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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that,
“Independent claim 1 has been amended to clarify that each digital image data set of the plurality of digital image data sets represents a respective digital image comprising pixels and pertaining to a position of a plurality of positions of the sample. As amended, claim 1 is directed to a method in which a plurality of respective digital images is captured at respective sample positions, a compressed digital representation is formed for each such digital image data set, and the resulting compressed digital representations are arranged in a data structure to form a common compressed digital representation of the sample. The data structure includes, for each compressed digital representation, information pertaining to the position of the sample associated with the corresponding digital image data set captured by the image sensor. A region of interest is then identified based on a pixel value of the common compressed digital representation.
In contrast, Peng relates to digital pathology and, more particularly, to a method for generating ground truth masks in a digital image of a tissue sample using restaining (see, e.g., [0001] and [0006]). Peng obtains first and second images of the same tissue specimen stained with different staining agents, registers those images, receives data indicating a region of interest in the second image, and determines a ground truth mask in the first image based on the received data indicating the region of interest in the second image (see [0007]). According to Peng, the data indicating the region of interest in the second image is either formed by a user or algorithmically (see [0007]). However, Peng does not disclose forming, for each of a plurality of digital image data sets representing respective digital images at respective sample positions, a corresponding compressed digital representation, nor arranging such compressed digital representations in a position-associated data structure to form a common compressed digital representation of the sample.
The Office Action appears to rely on Peng's down-sampled image data as allegedly corresponding to the claimed plurality of digital image data sets. However, a pixel or group of pixels within a down-sampled image is not a digital image data set representing a respective digital image pertaining to a position of the sample, as now expressly recited in amended claim 1. At most, Peng discloses operations on image data of an image used in a restaining and mask- generation workflow. Such disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which a plurality of compressed digital representations is generated from respective digital image data sets and assembled into a common compressed digital representation that retains position information for the corresponding sample positions.
[…]
Even assuming, arguendo, that the combination of Peng and Kang is proper, which is not conceded, would result, at most, in using Kang to down-sample one of Peng's magnified images, which would merely provide a lower-resolution version of an image used in Peng's restaining/mask-generation process. Such a modification would not result in the subject-matter of amended claim 1.”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that a portion of a digital image is a digital image. Because “a pixel or group of pixels within a down-sampled image” is clearly a portion of a digital image, it is a digital image data set representing a respective digital image pertaining to a position of the sample.
Further, since the original image is down-sampled, the down-sampled image has fewer pixels than the original image, thus being in a compressed digital representation of the original image.
For example, assuming the original image has N pixels and it is down-sampled by reducing groups of n pixels to groups of m pixels, wherein m, n are integers and m less than n. Thus, there are N/n digital image data sets, each image data set forming a set of m combined pixels and N/n sets of m combined pixels form a compressed digital representation. It is compressed from the original image at a compression ratio of m/n.
Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2020/0372235 A1 – hereinafter Peng) and Kang (US 2004/0114688 A1 – hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a method for identifying a region of interest of a sample (Fig. 1; [0039]; [0053] – a method for detecting a region of interest of a tissue sample), the method comprising: capturing, by an image sensor, a plurality of digital image data sets, each digital image data set representing a respective digital image comprising pixels and pertaining to a position of a plurality of positions of the sample (Fig. 1; [0039] – capturing, by a camera within a scanner, a digital image, which is the second digital magnified image at step 120 of Fig. 2 – the digital image data comprise a plurality of digital image data sets, which is equal to a number of pixels in the down-sampled image described at least in [0046], each of such digital image data sets comprising corresponding pixels in the original digital image data which are reduced to a corresponding pixel in the down-sampled image at corresponding position – also see “Response to Arguments” above); forming a common compressed digital representation ([0046] – forming a down-sampled image data which corresponds to a common compressed representation of the original image); and identifying a region of interest of the sample based on a pixel value of the common compressed digital representation ([0053] – in case the second image is down-sampled, detecting a region of interest of the sample based on the pixels’ intensity of the down-sampled image).
However, Peng does not disclose for each digital image data set: forming a set of combined pixels, each combined pixel having a pixel value, and wherein each pixel value is determined based on at least one of an intensity value and a color value pertaining to a subset of pixels of the digital image data set, and forming a compressed digital representation comprising the set of combined pixels; arranging the compressed digital representations in a data structure, thereby forming a common compressed digital representation of the sample, wherein the data structure for each compressed digital representation includes information pertaining to a position of the plurality of positions of the sample of the digital image data set associated with the compressed digital representation.
Kang discloses for each digital image data set: forming a set of combined pixels, each combined pixel having a pixel value, and wherein each pixel value is determined based on at least one of an intensity value and a color value pertaining to a subset of pixels of the digital image data set ([0067] – for each group of several pixels, forming a set of combined pixels comprising at least a single pixel having the average pixel value of the group), and forming a compressed digital representation comprising the set of combined pixels ([0067] – generating a compressed digital representation comprising the new pixel having average pixel value of the corresponding group); arranging the compressed digital representations in a data structure, thereby forming a common compressed digital representation of the sample, wherein the data structure for each compressed digital representation includes information pertaining to a position of the plurality of positions of the sample of the digital image data set associated with the compressed digital representation ([0067] – arranging the compressed digital representations in a data structure, which is the down-sampled image by substituting each of the new pixels in the appropriate place in an approximated image, which is a data structure and thereby forming the common compressed digital representation).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the method taught by Peng to down-sample the second image to effectively lower the image resolution while minimizing noise and preserving overall trends of pixel values in the original image.
Regarding claim 2, see the teachings of Peng and Kang as discussed in claim 1 above, in which Kang also discloses each pixel value of the sets of combined pixels is an average value, a median value, or a sum of the subset of pixels of the respective digital image data set ([0067] – at least an average value).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Kang into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Peng in view of Kang also discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein each set of combined pixels consists of one combined pixel ([0046] –each of such digital image data sets comprising corresponding pixels in the original digital image data which are reduced to a corresponding pixel in the down-sampled image at corresponding position).
Regarding claim 4, Peng in view of Kang also discloses the method according to any one of claims 1, wherein the subset of pixels of the digital image data set consists of all pixels of the digital image data set ([0046] – each of such digital image data sets comprising corresponding pixels in the original digital image data which are reduced to a corresponding pixel in the down-sampled image at corresponding position).
Regarding claim 5, Peng in view of Kang also discloses the method according to any one of claims 1, wherein the subset of pixels ([0046] – the subset of pixels is selected is a predetermined subset of pixels according to a specific selected sub-sampling, i.e. which specific “several pixels” are selected for a group).
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Peng also disclosing a device for identifying a region of interest of a sample (Fig. 1 – a device shown in Fig. 1), comprising: an image sensor ([0039] – a camera); and circuitry configured to execute the recited functions (see discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 11, Peng in view of Kang also discloses the according to claim 6, wherein the device is a camera ([0039]).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Peng also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising program code portions that, when executed on a device comprising processing capabilities and an image sensor, performs the method according to claim 1 ([0032] - implemented by appropriate computer programs carried on tangible carrier media (e.g. disks) run on computers).
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Kang as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Vizi et al. (US 2011/0279667 A1 – hereinafter Vizi).
Regarding claim 13, see the teachings of Peng and Kang as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Peng and Kang do not explicitly disclose moving, using a stage, the sample relative to the image sensor to position the sample at each of the plurality of positions for the capturing.
Vizi discloses moving, using a stage, a sample relative to an image sensor to position the sample at each of a plurality of positions for capturing ([0005] – by moving the sample stage).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Vizi into the method taught by Peng and Kang in order to capture the image of samples of large size that cannot be entirely captured in one single capturing.
Regarding claim 14, see the teachings of Peng and Kang as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Peng and Kang do not explicitly disclose the plurality of digital image data sets are captured without individually focusing the image sensor on each of the plurality of positions of the sample.
Vizi discloses a plurality of digital image data sets are captured without individually focusing an image sensor on each of a plurality of positions of a sample ([0005] – by moving the sample stage instead of changing the position of the focal spot).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Vizi into the method taught by Peng and Kang in order to conveniently capture the image of samples of large size that cannot be entirely captured in one single capturing.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 13 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 14 above.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Kang as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Dominguez et al. (US 2015/0358571 A1 – hereinafter Dominguez).
Regarding claim 15, Peng in view of Kang also discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein identifying the region of interest based on the pixel value of the common compressed digital representation ([0053] – based on pixel’s intensity of the digital image in case the digital image is a common compressed digital representation by being down-sampled as described at least in [0046]). However, Peng and Kang do not explicitly disclose identifying the region of interest comprises comparing the pixel value to a threshold value.
Dominguez discloses identifying a region of interest comprises comparing a pixel value of a digital representation to a threshold value ([0201]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Dominguez into the method taught by Peng and Kang to take advantage of characteristics of pixel values of the region of interest to simplify the identifying process.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 15 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights