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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 05/02/2024.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36 and 37 are pending, and claim 3, 5, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, 17 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, “highest energy” should be “the highest energy”.
In claim 9, line 1, “claim, wherein 1 the image capture unit” should be “claim 1, wherein the image capture unit”.
In claim 17, line 4, “the value of from the LoG mask” should be corrected.
In claim 17, line 9, “the value of from the variance mask” should be corrected.
In claim 32, line 4, “the value of from the LoG mask” should be corrected.
In claim 32, line 8-9, “the value of from the variance mask” should be corrected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image capture unit configured to capture a stack of images” in line 2 at claim 1, “a processing unit configured: a) to process the captured pixel data … b) to select … the pixel … c) to generate an output image file” in line 5-10 at claim 1, and “an analysis unit comprising an input for receiving the output image file and to determine therefrom sample data” in line 1-3 at claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 32, 33, 36 and 37 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.
Claim 1 recites “the image” (line 7). It is unclear if “the image” is referring to “a stack of images” (line 2), “each image layer” (line 3) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Also, it is not clear how to select "the image" from "a stack of images". The image capture unit obtains multiple images at different depth and the system should process each image of the stack of images to determine pixel values.
Claim 1 recites “the pixel” (line 8 and 13). It is unclear if “the pixel” is referring to “the captured pixel data” (line 6), “each pixel” (line 7) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites “the selected pixels” (line 11). It is unclear if “the selected pixels” is singular or plural [Refer to “to select … the pixel” (line 8)].
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the pixel position” (line 12) and “the depth position” (line 13). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the image stack” (line 13-14). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the image stack” is referring back to “a stack of images” (line 2) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “C) to generate an output image file” (line 11). It is unclear how to generate an output image file. The claim and specification disclose only the attributes and characteristics of the output image file.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the stack of pixels” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the stack of pixels” is referring back to “each group of pixels through the stack of images” (in claim 1) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the same orthogonal positions” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the same orthogonal positions” are referring back to “two orthogonal planes” (in claim 1) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the depth position” (line 1-2), “the selected pixel” (line 2) and “the image” (line 2). The arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the orthogonal coordinate positions” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the image” (line 9). The arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the original image” (line 9) and “the two images” (line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the resulting output” (line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the resulting output” is referring back to “the output image file” (in claim 1) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 14 recites “two methods” (line 10). It is unclear if “two methods” are referring back to “step (a)” (line 5-7) and “step (b)” (line 8-13) or something else.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the value in the LoG mask” (line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation (the value) in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the pixel values” (line 2-3 and 6). It is unclear if “the pixel” is referring to “a pixel value” (line 6 in claim 1), “a value” (line 9 in claim 1) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the position specified by the LoG mask” (line 2-3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the position” is referring back to “the position in the stack” (in claim 14) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the final output image file” (line 4-5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the position specified by the variance mask” (line 7-8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the position” is referring back to “the position in the stack” (in claim 14) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the value of from the variance mask” (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation (the value) in the claim. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the resultant images” (line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the resultant images” are referring back to “a stack of images” (line 5) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the field stack image” (line 9). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the field stack image” is referring back to “a stack of images” (line 5) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the field” (line 10). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the field” are referring back to “a first few fields” (line 3) or something else. Clarification/explanation is required.
With respect to claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
With respect to claim 24, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4, are applicable.
With respect to claim 29, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 14, are applicable.
With respect to claim 32, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 17, are applicable.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0042122) (hereafter, "Sato") in view of Jackson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0334683) (hereafter, "Jackson").
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a system ([0104] The image processing apparatus 102) for generating sample data for analysis including ([0004] it is possible to pick up an image of a sample (hereinafter called a test sample) placed on a slide (also called a preparation) and digitize the acquired image to perform a pathological analysis): an image capture unit configured to capture a stack of images in image layers ([0105] The image data acquisition unit 301 acquires image data picked up by the imaging apparatus 101 ... a Z-stack image constituted by a plurality of layer images is assumed) through a thickness of a sample ([0133] FIG. 5 shows the cross section of the slide 206 based on an XZ plane or a YZ plane. It is shown in FIG. 5 that the test sample 502 fixed onto the slide 206 is different in existence position in its thickness direction, i.e., the test sample 502 has different thicknesses), each image layer comprising pixel data in two orthogonal planes across the sample ([0089] The image pick-up unit 210 picks up a divided image of a test sample when the stage 202 drives in an XY axis direction corresponding to a two-dimensional plane orthogonal to an optical axis; [0145] Hierarchical image data 620 is constituted by a plurality of groups of the Z-stack image data different in resolution (the number of pixels); [0146] The Z-stack image data of the respective hierarchies of the hierarchical image data 620 is constituted by the five-layer image data of the first layer image 611 to the fifth layer image 615) at a given sample depth ([0115] The thickness information is information indicating the existence range of the test sample in a depth direction (Z direction)); a processing unit configured ([0103] the image processing apparatus 102): a) to process the captured pixel data ([0107] The in-focus degree may be evaluated by, for example, the contrast value of an image) to determine therefrom a pixel value of a predetermined parameter for each pixel of the image ([0107] it is defined that the in-focus information is information indicating the in-focus degree of the image data. The in-focus degree may be evaluated by, for example, the contrast value of an image. In the specification, a state in which the in-focus degree is higher than a prescribed reference (threshold) will be called “in-focus,” while a state in which the in-focus degree is lower than the reference will be called “non-focus.”; [0106] the pixel pitch of the image pick-up sensor 208 and the magnification information and the in-focus information of an objective lens, which are conditions for image pick-up specifications and image pick-up time, may be added to the image data), b) to select from each group of pixels through the stack of images the pixel having a value meeting a predetermined parameter condition; and ([0094] the two-dimensional image data of one layer (at a depth position) is generated by combining a plurality of divided tile image data; [0370] most in-focus tile image data is selected from among the Z-stack image data at the scrolling destination, and then the processing returns to step S2202. As a method of selecting the in-focus tile image data, in-focus information added to the respective tile image data is compared with each other based on the existence range of the tile image data acquired in step S2216 to select the tile image data having the highest in-focus degree. The comparison of the in-focus information added to the tile image data is exemplified as the method of selecting the most in-focus tile image data, but other method may be used. It may also be possible to compare the contrast values of all the tile image data within the existence range of the tile image data with each other to select the most in-focus tile image data).
Sato does not expressly teach c) to generate an output image file comprising a set of pixel data obtained from the selected pixels, wherein the output image file comprises for each pixel, the pixel position in the two orthogonal planes, the pixel value and the depth position of the pixel.
However, Jackson teaches c) to generate an output image file comprising a set of pixel data obtained from the selected pixels ([0047] Such a determination could be used to generate a full depth map for the sample and/or to generate pixels of a projected output image of the sample (e.g., by selecting pixel(s) of the image, of the set of images, that corresponds to the determined depth for use in generating pixels of the projection image); [0043] Such sets of ‘stacked’ images may also contain sufficient image information that can be combined with the depth information to generate a projection image of the sample that represents the contents of the sample in-focus across a range of depths), wherein the output image file comprises for each pixel, the pixel position in the two orthogonal planes, the pixel value and the depth position of the pixel ([0047] The texture information for a particular location within the set of images (e.g., corresponding to a location of a particular pixel index within each of the images) can be compared across all of the images in order to determine a single depth value for the particular location. Such a determination could be used to generate a full depth map for the sample and/or to generate pixels of a projected output image of the sample (e.g., by selecting pixel(s) of the image, of the set of images, that corresponds to the determined depth for use in generating pixels of the projection image); [0093] determining an image value for each pixel of the output image based on the depth value of the pixel of the output image, wherein determining an image value for a particular pixel of the output image comprises: (i) identifying an image of the set of images that corresponds to the depth value of the particular pixel; and (ii) determining the image value for the particular pixel based on a pixel, of the identified image, having a location within the identified image that corresponds to the particular pixel) in the image stack ([0040] FIG. 2A shows an example set (or ‘stack’) of images 200 of a sample. Each image of the set of images 200 corresponds to a respective focal plane within the sample).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Sato to incorporate the step/system of using depth determinations to generate projection images through pixel selection taught by Jackson.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the analysis of sample contents ([0041] Such a set of images 200 can contain sufficient in-focus image information to generate a projection image of the sample that provides an improved view of the distribution of the contents within the sample … Such a projection image could facilitate improved imaging and analysis of the contents of a sample). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sato and Jackson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sato teaches wherein the predetermined parameter is energy of the pixel, determined by measured luminance ([0320] The in-focus degree of the tile image data may be determined by, for example, referring to in-focus information previously added to the tile image data. Alternatively, the determination may be made using an image contrast when the in-focus information is not previously added to the tile image data. The image contrast may be calculated according to the following formula assuming that the image contrast is E and the brightness component of pixels is L (m, n). Here, m indicates a position of the pixels in the Y direction, and n indicates the position of the pixels in the X direction).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sato teaches wherein the predetermined parameter condition is highest energy ([0370] selecting the in-focus tile image data, in-focus information added to the respective tile image data is compared with each other based on the existence range of the tile image data acquired in step S2216 to select the tile image data having the highest in-focus degree; [0172] it may be possible to calculate the in-focus degrees (for example, the contrast values of an image or the like) of the respective tile image data and set only the layer having an in-focus degree higher than a prescribed reference (threshold) as a selection candidate or simply select the layer (most in-focus image) having the highest in-focus degree with priority) in the stack of pixels ([0370] most in-focus tile image data is selected from among the Z-stack image data at the scrolling destination, and then the processing returns to step S2202) in the same orthogonal positions ([0370] selecting the in-focus tile image data, in-focus information added to the respective tile image data is compared with each other based on the existence range of the tile image data acquired in step S2216).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson teaches wherein the depth position of the selected pixel for each of the orthogonal coordinate positions in the image ([0047] The texture information for a particular location within the set of images (e.g., corresponding to a location of a particular pixel index within each of the images) can be compared across all of the images in order to determine a single depth value for the particular location. Such a determination could be used to generate a full depth map for the sample and/or to generate pixels of a projected output image of the sample (e.g., by selecting pixel(s) of the image, of the set of images, that corresponds to the determined depth for use in generating pixels of the projection image)) represents a topography of a sample ([0060] perform segmentation on microscopic images of biological samples).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jackson teaches including an analysis unit comprising an input for receiving the output image file and ([0085] allow computing system 700 to interact with a user, for example to receive input from and/or to provide output to the user) to determine therefrom sample data ([0073] The images can then be analyzed in order to determine a depth map, a projection image, or some information about the samples), including identification of constituents in the sample and/or quantity of said constituents in the sample ([0041] Such a projection image could facilitate improved imaging and analysis of the contents of a sample. For example, a projection image could be segmented in order to identify discrete cells, organoids, tumor spheroids, or other three-dimensional contents of the projection image. Such an image segmentation could then be used to automatically determine a number, size, identity, morphology, or other information about cells, organoids, tumor spheroids, or some other analysis of the contents of the sample).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Sato teaches the image capture unit comprises a microscope ([0080] the image processing apparatus 102 may receive image data from an imaging apparatus such as ... an electron microscope, a mass microscope, an operation-type probe microscope, a ultrasonic microscope) with a sample holder, wherein the sample holder is movable in X-Y planes, being the two orthogonal planes, and ([0086] The stage 202 is driven and controlled by the stage control unit 205 and capable of moving three X, Y, and Z axial directions. The slide 206 is a member in which the segments of tissues to be observed or smeared cells are placed on a slide glass and that is fixed beneath a cover glass with a mounting medium).
Sato does not expressly teach a focus of the microscope is movable in a Z-plane orthogonal to the X-Y planes.
However, Jackson teaches a focus of the microscope is movable in a Z-plane orthogonal to the X-Y planes ([0034] Each image could be taken with a respective different depth within the sample being in focus by using a motor or other actuator to control the location of the imaging apparatus relative to the sample. This could include moving the camera, moving the sample container, or moving both of the sample container and the camera; [0038] The location of the camera 110 relative to the sample container 130 could be set, at different points in time, to facilitate imaging a respective different volumes, or depths, within the sample container 130. This could include using an actuated gantry or other means to move the camera 110 relative to the sample container 130 (e.g., by moving the camera 110 and/or moving the sample container 130) in order to select a flat region within the sample container 130 to image in focus).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Sato to incorporate the step/system of adjusting the focus to image different depths of the sample by moving along an axis orthogonal to that flat X-Y plane taught by Jackson.
Motivation for this combination has been stated in claim 1.
With respect to claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
With respect to claim 22, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2, are applicable.
With respect to claim 24, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4, are applicable.
With respect to claim 27, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7, are applicable.
Claim 18 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0042122) (hereafter, "Sato") in view of Jackson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0334683) (hereafter, "Jackson") and further in view of Thomas (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0267448).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sato and Jackson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The combination of Sato and Jackson does not expressly teach wherein the system includes an object detector configured to identify objects within the captured images, the object detector being configured to process four-channel images.
However, Thomas teaches wherein the system includes an object detector configured to identify objects within the captured images ([0069] This composite image is then analysed 322 using, for example, GE IN Cell Investigator™ segmentation, to identify the fiducial markers and return the coordinates of each marker within the composite image. These coordinates are then used one-by-one to identify the locations of fiducial markers on the stored cellular channel images 306, 308, 310, recall 326 the appropriate image(s) from storage 314, and segment the full resolution 16 bit images to define regions of interest (i.e. the area of cells overlaying an array spot) for cellular analysis 332), the object detector being configured to process four-channel images ([0041] the imaging system 100 may be a GE IN Cell Analyzer 1000™ ... and which can use four colour channels to image the test plate 108. One colour channel may thus be dedicated to imaging coloured fiducial markers provided in various of the spots 109 in order to obtain data relating to the positioning of the test plate 108 within the imaging system 100).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Sato and Jackson to incorporate the step/system of capturing and analyzing images by the four-channel imaging system using segmentation taught by Thomas.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy spatial positional identification of microscopic images ([0022] there is provided an imaging system for providing improved spatial position identification of a plurality of microscopy images; [0052] Such data may in turn be used to provide improved accuracy spatial positional identification for individual of the original microscopy images). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sato and Jackson with Thomas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
With respect to claim 33, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 18, are applicable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan S. Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/DANIEL C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights