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 .
Priority
The instant application is a Continuation in Part of parent application 18/389,291 with a filing date of 11/14/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 04/26/2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 11-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). In order to expedite the processing/approval of the terminal disclaimer, Applicants may choose to file an electronic terminal disclaimer (eTerminal Disclaimer) by referring to the following website:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
The claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of its parent U.S. Patent No. 12, 023,817. Although the conflicting claims 1 and 11 are not identical to their corresponding U.S. patent claims, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the claims of the parent patent, i.e., claims of the instant application are generic to all that is recited in claims of the above-listed parent U.S. patent. Therefore, the present rejection of claims is based on anticipatory-type of non-statutory double patenting. For example, the following chart compares Claim 11 of the instant application with Claim 11 of the Patent No. 12,023,817.
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,023,817
Claim 11. A method for a slide marking technique for target tissue extraction and downstream application, the method comprising: imaging, using a marking device, one or more surfaces of a sample associated with a stained slide;
receiving, using at least a computing device, the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample;
receiving, using the at least a computing device, a stained slide image of the sample;
determining, using the at least a computing device, a geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image;
determining, using the at least a computing device, a region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the geometric registration;
providing, using the at least a computing device, the region of interest to the marking device
and marking, using the marking device, the region of interest associated with the sample
Claim 11. A method for a slide marking technique for target tissue extraction and downstream application, the method comprising: receiving, using at least a marking device, a sample associated with a stained slide;
imaging, using the at least a marking device, an unstained surface of the sample associated with the stained slide;
receiving, using at least a computing device, a stained slide image;
receiving, using the at least a computing device, the image of the unstained surface of the sample;
determining, using the at least a computing device, a geometric registration of the unstained surface of the sample to the stained slide image,
wherein determining the geometric registration comprises: aligning the stained slide image with the image of the unstained surface;
determining, using the at least a computing device, the annotation mask as a function of the geometric registration; providing, using the at least a computing device, the annotation mask to the marking device; and marking, using the at least a marking device, a region of interest of the sample, as a function of an annotation mask
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. The claims recite imaging surfaces of a sample associated with a stained slide, receiving the images of the surfaces of the sample, receiving a stained slide image of the sample, determining a registration of the images of the sample to the stained slide image, determining a region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the registration, and providing the region of interest to the marking device, and marking the region of interest.
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claims are directed to a method, which is among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1:
With regard to Step 2A – Prong 1, for example in Claim 11, the limitations of “determining, using the at least a computing device, a geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image; determining, using the at least a computing device, a region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the geometric registration; and marking, using the marking device, the region of interest associated with the sample” as drafted only involves mental processes or mathematical calculations, such as performing the registration of images and determining a region of interest of the sample. That is, nothing in the above-described claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or on a piece of paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonably interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or through mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of a generic apparatus components, such as a processor, computer program, or machine-readable media, then it falls within the "mental processes", which include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or mathematical calculations groupings of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements in the claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the following additional steps "imaging, using a marking device, one or more surfaces of a sample associated with a stained slide; receiving, using at least a computing device, the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample; receiving, using the at least a computing device, a stained slide image of the sample; providing, using the at least a computing device, the region of interest to the marking device", i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity. The other additional recited element in certain other claims is just a processor and a memory, which are generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is a field-of-use limitation that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim as a whole, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/steps amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic apparatus component, such as a processor, cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. It should be noted that a similar analysis may be performed with respect to independent Claim 1.
Further, with regard to dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 viewed individually, these additional steps are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For example, marking the region of interest as a function of an annotation mask as recited in Claim 12 or generating a marker on the images of the one or more surfaces as recited in Claim 14 are only examples of routine and conventional image processing steps and do not amount to significantly more to consider as inventive steps. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 11-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madabhushi et al. (US 20200242756 A1) in view of Barnes et al. (US 20170328817 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Madabhushi teaches "A system for a slide marking technique for target tissue extraction and downstream application, the system comprising: at least a marking device, wherein the at least a marking device is configured to: image one or more surfaces of a sample associated with a stained slide"; (Madabhushi, Claim 20, teaches a system which accesses a digitized hematoxylin and eosin stained whole slide image of a region of tissue demonstrating ER+ breast cancer where the region of tissue includes a tumor region, i.e., image one or more surfaces of a sample associated with a stained slide by accessing the image of tissue in the stained whole slide image);
"and mark a region of interest associated with the sample"; (Madabhushi, Claim 20, teaches generating a segmented tumor region by segmenting the tumor region represented in the digitized H&E stained whole slide image and defining a plurality of tumor patches based on the segmented tumor region, i.e., marking a region of interest associated with the sample being the tumor region marked via segmentation).
However, Madabhushi does not explicitly teach "at least a computing device comprising at least a processor and a memory, the computing device configured to: receive the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample; receive a stained slide image of the sample; determine a geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image; determine the region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the geometric registration; and provide the region of interest to the marking device”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Barnes teaches "at least a computing device comprising at least a processor and a memory, the computing device configured to: receive the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample"; (Barnes, Paras. 4 and 7, teaches a system including a processor and memory wherein the tissue slide to be dissected is loaded on the stage and live image captured for tissue extraction, i.e., receive images of the one or more surfaces of the sample);
"receive a stained slide image of the sample"; (Barnes, Para. 4, teaches a H&E slide is loaded on to the stage and imaged for the user to outline the annotations, i.e., receive a stained slide image of the sample);
"determine a geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image"; (Barnes, Para. 21, teaches the registration methods have the generic ability to register stained or unstained slides wherein any other registration method may be used so long as it provides automated mapping of annotations across images having different stains, including the capability to register stained to unstained tissue slides, in a manner that enables precise milling of areas of interest based on annotated reference slides, or enables registration of stained and unstained slides, i.e., determine geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image);
"determine the region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the geometric registration"; (Barnes, Paras. 25-26, teaches transferring or mapping the annotations from one or more reference images to an image of a tissue section subject to dissection using the registration and mapping module wherein annotations depict clinically relevant regions, i.e., determine regions of interest associated with the sample as a function of the registration being the transferring or mapping of annotations using the registration module);
"and provide the region of interest to the marking device"; (Barnes, Para. 8, teaches the one or more annotations may comprise one or more combinations of any geometrical representation depicting one or more regions of interest, i.e., regions of interest are provided to the marking device to generate the annotations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Madabhushi by including the receiving of images of samples and stained slide images of samples and determining a registration of the images and a region of interest associated with the registration taught by Barnes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the ability to transfer annotations (Barnes, Para. 21, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the ability to transfer annotations from reference slides to milling annotations for a milling slide).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 1, wherein marking the region of interest comprises marking the region of interest as a function of an annotation mask"; (Barnes, Para. 28, teaches annotation data may include labelled region masks, i.e., marking the region of interest comprises marking the region of interest as a function of an annotation mask).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Madabhushi and Barnes references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the system recited in claim 2 is met by Madabhushi in view of Barnes.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 1, wherein determining the geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image comprises aligning the stained slide image with at least one image of the one or more surfaces"; (Barnes, Para. 19, teaches a fine registration mode used to refine alignment of the first digital image and the second digital image, i.e., determining geometric registration of the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample to the stained slide image comprises aligning the stained slide image with at least one image of the one or more surfaces).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Madabhushi and Barnes references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the system recited in claim 3 is met by Madabhushi in view of Barnes.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample comprises generating a first geometric marker on the images of the one or more surfaces"; (Barnes, Paras. 7-8, teaches importing a reference image along with one or more annotations wherein the reference image was digitized from a reference slide scanned on a whole-slide scanner and wherein the annotations were generated using a whole slide viewer interface coupled to the whole-slide scanner in which the one or more annotations may comprise one or more combinations of any geometrical representation depicting one or more regions of interest, i.e., receiving images of the surfaces of the sample comprises generating a first geometric marker on the images of the one or more surfaces being the annotations).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Madabhushi and Barnes references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 4. Thus, the system recited in claim 4 is met by Madabhushi in view of Barnes.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the images of the one or more surfaces of the sample comprises receiving dimensional information associated with the sample on the images of the one or more surfaces"; (Madabhushi, Para. 89, teaches the stained whole slide image of a region of tissue comprises a plurality of tumor patches with dimensions of 4000 pixels by 4000 pixels, i.e., receiving images of the one or more surfaces of the samples comprises receiving dimensional information associated with the sample).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 7, wherein the dimensional information comprises an area of the sample"; (Madabhushi, Para. 89, teaches the stained whole slide image of a region of tissue comprises a plurality of tumor patches with dimensions of 4000 pixels by 4000 pixels, i.e., receiving images of the one or more surfaces of the samples comprises receiving dimensional information comprising an area of the sample being 4000x4000 pixels).
Claim 11 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 12 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 13 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 14 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 17 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 20 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 10. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi and Barnes references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madabhushi in view of Barnes and Li et al. (US 20240078702 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes teaches "The system of claim 4, wherein determining the region of interest associated with the sample as a function of the geometric registration comprises: determining the region of interest on the images of one or more surfaces"; (Barnes, Paras. 25-26, teaches transferring or mapping the annotations from one or more reference images to an image of a tissue section subject to dissection using the registration and mapping module wherein annotations depict clinically relevant regions, i.e., determine regions of interest associated with the sample as a function of the registration being the transferring or mapping of annotations using the registration module).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Madabhushi and Barnes references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 5.
However, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes does not explicitly teach "and comparing the first geometric marker to a reference frame".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Li teaches "and comparing the first geometric marker to a reference frame"; (Li, Para. 38, teaches comparing the image data of the fiducial marker with a database including one or more reference image data to determine if it is aligned based on a reference point of the fiducial marker, i.e., compare the geometric marker to a reference frame).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Madabhushi and Barnes by including the comparison of the marker to a reference frame taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves fiducial quality (Li, Para. 7, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve fiducial qualities).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi, Barnes, and Li references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madabhushi in view of Barnes, Li, and Tokushima (US 10788814 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes and Li does not explicitly teach "The system of claim 5 wherein comparing the geometric marker to the reference frame comprises: generating a second geometric marker on the images of the one or more surfaces; and comparing the first geometric marker to the second geometric marker”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Tokushima teaches "The system of claim 5 wherein comparing the geometric marker to the reference frame comprises: generating a second geometric marker on the images of the one or more surfaces"; (Tokushima, Claim 1, teaches continuously capturing images of the plurality of marks by comparing each of the captured images with the first reference image wherein the plurality of marks include a first mark and a second mark and wherein locations of the marks are identified when the captured image matches the reference image, i.e., comparing the marker to the reference frame comprising generating a second marker on the images of the surfaces);
"and comparing the first geometric marker to the second geometric marker"; (Tokushima, Claim 1, teaches counting a number of pixels in the captured images that are located at positions between the first location of the first mark and the second location of the second mark, determining a physical quantity amount corresponding to the counted number of pixels, and performing calibration in response to the determined physical quantity amount, i.e., comparing the first and second markers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Madabhushi, Barnes, and Li by including the generation of a second marker and comparing the two markers taught by Tokushima. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves detection accuracy (Tokushima, Col. 7 Lines 8-18, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve detection accuracy).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 16 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi, Barnes, Li, and Tokushima references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madabhushi in view of Barnes and Nguyen et al. (US 20230016472 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes does not explicitly teach "The system of claim 7, receiving the stained slide image of the sample comprises selecting the stained slide image as a function of the dimensional information".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Nguyen teaches "The system of claim 7, receiving the stained slide image of the sample comprises selecting the stained slide image as a function of the dimensional information"; (Nguyen, Para. 7, teaches the selection of particular image augmentations performed on the whole slide images for the unique and specific aspects of the whole slide image such as how color and scale plays an important role in analysis of H&E images since cells with different sizes and colors may have different biological meanings, i.e., selecting the stained slide image as a function of the dimensional information being the size information of the sample).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Madabhushi and Barnes by including the selecting of the stained slide image as a function of dimensional information taught by Nguyen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the quality of the features (Nguyen, Para. 49, teaches the motivation of combination to be improve the quality of features).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 18 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 8. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi, Barnes, and Nguyen references, presented in rejection of Claim 8, apply to this claim.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madabhushi in view of Barnes and Zuiderveld et al. (US 20240070904 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Madabhushi in view of Barnes does not explicitly teach "The system of claim 7, wherein the dimensional information comprises a tissue thickness of the sample".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zuiderveld teaches "The system of claim 7, wherein the dimensional information comprises a tissue thickness of the sample"; (Zuiderveld, Para. 3, teaches tissue samples may be sliced to obtain a series of sections with each section having a thickness of 4-5 microns for example wherein each section may be mounted on a slide and scanned to create a digital image for examination, i.e., dimensional information comprises tissue thickness of the sample).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Madabhushi and Barnes by including the dimensional information comprising tissue thickness taught by Zuiderveld. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since enables extracting quantitative measures (Zuiderveld, Para. 3, teaches the motivation of combination to be to enable extracting meaningful quantitative measures using image analysis).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 19 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 9. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Madabhushi, Barnes, and Zuiderveld references, presented in rejection of Claim 9, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662