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
This application is the U.S. nation stage of PCT/US2023/066141 filed on 04/24/2023 which claims priority of Provisional application 63/335,086 filed on 04/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (“IDS”) filed on 07/03/2025 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 49-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
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.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 46 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to function as the units of the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Computer programs, per se, are not in one of the statutory categories of invention because a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer - the computer program itself is not a process. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer-readable storage medium also comprises transitory forms of signal transmission, signals per se, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave which is not one of the statutory categories of invention. MPEP § 2106. The Examiner suggests that Claim 46 should be rephrased as: "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs..." in order to overcome this rejection.
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 1-3, 9, 15, 17-18, 20, 22-25, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen et al. (US 20210097684 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20100168763 A1), Cali et al. (US 20180140362 A1), and Regev et al. (US 20220042097 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mellen teaches "A visualization system comprising one or more processors, a memory, and a display, the memory storing instructions for evaluating a biological sample on a substrate through a method comprising:"; (Mellen, FIG. 1A and Paras. 10 and 90, teaches a visualization system comprising processors, a display, and memory wherein images are taken of a tissue section from the biological sample overlaid on a substrate);
"A) displaying, on the display, an image of the biological sample, as a plurality of pixels in electronic form, wherein the image includes a plurality of glyphs that are also on the substrate and wherein the plurality of pixels comprises at least 100,000 pixels"; (Mellen, Paras. 10, 56, and 132, teaches the substrates have printed visible "fiducial" marks that the visualization module identifies in the images and performs alignment of the printed array pattern to the substrate and wherein black circles are used to approximate the sizes of the fiduciary markers superimposed on an image in which the image includes visible spots in the locations of the fiduciary markers on the substrate and wherein each two-dimensional image comprises at least 100,000 pixel values, i.e., displaying an image of the biological sample as a plurality of pixels in which the image includes glyphs on the substrate being the visible fiducial marks in which the pixels comprises at least 100,000 pixels);
"
"
"
"E) receiving one or more indications of a set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample within the image"; (Mellen, FIG. 4 and Para. 33, teaches assigning first subset of probe spots to the first cluster and second subset of probe spots to the second cluster in response to user selection of probe spots using the displayed pixel values, i.e., receive indications of a set of pixels that depict biological samples within the image being the clusters indicating biological samples).
However, Mellen does not explicitly teach “B) receiving a respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates within the image of a corresponding location of each respective glyph in at least a subset of the plurality of glyphs, wherein the subset of glyphs comprises three or more glyphs; C) using (i) the respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of each glyph in the subset of the plurality of glyphs and (ii) an electronically stored fiducial pattern that includes the plurality of glyphs to calculate and display, without human intervention, an initial alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern; D) receiving instructions to adjust the initial alignment in the form of a change in the respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of one or more glyphs in the subset of the plurality of glyphs, thereby forming an updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern; and F) outputting an identification of each respective capture spot in a plurality of capture spots encompassed by the set of pixels to an output construct, wherein each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots is identified within the image based on the updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Zhao teaches "B) receiving a respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates within the image of a corresponding location of each respective glyph in at least a subset of the plurality of glyphs, wherein the subset of glyphs comprises three or more glyphs"; (Zhao, FIG. 13B and Paras. 122-125, teaches four circles used as 2-D markers wherein pose estimation can be accomplished using the locations within the image of the four localizer circles, i.e., receive indication of 2D coordinates in the image of locations of respective glyphs in which the glyphs comprise three or more glyphs being the 2D locations of the four 2D localizer circle markers);
"C) using (i) the respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of each glyph in the subset of the plurality of glyphs and (ii) an electronically stored fiducial pattern that includes the plurality of glyphs to calculate and display, without human intervention, an initial alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern"; (Zhao, Paras. 122-127 and FIG. 20D, teaches the location of detected 2-D blobs being the 2-D marker patterns within a full pattern hypothesis can be compared with locations of information bits of a candidate marker patter model that has been aligned with the full pattern hypothesis wherein alignment of a candidate marker pattern with a marker image can be accomplished by estimating the 3-D pose of the marker relative to the imaging device and aligning a candidate marker with the estimated pose in which Figure 20D displays a candidate marker pattern being aligned with the image full pattern hypothesis and the location of candidate marker pattern features relative to the image, i.e., use the 2-D coordinates of glyphs and the stored fiducial pattern to calculate and display an alignment between the image and the fiducial patter being the 2-D blob/marker locations candidate marker patter being aligned with the full pattern hypothesis).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen by including the receiving of the location of each glyph and using the location and a pattern for alignment taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it provides improved pose estimates (Zhao, Para. 14, teaches the motivation of combination to be to provide improved image-derived tool pose estimates with reduced sensitivities to adverse conditions).
However, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao does not explicitly teach “D) receiving instructions to adjust the initial alignment in the form of a change in the respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of one or more glyphs in the subset of the plurality of glyphs, thereby forming an updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern; and F) outputting an identification of each respective capture spot in a plurality of capture spots encompassed by the set of pixels to an output construct, wherein each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots is identified within the image based on the updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Cali teaches "D) receiving instructions to adjust the initial alignment in the form of a change in the respective indication of corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of one or more glyphs in the subset of the plurality of glyphs, thereby forming an updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern"; (Cali, Claims 9-11 and Para. 60, teaches identifying a location of each of the plurality of fiducial markers wherein the location of these markers must also be digitally placed into the 3D model during the preprocessing step so that the physical locations exactly match the corresponding positions in the virtual world and calculating a relative location of the target area and generating the projection of the 3D reconstruction based on the calculated relative location of the target area in which maintaining alignment includes user adjustment of the alignment between the projection and the user's actual view and updating the projection in response to the adjustments, i.e., receive instructions to adjust the initial alignment in the form of a change in the coordinates of the glyphs and forming an updated alignment being the user adjustment of alignment and updating of the projection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen and Zhao wherein alignment is between the image and the stored pattern by including the adjusting an initial alignment of positions of the glyphs for an updated alignment taught by Cali. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the tracking (Cali, Para. 34, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the tracking of target areas).
However, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao and Cali does not explicitly teach “and F) outputting an identification of each respective capture spot in a plurality of capture spots encompassed by the set of pixels to an output construct, wherein each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots is identified within the image based on the updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Regev teaches "and F) outputting an identification of each respective capture spot in a plurality of capture spots encompassed by the set of pixels to an output construct"; (Regev, Paras. 618-619, teaches an output .tsv file which contains barcode spots as centroid pixel coordinates of the detected grid as well as determining if the spot is detected as under the tissue section area wherein the images are scaled to 500x500 pixels and the position of all ST spots are reconstructed through registering barcode spots through blob detection and an intermediate report notifies the user of irregularities in the automatic alignment process and allows for visual inspection, i.e., output identification of each capture spot encompassed by the set of pixels to an output construct being the output of barcode spots as centroid pixel coordinates of the detected grid as a .tsv file from the pixel image);
"wherein each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots is identified within the image based on the updated alignment between the image and the electronically stored fiducial pattern"; (Regev, Para. 530, teaches assigning image pixel coordinates to the centroids of each bead well to ensure proper alignment of tissue boundaries in the image and select the barcodes located spatially underneath the tissue boundaries, i.e., capture spots in the image are identified based on alignment being the assigning of coordinates to each bead well with proper alignment).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, and Cali wherein the alignment is an updated alignment between the image and the fiducial pattern by including the capture spots being identified based on the alignment taught by Regev. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it ensure proper alignment (Regev, Para. 530, teaches the motivation of combination to be to ensure proper alignment).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the identification of each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots includes the updated alignment"; (Regev, Para. 530, teaches assigning image pixel coordinates to the centroids of each bead well to ensure proper alignment of tissue boundaries in the image and select the barcodes located spatially underneath the tissue boundaries, i.e., identification of capture spots being the assigning of coordinates of the bead wells includes the alignment being the proper alignment of tissue boundaries and barcodes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 2. Thus, the system recited in claim 2 is met by Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the identification of each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots includes corresponding two-dimensional coordinates of each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots within the image derived from the updated alignment"; (Regev, Para. 530, teaches assigning image pixel coordinates to the centroids of each bead well to ensure proper alignment of tissue boundaries in the image and select the barcodes located spatially underneath the tissue boundaries, i.e., identification of capture spots including coordinates of each capture spot being the assigning of pixel coordinates to the centroids of each bead well derived from the alignment being the ensuring of proper alignment of the tissue boundaries of the image and the barcodes).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 3. Thus, the system recited in claim 3 is met by Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the biological sample is a sectioned tissue sample having a depth of 30 microns or less, 10 microns or less, or 5 microns or less"; (Mellen, Para. 140, teaches the tissue sections or cryosections are cut and placed onto substrates in which the cryosections have a thickness of between 5 and 100 microns in which some embodiments the cryosections have a thickness of 10 microns, i.e., biological sample is a sectioned tissue sample having a depth of 30, 10, or 5 microns or less).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein each respective capture spot in the plurality of capture spots is at a different position in a two- dimensional array on the substrate"; (Mellen, Paras. 66 and 273, teaches a tissue sample is placed onto a capture area of a substrate in which each capture area includes preprinted or affixed spots of barcoded capture probes where each such probe spot has a corresponding unique barcode in which the discrete attribute value dataset comprises coordinates in image pixel units of the centers of the spots for each barcode in the feature-barcode matrix, i.e., each capture spot is at a different position in a 2D array on the substrate being the affixed spots of probe spots comprising coordinates for the centers of each spots for each barcode).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the capture area is rectangular, the plurality of glyphs consists of a first, second, third, and fourth glyph, and each respective glyph in the plurality of glyphs is at a corner of the capture area"; (Zhao, FIG. 13B and Paras. 122-125, teaches four circles located in the four corners of a rectangle used as 2-D markers wherein pose estimation can be accomplished using the locations within the image of the four localizer circles, i.e., capture area is rectangular and the glyphs are four glyphs each represent a corner of the capture area).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 17. Thus, the system recited in claim 17 is met by Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the subset of glyphs consists of three glyphs"; (Zhao, Para. 27, teaches one or more markers can include three localizer features, i.e., subset of glyphs consists of three glyphs).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, applies to claim 18. Thus, the system recited in claim 18 is met by Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises receiving a selection of pixels in the plurality of pixels through a lasso input"; (Mellen, Para. 303 and FIG. 6, teaches a user defining a first class of probe spots by using Lasso and selecting displayed probe spots in the upper panel, i.e., receiving indications of pixels that depict the sample comprise a selection of pixel through a lasso input).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for increasing or decreasing a magnification level of the image on the display responsive to a user magnification request"; (Mellen, FIG. 17E and Paras. 285 and 291, teaches a respective user selection being a zooming input resulting in zooming the spatial analysis view into a region of the tissue wherein the displayed size of each probe spot is dynamically altered after the adjustment of the zoom slider, i.e., receiving indication of the pixels that depict the sample comprise increasing or decreasing magnification response to a user request being the dynamic altering of the zoom slider).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 22, wherein the user magnification request is initiated through a magnification affordance displayed on the display or a first or second magnification keyboard shortcut"; (Mellen, FIG. 17E and Paras. 285 and 290-291, teaches a respective user selection being a zooming input resulting in zooming the spatial analysis view into a region of the tissue wherein the displayed size of each probe spot is dynamically altered after the adjustment of the zoom slider, i.e., request is initiated through an affordance displayed on the display being the zoom slider).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for receiving a selection of pixels in the plurality of pixels through a biological sample paint brush having a biological sample paint brush size that paints pixels as belonging to the set of pixels"; (Mellen, FIG. 17E and Para. 291, teaches precisely selecting spots in a spatial context by using paintbrush mode wherein a user may hold down and drag the mouse cursor over spots to select them and assign them to clusters using the menu, i.e., indicating sets of pixels depict the biological sample comprises instructions for receiving pixels through a paint brush tool that the size that paints pixels belongs to the set of pixels).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev teaches "The visualization system of claim 24, wherein the biological sample paint brush is initiated through a biological sample paint brush affordance on the display or a brush keyboard shortcut"; (Mellen, FIG. 17E and Para. 291, teaches paintbrush mode is selected by clicking on the paintbrush affordance).
Claim 46 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Mellen, Paragraph 10).
Claim 47 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Miyata et al. (US 20190287836 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving the respective indication B) further comprises instructions for increasing or decreasing a magnification level of the image on the display responsive to user interaction with a magnification affordance displayed on the display".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Miyata teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving the respective indication B) further comprises instructions for increasing or decreasing a magnification level of the image on the display responsive to user interaction with a magnification affordance displayed on the display"; (Miyata, Para. 44, teaches allowing the operator to operate the arrow keys on the operation panel until the center of the reference mark coincides with a straight line on the target by making adjustments in the low-magnification mode and high-magnification mode, i.e., receive position of glyph and increase or decrease magnification of the image responsive to user interaction with a magnification affordance on the display).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev by including the increasing or decreasing of magnification taught by Miyata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it accurately performs adjustments (Miyata, Para. 44, teaches the motivation of combination to be to easily and accurately perform adjustment by using different modes).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Moen et al. (US 20200364857 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 24, the method further comprising increasing the biological sample paint brush size in response to a first keyboard shortcut or decreasing the biological sample paint brush size in response to a second keyboard shortcut".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Moen teaches "The visualization system of claim 24, the method further comprising increasing the biological sample paint brush size in response to a first keyboard shortcut or decreasing the biological sample paint brush size in response to a second keyboard shortcut"; (Moen, Paras. 9, 224, and 516, teaches receiving a user input to modify a modified brush size using the slider and the keyboard shortcut to change size of the brush tool, i.e., keyboard shortcuts for changing paint brush size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev by including the increasing or decreasing of paint brush size taught by Moen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves segmentation accuracy (Moen, Para. 152, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the accuracy of the segmentations).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Liao et al. (US 20180182105 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises receiving a deselection of pixels through a background paint brush having a deselection brush size that paints pixels as belonging to background rather than the set of pixels".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Liao teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises receiving a deselection of pixels through a background paint brush having a deselection brush size that paints pixels as belonging to background rather than the set of pixels"; (Liao, Para. 11, teaches receiving user input on the segmentation result of the first automatic segmentation process, wherein the user input includes at least one of a background brush and a foreground brush and fixing pixels corresponding to areas indicated by the background brush and the foreground brush respectively, i.e., deselect pixels through a background paint brush that paints pixels belonging to the background being the use of the background brush and a foreground brush and fixing the pixels corresponding to the correct areas respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev by including the deselection of pixels using a background paint brush to paint pixels as belonging to the background taught by Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it updates the segmentation result (Liao, Para. 11, teaches the motivation of combination to be to update the segmentation result).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Jirman (US 20120257072 A1).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for centering the image on the display responsive to a fit to view keyboard shortcut".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Jirman teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for centering the image on the display responsive to a fit to view keyboard shortcut"; (Jirman, Para. 24, teaches allowing a user to view images in a scaled-to-fit mode by using a keyboard shortcut in which the image is zoomed by a predetermined zoom level about the center of the image, i.e., center the image response to a fit to view shortcut).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev wherein indications of the set of pixels depict a biological sample by including the centering of the image responsive to a fit to view shortcut taught by Jirman. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improve the manipulation of the image (Jirman, Para. 24, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve manipulation of an image).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Poynter (US 20020165705 A1).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for removing any pixels in the set of pixels through a deselect all affordance displayed on the display".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Poynter teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for removing any pixels in the set of pixels through a deselect all affordance displayed on the display"; (Poynter, Para. 28, teaches the user may deselect all pixels by pressing the clear display button, i.e., instructions for removing any pixels through a deselect all affordance on the display).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev by including the removal of pixels through a deselect all affordance taught by Poynter. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows the user to design pixel positions (Poynter, Para. 28, teaches the motivation of combination to be to allow the user to design the pixel positions).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, Regev, and Iandolino et al. (US 20210310954 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of references of Mellen in view of Zhao, Cali, and Regev does not explicitly teach "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for including all pixels in the plurality of pixels in the set of pixels through an affordance displayed on the display".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Iandolino teaches "The visualization system of claim 1, wherein the receiving one or more indications of the set of pixels in the plurality of pixels that depict the biological sample E) comprises instructions for including all pixels in the plurality of pixels in the set of pixels through an affordance displayed on the display"; (Iandolino, Para. 69, teaches the operator selects all of the overlay of the region of interest selected and measured from the image, creates selections, edits selection properties, and adds the selection to a manager, i.e., instructions for including all pixels in the set of pixels through an affordance of the display being the operator selecting them all on the display results).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mellen, Zhao, Cali, and Regev by including the inclusion of all pixels through an affordance taught by Iandolino. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it increases efficiency (Iandolino, Para. 66, teaches the motivation of combination to be to increase imaging efficiency).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights