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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/016,902 filed on 01/10/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1- 3, 6, 8, 11 – 13, 16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,271 B2, hereinafter referred to as 271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims of 271 anticipate those in the Instant Application, since these are more narrowly specified. Details of the claim mapping between claim sets is provided in the table below for reference.
Current Application 19/016,902
US Patent No. 12,354,271 B2
Claim 1. An imaging device for image generation of a specimen, wherein the imaging device comprises circuitry configured to:
capture a first plurality of images of a first location within a first area of interest of a specimen;
compile a first integrated image as a function of the first plurality of images, wherein compiling the first integrated image comprises:
removing a first artifact within the first plurality of images using an artifact machine learning model;
capture a second plurality of images of a second location within the first area of interest of the specimen according to a second parameter set, wherein the second parameter set comprises a second plurality of focus distances;
compile the second plurality of images into a second integrated image; and
display the second integrated image.
Claim 1. An imaging device for image generation of a specimen, wherein the imaging device comprises circuitry configured to:
capture a first plurality of images of a first location within a first area of interest of a specimen according to a first parameter set, wherein the first parameter set comprises a first plurality of focus distances, wherein at least a focus distance of the first plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the first plurality of images;
compile a first integrated image as a function of the first plurality of images, wherein compiling the first integrated image comprises:
removing a first artifact within the first plurality of images using an artifact machine learning model comprising a generative machine learning model;
capture a second plurality of images of a second location within the first area of interest of the specimen according to the second parameter set, wherein the second parameter set comprises a second plurality of focus distances, wherein at least a focus distance of the second plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the second plurality of images;
compile the second plurality of images into a second integrated image;
combine the first integrated image and the second integrated image into a consolidated image; and
display the consolidated image.
Claim 2.
Claim 1.
Claim 3.
Claim 1.
Claim 6.
Claim 1.
Claim 8.
Claim 1.
Claim 11. A method for image generation of a specimen, wherein the method comprises:capturing, using an imaging device, a first plurality of images of a first location within a first area of interest of a specimen;
compiling, using the imaging device, a first integrated image as a function of the first plurality of images, wherein compiling the first integrated image comprises:
removing a first artifact within the first plurality of images using an artifact machine learning model;
capturing, using the imaging device, a second plurality of images of a second location within the first area of interest of the specimen according to a second parameter set, wherein the second parameter set comprises a second plurality of focus distances;
compiling, using the imaging device, the second plurality of images into a second integrated image; and
displaying, using a graphical user interface, the second integrated image.
Claim 1.
Claim 12.
Claim 1.
Claim 13.
Claim 1.
Claim 16.
Claim 1.
Claim 18.
Claim 1.
Nonetheless, claim 1 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1 U.S. Patent No. 12,354,271 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim claims 1 U.S Patent No. 12,354,271 B2
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 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.
Claim 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al (US 2021/0151287 A1) in view of Rutenberg et al. (US 2009/0046909 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyde discloses: “an imaging device for image generation of a specimen [see abstract; A method and system for analyzing a specimen in a microscope are disclosed], wherein the imaging device comprises circuitry configured to:
capture a first plurality of images of a first location within a first area of interest of a specimen [see para: 0008; acquiring a series of compound image frames using a first detector and a second detector, different from the first detector, wherein acquiring a compound image frame comprises: a) causing a charged particle beam to impinge upon a plurality of locations within a region of a specimen];
compile a first integrated image as a function of the first plurality of images, wherein compiling the first integrated image [see para: 0021; Typically, all images are either transferred to a visual display unit and shown side-by-side or combined into a single composite colour image using techniques] comprises:
capture a second plurality of images of a second location within the first area of interest of the specimen according to a second parameter set, wherein the second parameter set comprises a second plurality of focus distances [see abstract: a second set of resulting particles generated within the specimen at the plurality of locations using the second detector, so as to obtain a second image frame, wherein each image frame comprises a plurality of pixels corresponding to];
compile the second plurality of images into a second integrated image [see para: 0021; Typically, all images are either transferred to a visual display unit and shown side-by-side or combined into a single composite colour image using techniques]; and
display the second integrated image [see para: 0021; Typically, all images are either transferred to a visual display unit and shown side-by-side or combined into a single composite colour image using techniques].
Hyde does not explicitly disclose: “removing a first artifact within the first plurality of images using an artifact machine learning model”.
However, Rutenberg, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “removing a first artifact within the first plurality of images using an artifact machine learning model [see para: 0028; This process is repeated until all z-image slices 20 have been processed. Once this is completed, the software is programmed to smooth the z-index buffer S10 using, for example, a Gaussian or Mean Filter to remove any incidental noise caused by the sharpness operator mentioned above. Using the smoothed z-index buffer, the software is configured to copy the sharpest pixels from each z-image slice S11 to build the in-focus composite EDF image S12];
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing specimen in a microscope system disclosed by Hyde to add the teachings of Rutenberg as above, in order to provide a means for improving image clarity or any types of noise in the image that captured during observation, gaussian or mean filter as discussed above can be applied to the captured images and remove any artifacts [Rutenberg see para: 0028].
Regarding claim 2, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hyde discloses: “wherein capturing the first plurality of images of the first location within the first area of interest of the specimen [see para: 0008; acquiring a series of compound image frames using a first detector and a second detector, different from the first detector, wherein acquiring a compound image frame comprises: a) causing a charged particle beam to impinge upon a plurality of locations within a region of a specimen] comprises capturing the first plurality of images of the first location within the first area of interest of the specimen according to a first parameter set [see para: 0050; In other words, the spatial coordinates, which may include position in the X, Y, and Z axes in a Cartesian coordinate system, as well as degrees of tilt and rotation of the specimen. Brightness and contrast may be configured for each of the first and second detectors].
Regarding claim 4, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hyde discloses: “wherein the first parameter set comprises X and Y coordinates of a location of the specimen [see para: 0050; The position and orientation may be configured for the specimen, or in particular configured for a specimen stage adapted to hold the specimen. In other words, the spatial coordinates, which may include position in the X, Y, and Z axes in a Cartesian coordinate system, as well as degrees of tilt and rotation of the specimen].
Regarding claim 5, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hyde discloses: “wherein: the specimen is disposed on a slide [Hyde see Fig. 1]; and
capturing the second plurality of images of the second location comprises moving the slide from the first location to the second location [see para: 0088; During the acquiring of frames, a user of the electron microscope system may be causing the field of view of the microscope to cover different regions of a specimen by moving the sample stage, and may periodically slow or stop the movement of the stage in order to accumulate second image frame data for specific regions of interest as they are discovered].
Regarding claim 6, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hyde discloses: “wherein displaying the second integrated image comprises:
combining the first integrated image and the second integrated image into a consolidated image [see para: 0011; Furthermore, the display of the combined first and second image types in the compound image frame in real-time as the series of compound images are acquired means that such actions can be performed “on the fly”, without pausing or interrupting the navigation of the specimen by the user]; and
displaying the consolidated image [see para: 0011; Furthermore, the display of the combined first and second image types in the compound image frame in real-time as the series of compound images are acquired means that such actions can be performed “on the fly”, without pausing or interrupting the navigation of the specimen by the user].
Regarding claim 7, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 6 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hyde discloses: “wherein the consolidated image comprises a whole image of at least a portion of the specimen [see para: 0011; Furthermore, the display of the combined first and second image types in the compound image frame in real-time as the series of compound images are acquired means that such actions can be performed “on the fly”, without pausing or interrupting the navigation of the specimen by the user].
Regarding claim 9, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hyde does not explicitly disclose: “wherein removing the first artifact within the first plurality of images using the artifact machine learning model comprises identifying the first artifact within the first plurality of images using a machine vision system”.
However, Rutenberg, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein removing the first artifact within the first plurality of images using the artifact machine learning model comprises identifying the first artifact within the first plurality of images using a machine vision system [see para: 0028; This process is repeated until all z-image slices 20 have been processed. Once this is completed, the software is programmed to smooth the z-index buffer S10 using, for example, a Gaussian or Mean Filter to remove any incidental noise caused by the sharpness operator mentioned above. Using the smoothed z-index buffer, the software is configured to copy the sharpest pixels from each z-image slice S11 to build the in-focus composite EDF image S12].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analyzing specimen in a microscope system disclosed by Hyde to add the teachings of Rutenberg as above, in order to provide a means for improving image clarity or any types of noise in the image, Gaussian or Mean Filter as discussed can be applied to the captured images and remove any artifacts [Rutenberg see para: 0028].
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 9.
Claim 3, 8, 10, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al (US 2021/0151287 A1) in view of Rutenberg et al. (US 2009/0046909 A1) and further in view of Harfouche et al. (US 2022/0179187 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hyde and Rutenberg does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the first parameter set comprises a first plurality of focus distances, wherein at least a focus distance of the first plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the first plurality of images”.
However, Harfouche, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the first parameter set comprises a first plurality of focus distances, wherein at least a focus distance of the first plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the first plurality of images [see para: 0088; for identifying cameras whose image data showing no features of interest so that the image data from these cameras can be excluded from being sent for subsequent data analysis, for computing focus measures from the sub-images to determine optimum focus distances for refocusing the cameras on the sample, for repositioning the cameras, the camera array, or the sample holder in order to refocus the features on the images recaptured by the cameras, for identifying cameras whose image data showing out-of-focus feature images after the repositioning process so that the image data from these cameras can be excluded from being sent for subsequent data analysis].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by Hyde to add the teachings of Rutenberg as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Harfouche to provide a means for improving cameras focusing system, plurality of image will be captured and focus distance can be measured based on image clarity or as needed [Harfouche see para: 0088].
Regarding claim 8, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hyde and Rutenberg does not explicitly disclose: “wherein at least a focus distance of the second plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the second plurality of images”.
However, Harfouche, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein at least a focus distance of the second plurality of focus distances corresponds to at least an image of the second plurality of images [see para: 0088; for identifying cameras whose image data showing no features of interest so that the image data from these cameras can be excluded from being sent for subsequent data analysis, for computing focus measures from the sub-images to determine optimum focus distances for refocusing the cameras on the sample, for repositioning the cameras, the camera array, or the sample holder in order to refocus the features on the images recaptured by the cameras, for identifying cameras whose image data showing out-of-focus feature images after the repositioning process so that the image data from these cameras can be excluded from being sent for subsequent data analysis].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by Hyde to add the teachings of Rutenberg as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Harfouche to determine focus distance by identifying specific cameras and in a situation where images are not clear enough or blurry, camera lenses can be refocused and distance can be measured [Harfouche see para: 0088].
Regarding claim 10, Hyde and Rutenberg disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hyde and Rutenberg does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the imaging device comprises an actuator mechanism configured to change a position of a specimen relative to an optical system”.
However, Harfouche, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the imaging device comprises an actuator mechanism configured to change a position of a specimen relative to an optical system [see para: 0075; In some embodiments, multiple linear actuators can be in contact with different areas of the sample holder, such as at 4 corners of the sample or the sample holder to control its vertical position and tip/tilt. In addition, one or more actuators on either side of the sample or the sample holder can move inwards or outwards to curve the sample or the sample holder, to bring different areas of the sample into focus or out of focus].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by Hyde to add the teachings of Rutenberg as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Harfouche to provide mechanical structure such actuator that helps to move around the stage or specimen holder in a specific direction [Harfouche see para: 0075].
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Husemann et al (US 2021/0026126 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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, Jamie J. Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486