Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 have been canceled. Claims 10-24 are pending and are examined on the merits herein.
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.
Claim(s) 10,12-15,17-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayot (20190244354) in view of Zaninovic (20210272282).
Regarding claim 10, Nayot teaches a method of classifying eggs, the method comprising receiving, using control circuitry, first images of fertilized eggs (par. 32 and 37),
labeling, using the control circuitry, the first images with known classifications (par. 32, milestone),
training, using the control circuitry, a model to detect the known classifications based on the first images par. 38 and 43, training and features),
receiving, using the control circuitry, a second image of an unfertilized egg with an unknown classification (par. 38 and 47, unfertilized egg),
inputting, using the control circuitry, the second image into the trained artificial neural network (par. 38, multiple images are used),
and receiving, using the control circuitry, a prediction from the trained artificial neural network that the second image corresponds to one or more of the known classifications (par. 51, percentage).
An artificial neural network that it is trained based on the first images of the fertilized eggs are not taught by Nayot.
Zaninovic teaches these limitations in claim 1 and claim 5, a CNN and classes.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Nayot’s trained predictive image model as a convolutional artificial neural network trained using pre-classified images of artificially fertilized eggs as taught by Zaninovic. The reason to combine is to employ Zaninovic’s known convolutional-neural-network image-classification and supervised-training technique in Nayot’s predictive model to provide automated image feature extraction and classification of reproductive outcomes, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, see Nayot par. 51
Regarding claim 13, see Nayot par. 37.
Regarding claim 14, see Nayot pars. 37 and 51
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 22, see the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, see the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, see the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 11,16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayot in view of Zaninovic in further view of Wong (20130162795).
Nayot and Zaninovic do not teach that the first images of the fertilized eggs are acquired prior to a first cell split.
Wong teaches time-lapse imaging of human embryos, acquiring images of the fertilized egg prior to the first cell split (see Wong par 17, 74 and 86, time-lapse images at intervals, including prior to the first split).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to in include in Nayot and Zaininovic the ability to acquire the first images of the fertilized eggs prior to the first cell split as taught by Wong in order to capture the early cell division timing shown to be predictive of blastocyst formation and embryo viability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Targosz. (“Semantic segmentation of human oocyte images using deep neural networks”) teaches deep-neural-network classification of images of unfertilized human eggs (oocytes).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights