Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation "the weights" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the weights" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner suggests amending claims 6 and 7 to depend from claim 5 which includes sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent literature Hongen Liao et al. “Automatic Focusing and Robotic Scanning Mechanism for Precision Laser Ablation in Neurosurgery”, of record and hereinafter referred to as D1, in view of Kriz et al. (US 2023/0394852 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, D1 discloses a controller and a method for controlling an imaging system, which is configured to acquire an image of a first type of an object, and to set one or more imaging parameters (PC, Fig 1. CCD camera Fig 2. “observing the target” p. 326 lines 26-29), wherein
the controller is configured to:
determine a region of interest at the object, based on an image of a second type, wherein the second type is different from the first type (selection/identification of tumors in fluorescence images, p 326 scanning the tumor and measuring the spectra of the fluorescence);
control the imaging system to automatedly set said one or at least one of the one or more imaging parameters, based on the region of interest (See p. 327, col 1 lines 8-10 and col 2 lines 1-16); and
control the imaging system to acquire the image of the first type of the object (See p. 327, col 1, line 8-10 and col 2 Line 1-16).
D1 does not explicitly disclose setting one or more imaging parameters in an automated manner.
Kriz discloses that it was known to automatically select a region of interest in a microscope based on a fluorescence image and automatically set parameters based on a selected region of interest (See [0013] [0027-0028] [0030]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of D1 with the known methods of Kriz predictably resulting in setting image parameters in an automated manner by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of improving speed, accuracy, and reliability relative to relying on a human microscopist as suggested by Kriz.
Regarding claim 2, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 1, wherein the one or more imaging parameters include: a focus, an exposure time, and/or an aperture (See D1 p 328 Table 1 and Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 1 wherein the image of the second type is, comprises or is based on at least one of: a fluorescence image, an image derived or calculated from a fluorescence image, a reflectance image, and an image derived or calculated from a reflectance image (See D1 p 326 col 2 fluorescence imaging used to set parameters).
Regarding claim 9, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 1 being further configured to cause the imaging system to set the at least one of the one or more imaging parameters in an automated manner further based on the image or several images of the second type (See D1 p 326 col 2 fluorescence imaging used to set parameters).
Regarding claim 10, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 1, wherein the imaging system is further configured to acquire the image of the second type of the object (See D1 p 326 col 2 fluorescence imaging used to set parameters).
Regarding claim 11, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 10, being further configured to receive the image of the second type from the imaging system (See D1 p 327 col 2 calculating the fluorescence intensity from the spectral data, i.e., controller processing received image data).
Regarding claim 12, D1 and Kriz further disclose the controller of claim 1 being further configured to receive the image of the second type from an external entity which is different from the imaging system (See D1 p 326 the video camera can be read as the imaging system and the fluorescence probe can be interpreted as an external entity causing the imaging system to receive the image of the second type).
Regarding claim 13, D1 and Kriz further disclose a system comprising the controller of claim 1 and the imaging system (See D1, Fig 2, Fig 3 and p 326 Col 1).
Regarding claim 15, D1 and Kriz further disclose the system of claim 13 further comprising a microscope which comprises or is configured as the imaging syste (See D1 Fig 2, Fig 3, p326 col 1).
Regarding claim 17, D1 and Kriz further disclose a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium containing a computer program with a program code, which upon being executed by one or more processors or a controller, provided for execution of the method of claim 16 (See D1 Fig 2, Fig 3, p326 col1).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Non-patent literature Hongen Liao et al. “Automatic Focusing and Robotic Scanning Mechanism for Precision Laser Ablation in Neurosurgery”, of record and hereinafter referred to as D1, in view of Kriz et al. (US 2023/0394852 A1) in further view of Yanase (US 2022/0043247 A1).
Regarding claim 3, D1 and Kriz disclose the controller of claim 1 but do not explicitly disclose the image of the first type is or comprises a white light image.
Yanase discloses that it was known to for a white light interference microscope to autofocus (See [0103-0105]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Yanase predictably resulting in the image of the first type is or comprises a white light image by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of operating with a different spectrum of light.
Regarding claim 8, D1 and Kriz disclose the controller of claim 1 but do not explicitly disclose further configured to cause the imaging system to set the at least one of the one or more imaging parameters in an automated manner further based on the image or several images of the first type.
Yanase discloses that it was known to for a white light interference microscope to autofocus (See [0103-0105]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Yanase predictably resulting in the image of the first type is or comprises a white light image and setting image parameters based on the first image by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of operating with a different spectrum of light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, all of the features of dependent claims 5-7 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
