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 Interpretation
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “step of acquiring; step of binarizing; acquisition step of inputting” in claims 13,
also “training step of” in claim 14, also “acquisition step of inputting” in claim 16, further “ step of generating” in claim 18,
further “step of inputting” and “step of generating” in claim 20.
Further “step of generating” in claim 24, and “step of inputting” and “step of generating” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claims 13-14,16,18,20 and 24-25 are 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. Since the specification failed to show any structures for claim limitations : “step of acquiring; step of binarizing; acquisition step of inputting” in claims 13,
also “training step of” in claim 14, also “acquisition step of inputting” in claim 16, further “ step of generating” in claim 18,
further “step of inputting” and “step of generating” in claim 20.
Further “step of generating” in claim 24, and “step of inputting” and “step of generating” in claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 30-31 are drawn to a computer readable- medium (also called machine readable medium or storage medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non- transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, even though the specification does show, "non- transitory medium". However, this limitation is not recited in claims 30-31. Claim 30-31 may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to computer readable medium. Please see the memo regarding Eligibility of Computer Readable Media. (1351 OG 212 February 23, 2010).
Examiner suggestion for claim 30 “A non-transitory computer-readable memory storage medium recording an image processing program for executing each step in the image processing method according to claim 13”.
Examiner suggestion for claim 31 “ A non-transitory computer-readable memory storage medium recording an image processing program for executing each step in the image processing method according to claim 24”.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 26-29 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of TAKAHASHI US 20210019499, relates to a technology for automatically generating teaching data to be used for machine learning. TAKAHASHI teaches “generates as the teaching data for machine learning, a label image that represents a location of the removal target region within the first cell image, and a training data set generator that generates a set of the first cell image and the label image as a training data set to be used for machine learning”, further TAKAHASHI teaches “[0077] Though description is given above on the premise that label image 40 is a binarized image, label image 40 does not necessarily have to be a binarized image. By way of example, label image 40 may be labeled in accordance with a type of a removal target”.
TAKAHASHI failed to teach or suggest for “a ground-truth image acquisition procedure to input an unknown labeled image into a pre-trained model trained using the labeled image and the binarized images for the structures, respectively, corresponding to the labeled image, thereby acquiring, as a ground-truth image, a binarized image in which the structures in the unknown labeled image appear plausible, wherein the binarized image in which the structures appear plausible is an image of quality that satisfies predetermined conditions” as recited in independent claims 26.
Further TAKAHASHI failed to teach or suggest for “generate a fourth pre-trained model trained using a non-invasive observation image acquired from an aggregate of biological samples including a first structure, a second structure, and a third structure, each of which is a different structure, by a non-invasive observation technique, and a first ground-truth image, which is a binarized image in which the first structure of the biological samples appears plausible, a procedure to generate a fifth pre-trained model trained using the non-invasive observation image and a second ground-truth image, which is a binarized image in which the second structure of the biological samples appears plausible, and a procedure to generate a sixth pre-trained model trained using the non-invasive observation image and a third ground-truth image, which is a binarized image in which the third structure of the biological samples appears plausible, wherein the binarized image in which the first structure, the second structure, or the third structure appears plausible is an image of quality that satisfies predetermined conditions”. As cited in independent claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 15,17,19 and 21-23 would be in allowable condition, if applicant overcome the above rejections.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson et al. US 11803963, is cited because the reference teaches “Deep artificial neural networks (ANNs), commonly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), can be used for analyzing labeled or unlabeled images of a biological specimen” see background.
Collazo et al. US 20230274562, is cited because the reference teaches “The specimen 300 can be any type of biological sample used for medical analysis. For example, the specimen 300 can be a biopsy or a surgical specimen placed onto a glass slide for microscopic examination to study the manifestations of disease”, in [0038].
AIDT US 20230368504, is cited because the reference teaches “systems, and apparatuses for implementing sequential imaging of biological samples for generating training data for developing deep learning-based models for image analysis, for cell classification, for feature of interest identification, and/or for virtual staining of biological samples’, in [0002].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights