DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of this application being a National Stage of the International Application No. PCT/US2023/061312, filed on January 25, 2023, which claims of priority to and benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/267,129, filed on January 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on July 22, 2024 and February 7, 2025 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 41-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I (i.e., Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15) in the Response to Restriction Requirement filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims directed to Group II (i.e., Claims 17-20 and 22-24) are withdrawn from examination in this office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-20, and 22-24 are pending. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are considered in this office action. Claims 17-20 and 22-24 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 8, 13, 16, and 21 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method directed to temporal tracking movements of subcomponents of cellular structures including organelle in fluorescence microscopy data. With respect to method Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitation “processing the image data to track a movement of individual subcomponents of the network from a first frame to a second frame subsequent to the first frame” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a person or by using a pen and paper (a copy of the microscopy image data), i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). That is, a medical technician may review video frames of cellular structures including organelle networks taken by a fluorescence microscope and track the movement of subcomponents/group from one frame to the next. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas, mental processes for viewing/monitoring/tracking movements between video frames (evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of an analyst).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant claim. The additional element/step in the claim is “obtaining image data of a network in two or three spatial dimensions”, which considered to be extra-solution activity of gathering/obtaining data, which does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the only additional element/steps is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Accordingly, the claim fails under Step 2B, as well. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
In addition, dependent Claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-15 recite additional elements that are not considered significantly more that the identified abstract idea, and therefore, rejected under this section of the rules.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathalie Auriol Compagnone (US 2010/0311101 – IDS).
Consider Claim 1, Compagnone discloses “A method for temporal tracking of cellular structures including organelle networks in fluorescence microscopy data, comprising: obtaining image data of a network in two or three spatial dimensions” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0078], wherein a fluorescence microscope is disclosed to be utilized to obtain data in three spatial dimensions to allow observation of organelles in their physiological context); and processing the image data to track a movement of individual subcomponents of the network from a first frame to a second frame subsequent to the first frame” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0063] discloses “Variations of the motility, the morphology, the relationship with the cell cytoskeleton and the membrane permeability of the labelled organelles are determined by any methods known by the skilled person.” Paragraph [0065] discloses “Organelles are mobile within the cell cytoplasm. They move along the cell microtubule and actin filament network. Labelled organelles are observed in living cells and captured images are then analyzed. Paragraph [0066] discloses “The speed of an organelle' movements is measured by the displacement in µm of this organelle within the lapse of two captured frames).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine various embodiments/teaching of Compagnone to arrive at the invention recited in Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combined the above-recited teachings of Compagnone to determine variation of the motility, morphology and the relationship of the organelle networks (Compagnone, Paragraph [0063]).
Consider Claim 2, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data includes tracking the movement of the individual subcomponents of the network for additional frames until the organelle network is tracked temporally through an entire time course of a dataset” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0066] discloses “This measure is repeated over the total length of the image capture. Speed can be expressed as an average velocity observed for an organelle over the duration of the capture or by the maximal velocity observed for an organelle over the same duration”).
Consider Claim 3, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data comprises obtaining a temporal network that includes topology information of the network preserved in the first frame and the second frame, the temporal network having the two or three spatial dimensions and time component” (Applicant’s specification in Paragraph [0055] discloses “It is assumed that mitochondria network tends to maintain local topology for certain time window”. Compagnone, Paragraph [0070] discloses “In a particular embodiment, the labelled organelle is mitochondria ”. Finally, Compagnone, Paragraph [0078] discloses “the determination of variations (i.e. imaging and measurements) of at least two characteristics, is performed in three spatial dimensions”. Accordingly, the requirement of the recited Claim 3 is satisfied).
Consider Claim 4, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the image data includes obtaining the image data from images that are taken at regular time points” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0114] discloses “Images were captured for 20-40 frames every 3-15 sec” also see Fig. 1, the x-axis, wherein the data is taken at 50 second time-points).
Consider Claim 6, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data includes: segmenting the image data to obtain consecutive volumetric images of the network” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0078] discloses “This procedure allows the elimination of experimental artefacts and thus potential biased results obtainable in studies on isolated organelles”. Paragraph [0083] discloses “several cells from a single sample are imaged and the labelled organelles contained in the cells are followed. Several samples of the same cell type are generally studied”)(emphasis added) Accordingly, Compagnone perform segmentation of the image data in order to be able to follow and study the behavior of the isolated the organelles in the cells).
Consider Claim 7, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data includes: discretizing the network into individual nodes along a skeleton of the network, each node connected to neighboring nodes on the skeleton and having spatial coordinates and tubular width, and assigning features of the network to the individual nodes between the first frame and the second frame” (Compagnone, Paragraphs [0029], [0071]-[0072], and [0109]-[0112]).
Consider Claim 12, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data includes: discretizing the network into individual nodes along a skeleton of the network, each node connected to neighboring nodes on the skeleton and having spatial coordinates and tubular width, and assigning features of the network to the individual nodes between the first frame and the second frame” (Compagnone, Paragraphs [0109]-[0110]).
Consider Claim 14, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the network includes a mitochondrial network, an endoplasmic reticulum, a microtubule network, or an actin cytoskeleton” (Compagnone, Paragraph [0065] discloses a microtube and actin filament network; Paragraph [0086] discloses the measure of mitochondrial motility).
Consider Claim 15, Compagnone discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the first frame and the second frame are separated by a time amount that allows a correlation between the network in the first frame and the second frame” (Compagnone, Paragraphs [0081]-[0082] and [0114]).
Claims 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compagnone in view of Moen et al. (US 2020/0364857).
Consider Claim 5, although as seen in analysis of Claim 1, Compagnone discloses obtaining image data utilizing a fluorescence microscope, Compagnone is not relied on to disclose “wherein obtaining the image data includes obtaining the image data by lattice light-sheet microscopy (LLSM) or confocal microscopy.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Moen discloses “The model can be trained with 3D data over time periods (e.g., long time periods) collected using modern confocal and light sheet microscopes” (Moen, Paragraph [0253]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the Compagnone with the teachings of Moen to obtain the 3D image data by lattice light-sheet microscopy (LLSM) or confocal microscopy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the Compagnone disclosed microscope with the confocal microscope disclosed by Moen, and the produced outcome, i.e., 3D image data, would have been predictable. Accordingly, the combination of Compagnone and Moen discloses the invention of Claim 5.
Consider Claim 9, the combination of Compagnone and Moen discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the image data further includes obtaining a cost matrix for a linear assignment problem (LAP) to capture temporally preserved properties of each subcomponent of the network” (Moen, Paragraph [0123] discloses “Object tracking can be achieved by using a linear programming framework.” In addition, it is disclosed “One complicating factor of biological object tracking is that objects can appear and disappear—this often leads to Ni and Ni+1 being unequal. This problem can be solved by introducing a “shadow object” for each object in the two frames to be compared—Ni+1 shadow objects in frame i and Ni shadow objects in frame i+1. These shadow objects represent an opportunity for objects to “disappear” or to be “born.” This feature can be important, as objects can leave the field of view and events like cell division will lead to objects being “born.” The end result is a cost matrix describing the cost of every possible assignment that is size Ni+Ni+1×Ni+Ni+1.” And finally, it is disclosed “Optimization of the linear assignment approach comes about through cost function engineering.” Finally, Moen, Paragraph [0151] discloses “Solving the linear assignment problem can require first creating a cost matrix, or a cost function that scores each possible assignment”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the Compagnone with the teachings of Moen to arrive at the requirement for Claim 9. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Compagnone and Moen to utilize a cost matrix for a LAP in order to improve object tracking in the cell image data.
Consider Claim 10, the combination of Compagnone and Moen discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein processing the image data further includes: constructing a node dissimilarity score matrix for pairs of the nodes in two frames among the first frame, the second frame, and additional frames; and applying the linear assignment problem using the cost matrix” (Moen, Paragraph [0119] discloses “The method can comprise creating low dimensional summaries of elements within these images and extracting a similarity value between each element in each frame. These values can be used to link related elements across collections of images.” Paragraph [0123] discloses applying the linear assignment problem using the cost matrix). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Compagnone and Moen references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 10 is met by Compagnone and Moen.
Consider Claim 11, the combination of Compagnone and Moen discloses “The method of claim 10, wherein the cost matrix is based on a spatial distance between nodes within the first frame and the second frame and a topology cost assigning a low cost for maintaining a local topology for a certain time window” (Moen, Paragraphs [0123] and [0151] the disclosure of cost engineering). The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Compagnone and Moen references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the method recited in Claim 11 is met by Compagnone and Moen.
Conclusion and Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Budin et al. (US 2020/0017865).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights