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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the request for continued examination (RCE), amendments and remarks received 12 May 2026. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 4 recite, in part, “wherein imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile comprises:” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: image the slide as a function of the scanning profile, wherein imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile comprises:-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 14 recite, in part, “wherein imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile comprises:” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --further comprising: imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile, wherein imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile comprises:-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 18 recites, in part, “image the slide at a macro magnification” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --imaging the slide at a macro magnification-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
The objections to claims 1 and 11, due to minor informalities, are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 12 May 2026.
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 8 and 18 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 8 recites the limitation "the algorithm pipeline" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the algorithm pipeline" in lines 6 - 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5 - 7 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that amended claims 2 and 12 are patentably distinguishable over the previously cited prior art, D’Costa et al., Putman et al. and O’Dea, at least because “O’Dea does not teach ‘the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for a corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile’ and ‘updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category.’” The Applicant’s Representative argues that “O’Dea contains no teaching, suggestion, or motivation related to maintaining the utilization datum and the selection weights for corresponding pair of classification category and scanning profile; or modifying the relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that amended claims 2 and 12 are patentably distinguishable over the previously cited prior art, D’Costa et al., Putman et al. and O’Dea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner asserts that the proposed combination of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. in view of O’Dea disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s). The Examiner asserts that D’Costa et al. and Putman et al. disclose maintaining a corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile and selecting the selected scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category, see at least page 8 paragraph 0073, page 13 paragraph 0108, page 15 paragraph 0127 and page 16 paragraph 0137 of D’Costa et al. and at least figure 15B, page 12 paragraphs 0133 - 0136 and page 13 paragraphs 0143 - 0147 of Putman et al.
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that O’Dea discloses wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for a corresponding pair of a category and the scanning profile and wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent imaging assigned to the category, see at least figure 7, page 3 paragraphs 0040 - 0042, page 4 paragraphs 0045 - 0048 and page 4 paragraph 0052 - page 5 paragraph 0055 of O’Dea wherein they disclose that “smart presets include remembering preferred settings for one or more operators or imaging modes” [0041], that “settings may be configured and saved based on most frequently used settings for a user and/or operational mode” [0042], that in “an embodiment utilizing a most frequently used priority scheme, the user interface 140 records user actions/settings and stores the actions in a table or other such structure in the back-end subsystem 130 or user interface 140. A counter value is associated with each action. When a counter reaches a certain value, the action associated with the counter is added to a user or mode profile. The action may replace an action with a lower counter value. That is, the new frequently used item replaces an item that has become less frequently used. Counters associated with actions in the profile allow actions in the profile to be replaced by new actions that become more frequently used” [0048], that “settings configured by the user are recorded at the user interface 140. Counters for the settings are incremented based on usage and/or time, for example. When the user returns to use the ultrasound system again, the settings may be loaded based on previous usage patterns. The system ‘remembers’ the settings/functions/options that the user commonly uses when operating the system 100” [0054] and that “a profile may be created and tracked for multiple users. Profiles may also be created based on operational mode or protocol. For example, a profile may be created and updated for B-mode imaging. A user performing B-mode imaging on the ultrasound system 100 may select the B-mode imaging profile to display the most frequently or most recently used options for B-mode imaging” [0055].
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, D’Costa et al. and Putman et al. disclose maintaining a corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile and selecting the selected scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category and that O’Dea discloses wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for a corresponding pair of a category and the scanning profile and wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent imaging assigned to the category. The Examiner asserts that modifying the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of O’Dea would result in the scanning profile weighting, ranking and selection technique of O’Dea being utilized to select a scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles of the combined base device, i.e., the utilization datum and the selection weights of O’Dea would be maintained for the corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile of the combined base device and the technique of O’Dea would update weights and relative rankings for the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category of the combined base device.
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the proposed combination of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. in view of O’Dea disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s).
On pages 8 - 9 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that amended claims 5 and 15 are patentably distinguishable over the previously cited prior art, D’Costa et al., Putman et al. and Yip et al., at least because Yip et al. do not teach “determining a circularity of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of the macro image”. The Applicant’s Representative argues that while Yip et al. “may teach determining ‘the shape of individual cells,’” Yip et al. do not teach “determining a circularity of a pathology sample.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that “determinations of individual cell shape cannot be performed using a macro image.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Yip et al. do not teach the aforementioned disputed claim limitation and that amended claims 5 and 15 are patentably distinguishable over the previously cited prior art, D’Costa et al., Putman et al. and Yip et al.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner asserts that the proposed combination of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. in view of Yip et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s).
The Examiner asserts that, at least, D’Costa et al. disclose determining a circularity of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of a low-resolution image using an image processing algorithm, see at least page 1 paragraph 0005, page 3 paragraph 0017, page 4 paragraphs 0042 - 0043, page 5 paragraph 0046 - 0048, page 12 paragraph 0101 - page 13 paragraph 0105 and page 13 paragraph 0108 of D’Costa et al. wherein they disclose that “when scanning of the first slide is complete, the second portion of the first placeholder may provide indicia that the scanning is complete, and different indicia may be provided depending on whether the image data acquired was a thumbnail image (i.e. a low resolution image suitable for reviewing the AOI and capture or scanning settings for the tissue section)” [0101] and that “a setting may be selected for detecting AOIs for microarrays and disperse samples. Another setting may be selected for detecting AOIs that are round or circular in nature” [0108].
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, D’Costa et al. disclose determining a circularity of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of a low-resolution image using an image processing algorithm. However, the Examiner notes that D’Costa et al. fail to disclose expressly a macro image.
The Examiner asserts that analogous art Putman et al. disclose a macro image and determining a classification of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of the macro image using an image processing algorithm, see at least page 3 paragraphs 0059 - 0060, page 5 paragraphs 0071 - 0072, page 7 paragraph 0083, page 8 paragraph 0094, page 11 paragraph 0129, page 12 paragraphs 0134 - 0136 and page 13 paragraphs 0145 - 0146 of Putman et al. The Examiner asserts that in the proposed combination D’Costa et al. would determine the circularity of the pathology sample of the slide as a function of the macro image of Putman et al.
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the proposed combination of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. in view of Yip et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Costa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400930 A1 in view of Putman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042884 A1 in view of Ba et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233347 A1.
- With regards to claims 1 and 11, D’Costa et al. disclose an apparatus and method for adaptive slide imaging using a selected scanning profile, (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1A - 2B, 2E, 4A - 5B, 6 & 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 5 ¶ 0050 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0055, Pg. 8 ¶ 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0110, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114) the apparatus comprising: a scanner configured to capture an image of a slide, (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1B - 2C, 6 & 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 5 ¶ 0050, Pg. 7 ¶ 0062 - 0064, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0078, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 12 ¶ 0101, Pg. 13 ¶ 0105) wherein the scanner comprises: a stage configured to hold the slide; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 2B, 3A, 3B, 6 & 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012, Pg. 10 ¶ 0086 - 0089, Pg. 11 ¶ 0091, Pg. 12 ¶ 0100, Pg. 14 ¶ 0117) an optical sensor configured to convert an image into one or more electrical signals; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1B, 6 & 7, Pg. 5 ¶ 0044 - 0045, Pg. 7 ¶ 0062 - 0064) and an optical system configured to form the image of the slide on the optical sensor, (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1B, 6 & 7, Pg. 5 ¶ 0044 - 0045, Pg. 7 ¶ 0062 - 0064) wherein the stage is configured to move the slide relative to the optical system; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 7 ¶ 0064) at least a processor; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1A & 1B, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012, Pg. 5 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0055, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067) and a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1A & 1B, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012 and 0014, Pg. 6 ¶ 0052 - 0055, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067, Pg. 16 ¶ 0138) to: receive the image of the slide from the scanner; (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1B - 2B & 7, Pg. 5 ¶ 0044 - 0045, Pg. 7 ¶ 0060 - 0064, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 12 ¶ 0099 and 0102, Pg. 14 ¶ 0116 - 0117) extract metadata from the image of the slide; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 2 ¶ 0009 and 0013, Pg. 8 ¶ 0073 - 0074, Pg. 10 ¶ 0085, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) determine a classification category of the slide as a function of the metadata; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0073 - 0074, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) retrieve a scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0073 - 0074, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) configure, using a set of application programming interfaces (APIs), download of one or more software containers for inline compute, (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1A - 2B, 2E & 4A - 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017 and 0019 - 0020, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0054 - 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0065 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0076 - 0078, Pg. 13 ¶ 0104 and 0108 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0116 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0125 and 0127) wherein the scanning profile is associated with the one or more software containers; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1A - 2B, 2E & 4A - 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0054 - 0056, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 - 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0076 - 0078, Pg. 13 ¶ 0104 and 0108 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0116 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0125 and 0127) and configure, using the APIs, an inline algorithm pipeline for processing a plurality of high magnification images of the slide; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 5B - 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 6 ¶ 0054 - 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0063, Pg. 8 ¶ 0068 - 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0080, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0084, Pg. 11 ¶ 0096, Pg. 12 ¶ 0099 - 0101, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 - 0118, Pg. 15 ¶ 0125 and 0127) scan, using the scanner, the plurality of high magnification images of the slide as a function of the scanning profile; (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1B - 2B, 2E, 6 & 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 7 ¶ 0060 - 0064, Pg. 8 ¶ 0072 - 0074, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0078, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 and 0116 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) and while scanning the plurality of high magnification images of the slide, process at least a high magnification image of the plurality of high magnification images, using the inline algorithm pipeline. (D’Costa et al., Figs. 5B - 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0013, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 8 ¶ 0068 - 0070 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0079, Pg. 9 ¶ 0081 - Pg. 10 ¶ 0085, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 12 ¶ 0102 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0104, Pg. 13 ¶ 0107 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127 - 0128) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose expressly capturing and processing a macro image of the slide, i.e., D’Costa et al. fail to disclose expressly a macro image, and affecting the ongoing scanning of the plurality of high magnification images of the slide by modifying imaging parameters of the scanning profile as a function of the processing of the at least a high magnification image by the inline algorithm pipeline. Pertaining to analogous art, Putman et al. disclose an apparatus and method for adaptive slide imaging using a selected scanning profile, (Putman et al., Figs. 12, 14 & 15A - 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006 and 0013, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0060, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 and 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 10 ¶ 0120 - 0121, Pg. 11 ¶ 0129 - 0130, Pg. 12 ¶ 0132 - 0136, Pg. 14 ¶ 0151 - 0152) the apparatus comprising: a scanner configured to capture a macro image of a slide, (Putman et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0060, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 and 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094 - 0097, Pg. 9 ¶ 0099, Pg. 11 ¶ 0128 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 [“Specimens as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art refer to an article of examination (e.g., a semiconductor wafer or a biological slide)”]) wherein the scanner comprises: a stage configured to hold the slide; (Putman et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 4 ¶ 0063, Pg. 5 ¶ 0069) wherein the stage is configured to move the slide relative to the optical system; (Putman et al., Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, 0008 and 0010, Pg. 2 ¶ 0025, Pg. 5 ¶ 0069 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 9 ¶ 0099) at least a processor; (Putman et al., Fig. 16, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079, Pg. 7 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 12 ¶ 0138 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0140, Pg. 13 ¶ 0142, Pg. 14 ¶ 0158 - 0160) and a memory, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor (Putman et al., Fig. 16, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079, Pg. 7 ¶ 0083 - 0086, Pg. 12 ¶ 0138 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0140, Pg. 13 ¶ 0142, Pg. 14 ¶ 0158 - 0160) to: receive the macro image of the slide from the scanner; (Putman et al., Figs. 14 - 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094 and 0097, Pg. 11 ¶ 0127 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143) determine a classification category of the slide; (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006 and 0013, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 12 ¶ 0131 - 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0147) retrieve a scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide; (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006 and 0013, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 11 ¶ 0128 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0145) configure, using a set of application programming interfaces (APIs), download of one or more software containers for inline compute, (Putman et al., Figs. 2, 11 & 15A - 16, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 and 0013, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0061, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0083, Pg. 7 ¶ 0085 - 0086, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 10 ¶ 0121, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0126, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0141, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0145, Pg. 14 ¶ 0152, 0157 and 0159 - 0160, Pg. 15 ¶ 0162 - 0163 and 0165) wherein the scanning profile is associated with the one or more software containers; (Putman et al., Figs. 15A & 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0013, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 - 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 10 ¶ 0120, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0125 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0140, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0145, Pg. 14 ¶ 0152 and 0159 - 0160, Pg. 15 ¶ 0162 - 0163 and 0165) configure, using the APIs, an inline algorithm pipeline for processing a plurality of high magnification images of the slide; (Putman et al., Figs. 2, 11 & 15A - 16, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 and 0013, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 - 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0123 - 0126 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0131 - 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0140 and 0143 - 0147, Pg. 14 ¶ 0152) and scan, using the scanner, the plurality of high magnification images of the slide as a function of the scanning profile. (Putman et al., Figs. 15A & 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006 and 0013, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 and 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0097, Pg. 11 ¶ 0127 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0145) Putman et al. fail to disclose explicitly affecting the ongoing scanning of the plurality of high magnification images of the slide by modifying imaging parameters of the scanning profile as a function of the processing of the at least a high magnification image by the inline algorithm pipeline. Pertaining to analogous art, Ba et al. disclose configuring an inline algorithm pipeline for processing a plurality of high magnification images of the slide; (Ba et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0009, Pg. 14 ¶ 0136 - 0141, Pg. 15 ¶ 0146 - 0148, Pg. 16 ¶ 0154 - 0161) scanning, using the scanner, the plurality of high magnification images of the slide as a function of the scanning profile; (Ba et al., Pg. 14 ¶ 0136 - 0140 and 0142, Pg. 15 ¶ 0146 - 0148, Pg. 16 ¶ 0154 - 0161) while scanning the plurality of high magnification images of the slide, processing at least a high magnification image of the plurality of high magnification images, using the inline algorithm pipeline; (Ba et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0009, Pg. 14 ¶ 0136 - 0141, Pg. 15 ¶ 0146 - 0148, Pg. 16 ¶ 0154 - 0161) and affecting the ongoing scanning of the plurality of high magnification images of the slide by modifying imaging parameters of the scanning profile as a function of the processing of the at least a high magnification image by the inline algorithm pipeline. (Ba et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0009, Pg. 14 ¶ 0136 - 0141, Pg. 15 ¶ 0146 - 0148, Pg. 16 ¶ 0154 - 0161) D’Costa et al. and Putman et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that adaptively select imaging settings for imaging a biological sample disposed on a slide based on a classification of the slide. 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 teachings of D’Costa et al. with the teachings of Putman et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of D’Costa et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Putman et al. applied to a comparable device. Capturing and processing a macro image of the slide, as taught by Putman et al., would enhance the base device of D’Costa et al. by enabling an entirety of the slide to be imaged in a single scanning step thereby increasing the overall operational speed of the base device of D’Costa et al. and improving its ability to efficiently and reliably capture high-quality image data of slides. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of D’Costa et al. that a low resolution image of the slide may be initially captured and processed, see at least page 3 paragraph 0017, page 9 paragraphs 0077 and 0081, page 11 paragraph 0092, page 12 paragraph 0101 and page 13 paragraph 0105 of D’Costa et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a macro image of the slide would be captured and processed so as to enable an entirety of a slide to be imaged in a single step and thus improving the ability of the base device of D’Costa et al. to efficiently and reliably capture high-quality image data of slides. In addition, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. and Ba et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that adaptively select imaging settings for imaging a specimen sample. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. with the teachings of Ba et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Ba et al. applied to a comparable device. Affecting the ongoing scanning of the plurality of high magnification images of the slide by modifying imaging parameters of the scanning profile as a function of the processing of the at least a high magnification image by the inline algorithm pipeline, as taught by Ba et al., would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to quickly and efficiently acquire high magnification images of specimen samples that are suitable for subsequent examination since imaging parameters would be adjusted during scanning of the specimen samples until imaging parameters usable for acquiring the high magnification images of the specimen samples that are suitable for subsequent examination are found thereby eliminating unnecessary scanning with unsuitable imaging parameters and increasing the overall operational efficiency and throughput of the combined base device. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of D’Costa et al. that adjustments may be made to the scanning settings while other scans are pending or scheduled, that a focus may be dynamically adjusted as necessary while scanning an area of interest based on a measure of focus quality and that scanning parameters may be adjusted and image data rescanned until a suitable scan is acquired, see at least page 9 paragraph 0077, page 13 paragraphs 0103 and 0106 - 0107 and page 14 paragraphs 0114 - 0117 of D’Costa et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the ongoing scanning of the plurality of high magnification images of the slide by the combined base device would be affected by modifying imaging parameters of the scanning profile as a function of processing a high magnification image by the inline algorithm pipeline so as to enhance the ability of the combined base device to quickly and efficiently identify imaging parameters suitable for acquiring high magnification images of the slide that are suitable for subsequent examination and improve the overall operational efficiency and throughput of the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. with Putman et al. and Ba et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 11.
- With regards to claims 3 and 13, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the metadata comprises: identifying one or more fiducials on the macro image using an image processing algorithm; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0107 - 0108, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the one or more fiducials. (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0073 - 0074, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137)
- With regards to claims 6 and 16, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein: extracting the metadata from the macro image of the slide comprises extracting textual data from a label of the slide using optical character recognition; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0069 - 0070 and 0072 - 0074, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the metadata comprises determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the textual data. (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0069 - 0070 and 0072 - 0074, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137)
- With regards to claims 8 and 18, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: configure, using the APIs, the scanner; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1A - 2B, 2E & 4A - 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017 and 0019 - 0020, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0052, Pg. 6 ¶ 0054 - 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0063, Pg. 7 ¶ 0065 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0076 - 0078, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0084, Pg. 11 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 12 ¶ 0097, Pg. 13 ¶ 0104 and 0108 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0116 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0125 and 0127) image the slide at a magnification using the optical system and optical sensor of the scanner; (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1B - 2C, 6 & 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0012, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 5 ¶ 0050, Pg. 7 ¶ 0062 - 0064, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0078, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 12 ¶ 0101, Pg. 13 ¶ 0105) and process the macro image of the slide using the algorithm pipeline. (D’Costa et al., Figs. 4A - 5E, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0060, Pg. 9 ¶ 0080, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 12 ¶ 0102, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108, Pg. 13 ¶ 0111 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0114, Pg. 15 ¶ 0120) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly image at a macro magnification. Pertaining to analogous art, Putman et al. disclose wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: configure, using the APIs, the scanner; (Putman et al., Figs. 2, 11 & 15A - 16, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 and 0013, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0061, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0083, Pg. 7 ¶ 0085 - 0086, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 10 ¶ 0121, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0126, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0141, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0145, Pg. 14 ¶ 0152, 0157 and 0159 - 0160, Pg. 15 ¶ 0162 - 0163 and 0165) image the slide at a macro magnification using the optical system and optical sensor of the scanner; (Putman et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0060, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 and 0082 [“Specimens as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art refer to an article of examination (e.g., a semiconductor wafer or a biological slide)” and “Lens 34 can have different magnification powers, and/or be configured to operate with brightfield, darkfield or oblique illumination, polarized light, cross-polarized light, differential interference contrast (DIC), phase contrast and/or any other suitable form of illumination. The type of lens used for macro inspection system 100 can be based on desired characteristics, for example, field of view, numerical aperture, among others. In some embodiments, lens 34 can be a macro lens that can be used to view a specimen within a single field of view. Note, the term field of view as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art refers to an area of examination that is captured at once by an image sensor”]) and process the macro image of the slide using the algorithm pipeline. (Putman et al., Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 and 0013, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 6 ¶ 0079 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0083, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0123 - 0126 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0131 - 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0145 - 0147)
- With regards to claims 10 and 20, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein: the scanning profile comprises: a magnification parameter; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 4A - 5E, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 and 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0080, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082, Pg. 13 ¶ 0107 - 0110, Pg. 14 ¶ 0118, Pg. 15 ¶ 0120, Pg. 16 ¶ 0135) and a z-stack layer parameter; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 4A - 5E, Pg. 1 ¶ 0007, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 and 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0080, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082, Pg. 13 ¶ 0107 - 0110, Pg. 14 ¶ 0118, Pg. 15 ¶ 0120, Pg. 16 ¶ 0135) and the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to image the slide using the scanner as a function of the magnification parameter and the z-stack layer parameter. (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Figs. 1B - 2B, 2E, 6 & 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 7 ¶ 0060 - 0064, Pg. 8 ¶ 0072 - 0074, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077 - 0078, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 and 0116 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137)
Claims 2, 9, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Costa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400930 A1 in view of Putman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042884 A1 in view of Ba et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233347 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of O’Dea U.S. Publication No. 2005/0131856 A1.
- With regards to claims 2 and 12, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein retrieving the scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide comprises: selecting the scanning profile from a plurality of scanning profiles as a function of the classification category; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 2A, 2B, 2E, 6 & 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137) maintaining a corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile; (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0073, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137 [“barcode info can indicate a certain type of slide (e.g., type of cancer and type of stain) and the scanning device can recognize that type of slide and set scanning settings associated with that specific type of slide”]) and selecting the selected scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category. (D’Costa et al., Pg. 8 ¶ 0073, Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 15 ¶ 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0137 [“barcode info can indicate a certain type of slide (e.g., type of cancer and type of stain) and the scanning device can recognize that type of slide and set scanning settings associated with that specific type of slide.”]) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of selection weights corresponding the plurality of scanning profiles; incrementing a utilization datum of the selected scanning profile, wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for the corresponding pair; and updating a selection weight of the selected scanning profile, wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles. Pertaining to analogous art, Putman et al. disclose wherein retrieving the scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide comprises: selecting the scanning profile from a plurality of scanning profiles as a function of the classification category; (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 12 ¶ 0134 - 0137) maintaining a corresponding pair of the classification category of the slide and the scanning profile; (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0013, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 6 ¶ 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0125 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - 0137, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0147) and selecting the selected scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent slides assigned to the classification category. (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0013, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 6 ¶ 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0125 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - 0137, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0147) Putman et al. fail to disclose explicitly selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of selection weights corresponding the plurality of scanning profiles; incrementing a utilization datum of the selected scanning profile, wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for the corresponding pair; and updating a selection weight of the selected scanning profile, wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles. Pertaining to analogous art, O’Dea discloses selecting the scanning profile from a plurality of scanning profiles as a function of a category and a plurality of selection weights corresponding the plurality of scanning profiles; (O’Dea, Abstract, Fig. 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0007 and 0013, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040 - 0042, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045, 0048 and 0051 - 0052, Pg. 5 ¶ 0054 - 0055 [“The settings configured by the user are recorded at the user interface 140. Counters for the settings are incremented based on usage and/or time, for example. When the user returns to use the ultrasound system again, the settings may be loaded based on previous usage patterns. The system ‘remembers’ the settings/functions/options that the user commonly uses when operating the system 100”]) incrementing a utilization datum of the selected scanning profile, (O’Dea, Fig. 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 and 0048, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0055) wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for a corresponding pair of the category and the scanning profile; (O’Dea, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0026, 0028 - 0029 and 0031, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040 - 0042, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 - 0048 and 0051 - 0052, Pg. 5 ¶ 0054 - 0055) and updating a selection weight of the selected scanning profile, (O’Dea, Fig. 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 and 0048, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0055) wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles for subsequent imaging assigned to the category. (O’Dea, Fig. 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045 - 0048, Pg. 4 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0055) D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. and O’Dea are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that adaptively select imaging settings for capturing an image of a biological specimen. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of O’Dea. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the well-known and applicable technique O’Dea applied to a similar device. Selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of scanning profiles, incrementing a utilization datum of the selected scanning profile, wherein the utilization datum and the plurality of selection weights are maintained for the corresponding pair, and updating a selection weight of the selected scanning profile, wherein updating the selection weight modifies a relative ranking of the plurality of scanning profiles, as taught by O’Dea, would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to quickly and reliably identify the scanning profile that is likely to be most suitable for capturing an image of the specimen that facilitates accurate analysis and examination of the specimen since the scanning profile that is most frequently utilized for imaging a specimen type of the specimen would be tracked, retrieved and utilized as the scanning profile for image capture of the specimen type of the specimen. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the scanning profile that is most frequently utilized for imaging a specimen type of the specimen would be selected, tracked and utilized as the scanning profile for image capture of the specimen so as to improve the ability of the combined base device to quickly and reliably identify the scanning profile that is likely to be the most suitable for capturing an image of the specimen that facilitates accurate analysis and examination of the specimen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with O’Dea to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 12.
- With regards to claims 9 and 19, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein retrieving the scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide comprises: retrieving a plurality of scanning profiles; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 2A, 2B, 2E, 6 & 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 - 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0084, Pg. 11 ¶ 0096, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108 and 0112, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0120, 0125 and 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0129 and 0137) and selecting the scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles. (D’Costa et al., Figs. 2A, 2B, 2E, 6 & 7, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 - 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0077, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0084, Pg. 11 ¶ 0096, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108 and 0112, Pg. 14 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 15 ¶ 0120, 0125 and 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0129 and 0137) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly retrieving a plurality of scanning profiles from a profile look up table; and selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of scanning profiles. Pertaining to analogous art, Putman et al. disclose wherein retrieving the scanning profile as a function of the classification category of the slide comprises: retrieving a plurality of scanning profiles from a profile look up table. (Putman et al., Pg. 10 ¶ 0120 - 0121, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 and 0129 - 0130, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 and 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0140 and 0143 - 0147, Pg. 14 ¶ 0151 - 0152) Putman et al. fail to disclose explicitly selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of scanning profiles. Pertaining to analogous art, O’Dea discloses selecting the scanning profile from the plurality of scanning profiles as a function of a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of scanning profiles. (O’Dea, Abstract, Fig. 7, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0007 and 0013, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031, Pg. 3 ¶ 0040 - 0042, Pg. 4 ¶ 0045, 0048 ad 0051 - 0052, Pg. 5 ¶ 0054 - 0055 [“The settings configured by the user are recorded at the user interface 140. Counters for the settings are incremented based on usage and/or time, for example. When the user returns to use the ultrasound system again, the settings may be loaded based on previous usage patterns. The system ‘remembers’ the settings/functions/options that the user commonly uses when operating the system 100”]) 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with additional teachings of Putman et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Putman et al. applied to a comparable device. Retrieving a plurality of scanning profiles from a profile look up table, as taught by Putman et al., would enhance the combined base device by facilitating its ability to store scanning profiles for subsequent access and use and by allowing for scanning profiles suitable for imaging and analysis of various different specimens to be quickly and easily located, accessed and utilized since the plurality of scanning profiles would be stored in association with data indicating their suitability for imaging and examination of various different specimen types. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a plurality of scanning profiles would be stored in a profile look up table so as to facilitate the quick and efficient retrieval of a suitable scanning profile for imaging various slides. In addition, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. and O’Dea are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that adaptively select imaging settings for capturing an image of a biological specimen. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of O’Dea. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the well-known and applicable technique O’Dea applied to a similar device. Selecting the scanning profile as a function of a plurality of weights associated with the plurality of scanning profiles, as taught by O’Dea, would enhance the combined base device by improving its ability to quickly and reliably identify the scanning profile that is most likely to be suitable for capturing an image of the specimen that facilitates accurate analysis and examination of the specimen since the scanning profile that is most frequently utilized for imaging a specimen type of the specimen would be retrieved and utilized as the scanning profile for image capture. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the scanning profile that is most frequently utilized for imaging a specimen type of the specimen would be selected and utilized as the scanning profile for image capture so as to improve the ability of the combined base device to quickly and reliably identify the scanning profile that is likely to be the most suitable for capturing an image of the specimen that facilitates accurate analysis and examination of the specimen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with additional teachings of Putman et al. and O’Dea to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9 and 19.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Costa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400930 A1 in view of Putman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042884 A1 in view of Ba et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233347 A1 as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Gallagher-Gruber et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0090238 A1.
- With regards to claims 4 and 14, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 3 and 13, respectively, wherein imaging the slide as a function of the scanning profile comprises: detecting a region of interest of the slide using the macro image, (D’Costa et al., Pg. 4 ¶ 0042, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 12 ¶ 0102, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0113 - 0114) wherein the region of interest encompasses one or more fiducials bounding a pathology sample; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 5A - 5E, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042 - 0043, Pg. 10 ¶ 0082 - 0083, Pg. 12 ¶ 0102, Pg. 13 ¶ 0106 - 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0113 - 0114) and imaging a high-magnification image of the region of interest using the optical system and optical sensor of the scanner. (D’Costa et al., Figs. 2A, 2B, 2D, 2E & 5A - 5E, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0007, Pg. 7 ¶ 0062 - 0064, Pg. 8 ¶ 0070 and 0072 - 0073, Pg. 9 ¶ 0079 - 0081, Pg. 10 ¶ 0083 - 0084, Pg. 12 ¶ 0101 - 0102, Pg. 13 ¶ 0105 - 0109, Pg. 14 ¶ 0113 - 0114, Pg. 15 ¶ 0119 - 0120 and 0128) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly training a region machine-learning model using region training data, wherein the region training data comprises slide images correlated to labeled regions; and detecting, using a region machine-learning model, a region of interest of the slide. Pertaining to analogous art, Gallagher-Gruber et al. disclose training a region machine-learning model using region training data, wherein the region training data comprises slide images correlated to labeled regions; (Gallagher-Gruber et al., Figs. 12A - 12C, 14A & 14B, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0032, Pg. 15 ¶ 0171 - Pg. 16 ¶ 0175, Pg. 17 ¶ 0182 - Pg. 18 ¶ 0185, Pg. 19 ¶ 0196 - Pg. 20 ¶ 0198) and detecting, using a region machine-learning model, a region of interest of the slide using the image, wherein the region of interest encompasses one or more fiducials bounding a sample. (Gallagher-Gruber et al., Figs. 8, 12A - 12C, 14A & 14B, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0032 and 0035, Pg. 6 ¶ 0117, Pg. 12 ¶ 0150 - 0152, Pg. 15 ¶ 0171 - Pg. 16 ¶ 0175, Pg. 17 ¶ 0182 - Pg. 18 ¶ 0185, Pg. 20 ¶ 0198) D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. and Gallagher-Gruber et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that adaptively select imaging settings for imaging a specimen sample. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of Gallagher-Gruber et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the region of interest detection method of D’Costa et al. with the region of interest detection technique of Gallagher-Gruber et al. The region of interest detection technique of Gallagher-Gruber et al. could be substituted in place of the region of interest detection method of D’Costa et al. utilizing well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that in the combination the trained machine-learning model of Gallagher-Gruber et al. would be utilized to detect the region of interest. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a trained machine-learning model would be utilized to detect the regions/areas of interest of the slide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with Gallagher-Gruber et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 14.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Costa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400930 A1 in view of Putman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042884 A1 in view of Ba et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233347 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yip et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0166381 A1.
- With regards to claims 5 and 15, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein: extracting the metadata from the macro image of the slide comprises determining a circularity of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of a low-resolution image using an image processing algorithm. (D’Costa et al., Abstract, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042 - 0043, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046, Pg. 9 ¶ 0080 - Pg. 10 ¶ 0083, Pg. 12 ¶ 0101 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0108, Pg. 14 ¶ 0113 [“detecting AOIs that are round or circular in nature.”]) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly the macro image; and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the circularity of the pathology sample. Pertaining to analogous art, Putman et al. disclose determining a classification of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of a macro image using an image processing algorithm; (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0060, Pg. 5 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 7 ¶ 0083, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0134 - 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0145 - 0146) and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the classification of the pathology sample. (Putman et al., Fig. 15B, Pg. 1 ¶ 0013, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 6 ¶ 0082, Pg. 8 ¶ 0094, Pg. 11 ¶ 0124 - 0125 and 0129, Pg. 12 ¶ 0133 - 0136, Pg. 13 ¶ 0143 - 0147) Putman et al. fail to disclose explicitly determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the circularity of the sample. Pertaining to analogous art, Yip et al. disclose determining a circularity of a pathology sample of the slide as a function of the image using an image processing algorithm; (Yip et al., Fig. 41, Pg. 6 ¶ 0088 - 0090, Pg. 8 ¶ 0111 - 0114, Pg. 9 ¶ 0118 and 0121, Pg. 14 ¶ 0171 - 0172, Pg. 16 ¶ 0185 and 0190 - 0191, Pg. 17 ¶ 0193, Pg. 19 ¶ 0219, Pg. 24 ¶ 0262, Pg. 26 ¶ 0291 - 0292, Pg. 27 ¶ 0297, Pg. 30 ¶ 0345 - Pg. 31 ¶ 0352, Pg. 31 ¶ 0354 - 0356, Pg. 39 ¶ 0423 - 0424, Pg. 40 ¶ 0429 - 0430) and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the metadata comprises determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the circularity of the pathology sample. (Yip et al., Pg. 2 ¶ 0014, Pg. 3 ¶ 0017, Pg. 5 ¶ 0085, Pg. 6 ¶ 0088 - 0090, Pg. 14 ¶ 0171 - 0172, Pg. 19 ¶ 0219, Pg. 24 ¶ 0262, Pg. 27 ¶ 0297, Pg. 30 ¶ 0345 - Pg. 31 ¶ 0351 [“architecture 1200 recognizes various pixel data patterns in the portion of the digital image that is located within or near each small square tile and assigns a tissue class label to each small square tile based on those detected pixel data patterns”, “The pixel data patterns that the algorithm detects may represent visually detectable features. Some examples of those visually detectable features may include color, texture, cell size, shape, and spatial organization” and “The shape of individual cells, specifically how circular they are, can indicate what type of cell they are. Fibroblasts (stromal cells) are normally elongated and slim, while lymphocytes are very round. Tumor cells can be more irregularly shaped”]) D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. and Yip et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that capture and analyze images of biological specimens. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of Yip et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the slide classification process of D’Costa et al. with the slide classification technique of Yip et al. The slide classification technique of Yip et al. could be substituted in place of the slide classification process of D’Costa et al. utilizing well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a classification category of the slide would be determined as a function of the circularity of the pathology sample. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Putman et al. that computer vision and/or artificial intelligence techniques can be utilized to perform classification of specimens, see at least page 12 paragraph 0135 and page 13 paragraphs 0145 - 0149 of Putman et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a classification category of the slide would be determined as a function of the circularity of the pathology sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with Yip et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 15.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Costa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0400930 A1 in view of Putman et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0042884 A1 in view of Ba et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233347 A1 as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Linhart et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0068571 A1.
- With regards to claims 7 and 17, D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. disclose the apparatus and method of claims 6 and 16, respectively, wherein determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the textual data comprises: extracting one or more keywords from the textual data; (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1B & 5A - 5E, Pg. 8 ¶ 0069 - 0070 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 10 ¶ 0085, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0111, Pg. 15 ¶ 0126 - 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0136 - 0137) and determining the classification category of the slide as a function of the one or more keywords. (D’Costa et al., Figs. 1B & 5A - 5E, Pg. 8 ¶ 0069 - 0070 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 10 ¶ 0085, Pg. 11 ¶ 0092, Pg. 13 ¶ 0111, Pg. 15 ¶ 0126 - 0127, Pg. 16 ¶ 0136 - 0137) D’Costa et al. fail to disclose explicitly using a natural language processing algorithm. Pertaining to analogous art, Linhart et al. disclose extracting one or more keywords from the textual data using a natural language processing algorithm. (Linhart et al., Pg. 12 ¶ 0168 - 0169, Pg. 12 ¶ 0172 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0176 [“in a condition that the LIS information includes a textual data element describing a physician's report of a mammography scan, and the report includes indications of suspected lesions and/or areas of calcification, QC 140 may be adapted to extract words of interest (e.g., mammogram, calcification, lesion, BRCA (Breast Cancer gene), etc.) from the physician's report... Additionally, or alternatively, QC 140 may include or may employ at least one sub-module, such as a natural language processing (NLP) module 141, adapted to extract the words of interest.”]) D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. and Linhart et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that capture and analyze images of biological specimens. 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 combined teachings of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the teachings of Linhart et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Linhart et al. applied to a similar device. Utilizing a natural language processing algorithm to extract one or more keywords from textual data, as taught by Linhart et al., would enhance the combined base device by facilitating its ability to accurately, reliably and efficiently identify pertinent text of interest, keywords, from the textual data that relate to the classification category of the slide thereby helping ensure robust and dependable category classification of slides based on textual data extracted from slide labels by the combined base device. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a natural language processing algorithm would be utilized to extract the one or more keywords from the textual data so as to enable the combined base device to accurately, reliably and efficiently identify pertinent text of interest, keywords, from the textual data that relate to the classification category of the slide in order to help ensure robust and dependable category classification of slides based on textual data extracted from slide labels by the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine D’Costa et al. in view of Putman et al. in view of Ba et al. with Linhart et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights