and a parameter definition file that defines parameter adjustment information relating to adjustment of the parameter(s) (the parameter lists registered by the user for the Auto Print setting are displayed in area 81 of the screen shown in Figure 2) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]), and to correlate the script(s) and the parameter definition file that are previously registered on the registration screen with each other and store the script(s) and the parameter definition file correlated with each other (the user can select the “Register Auto Print Setting” button 82 to cause the registered parameter list to be stored as the Auto Print setting) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]). All of the elements of claim 8 are known in the combination of Murakami/Watanabe and Asai. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device, i.e. the data analysis apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the registration screen for previously registering the script and the parameter definition file with each other, as taught by Asai, in the apparatus of the combination of Murakami/Watanabe, since the operation of displaying the registration screen is no way dependent on the operation of the other elements of the claim and displaying the registration screen could be used in combination with the data analysis apparatus to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to use a registration screen to previously register and correlate a script with a parameter definition file.
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Murakami/Watanabe, as modified by Asai, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the parameter definition file includes information on initial value(s) of the parameter(s), an adjustable range of the parameter(s) and a type(s) of the parameter(s) (for example, the parameters shown in the parameter list in Figure 2 of Asai include initial values for paper size, highest image quality range, paper type, etc.) (Asai: paragraphs [0033]-[0037]).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Murakami/Watanabe, as modified by Asai, teaches the data analysis apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a format of the parameter definition file is correct when registering the parameter definition file (the parameters are stored in a binary data format; therefore, the registered parameters to be stored has to be in the binary data format) (Asai: paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The Applicants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Murakami or Watanabe to arrange a UI such that parameters, analyzed results, and a script selector are all simultaneously visible and interactively linked for dynamic updates. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Murakami teaches the three display areas below:
First display area for parameters: The setting screens shown in Figures 13B-13E
Second display area for analyzed cell image data: display area 1302 shown in Figure 13A displaying the results from applying the scattering data image generation processing
Third display area containing a selector for script selection: Menu 208 shown in Figure 2 allows the user to select a script, i.e. function such as “Scattering Image Data Generation”; the third display area could also be interpreted as menu 1310 shown in Figure 13A that allows the user to select a script, i.e. function such as “N/C ratio calculation”
Murakami states in paragraph [0264] that in response to selection of the script “Scattering Image Data Generation” from the third display area (menu 208 shown in Figure 2), the second display area shown in Figure 13A and first display area shown in Figures 13B-13E are displayed. Murakami also states in paragraph [0374] that the scattering image data generation script is executed each time the setting parameters shown in the first display area, i.e. Figures 13B-13E, are changed; this subsequently causes a change to processing results shown in the second display area, i.e. display area 1302 in Figure 13A. As a result, processing results are displayed in real-time synchronously with the changes of the setting parameters for the selected script/function. Therefore, Murakami teaches that the three display areas are linked for dynamic updates.
Although Murakami does not explicitly teach that the three display areas shown in the figures described above are all simultaneously visible on a single screen, Murakami does state in paragraph [0374] that “the setting items shown in FIG. 13B and FIGS. 13C to 13E may be deployed and arranged in a single setting screen.” Therefore, displaying multiple areas shown in different figures in a single screen is included in the scope of the Murakami; this provides a motivation for combining with Watanabe, which teaches the display of the first display area, second display area and third display area in a single screen.
In view of the above, the Examiner respectfully argues that Murakami, in view of Watanabe teaches the subject limitations.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 2. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights