DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025, 07/25/2025, and 07/27/2026 have been considered.
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 conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,751. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims correspond as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1,
A method of self-testing an imaging system of a sample handling apparatus, comprising:
mounting a self-test slide within a sample handling apparatus comprising an imaging system, wherein the mounted self-test slide is positioned with respect to an image sensor of the imaging system, the self-test slide comprising a pattern positioned on an optically transparent substrate, wherein the pattern comprises an array of first features and at least one second feature comprising a reference side, wherein the reference side is rotated at a non-zero angle with respect to an edge of the array of first features and wherein the at least one second feature comprises four second features, each of the four second features being positioned adjacent to a corner of the pattern; (‘751 claim 1, mounting a self-test slide within a sample handling apparatus including an imaging system, wherein the mounted self-test slide is positioned with respect to an image sensor of the imaging system, the self-test slide comprising a pattern positioned on an optically transparent substrate, wherein the pattern includes an array of first features and at least one second feature including a reference side, wherein the array of first features has a minimum linear density greater than or equal to four pixels, and wherein the reference side is rotated at non-zero angle with respect to an edge of the image sensor)
acquiring, by the image sensor, image data representing a single image of the pattern; (‘751 claim 1, acquiring, by the image sensor, image data representing a single image of the pattern)
receiving, by a data processor, the single image of the pattern; (‘751 claim 1, receiving, by a data processor, the single image of the pattern)
determining, by the data processor based upon the received single image of the pattern, at least one of a linear distortion error or a non-linear distortion error for an optical system; (‘751 claim 1, determining, by the data processor based upon the received single image of the pattern, at least one of a linear distortion error or a non-linear distortion error for an optical system)
comparing, by the data processor, at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold;(‘751 claim 1, comparing, by the data processor, at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold)
outputting, by the data processor, a first annunciation when at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is greater than or equal to the corresponding registration error threshold; (‘751 claim 1, outputting, by the data processor, a first annunciation when at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is greater than or equal to the corresponding registration error threshold) and
outputting, by the data processor, a second annunciation, different than the first annunciation, when the at least one of determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is less than the corresponding registration error. (‘751 claim 1, outputting by the data processor, a second annunciation, different than the first annunciation, when the at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is less than the corresponding registration error)
Regarding claim 2,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the data processor based upon the received single image of the pattern, both the linear distortion error and the non-linear distortion error for the optical system comprising the image sensor; (‘741 claim 2, determining, by the data processor based upon the received single image of the pattern, both the linear distortion error and the non-linear distortion error for the optical system including the image sensor)
comparing, by the data processor, both the determined linear distortion error and non- linear distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold; (‘741 claim 2, comparing, by the data processor, both the determined linear distortion error and non-linear distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold)
outputting the first annunciation when at least one of the determined linear distortion error and the non-linear distortion error is greater than or equal to the corresponding registration error threshold; (‘741 claim 2, outputting the first annunciation when at least one of the determined linear distortion error and the non-linear distortion error is greater than or equal to the corresponding registration error threshold) and
outputting a second annunciation, different from the first annunciation, when the determined linear distortion error and the determined non-linear distortion error are less than the corresponding registration error. (‘741 claim 2, outputting a second annunciation, different from the first annunciation, when the determined linear distortion error and the determined non-linear distortion error are less than the corresponding registration error)
Regarding claim 3,
The method of claim 1, further comprising mounting at least one optically transparent blank slide within the sample handling apparatus, wherein the at least one optically transparent blank slide is adjacent to the self-test slide when data is acquired. (‘741 claim 3, mounting at least one optically transparent blank slide within the sample handling apparatus, wherein the at least one blank side is adjacent to the self-test slide when data is acquired)
Regarding claim 4,
The method of claim 1, wherein the array of first features is arranged in a rectangular shape. (‘741 claim 4, wherein the array of first features is arranged in a rectangular shape)
Regarding claim 5,
The method of claim 1, wherein a center-center spacing between nearest neighbor first features is approximately equal. (‘741 claim 5, wherein a center-center spacing between nearest neighbor features is approximately equal)
Regarding claim 6,
The method of claim 1, wherein the array of first features has a minimum linear density greater than or equal to four pixels. (‘741 claim 6, wherein the array of first features has a minimum linear density of four pixels)
Regarding claim 7,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first features are dots and the at least one second feature comprises a square. (‘741 claim 7, wherein the first features are dots and at least one second feature is a square)
Regarding claim 8,
The method of claim 7, wherein a diameter of the dots is less than a side length of the square. (‘741 claim 8, wherein a diameter of the dots is less than a side length of the square)
Regarding claim 10,
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second feature comprises a polygon. (‘741 claim 7, wherein the first features are dots and at least one second feature is a square. Examiner notes a square is a polygon)
Regarding claim 11,
The method of claim 1, wherein the first features are not lines. (‘741 claim 11, wherein the first features are not lines)
Regarding claim 15,
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the linear distortion error comprises: (‘741 claim 14, wherein determining the linear distortion error comprises)
detecting the array of first features of the pattern; (‘751 claim 14, detecting the array of first features of the pattern)
registering the detected array of first features with an ideal array of first features using a two-dimensional similarity transformation; (‘751 claim 14, registering the detected array of first features with an idea array of first features using a two-dimensional similarity transformation) and
estimating the linear distortion error from a registration error extracted from the registered array of first features. (‘751 claim 14, estimating the linear distortion error from a registration error extracted from the registered array of first features)
Regarding claim 16,
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the non-linear distortion error comprises: (‘751 claim 15, wherein determining the non-linear distortion error comprises)
detecting the array of first features of the pattern; (‘751 claim 15, detecting the array of first features of the pattern)
registering the detected array of first features with an ideal array of first features using a homography transformation; (‘751 claim 15, registering the detected array of first features with an ideal array of first features using a homography transformation)and
estimating the non-linear distortion error from a registration error extracted from the registered array of first features. (‘751 claim 15, estimating the non-linear distortion error from a registration error extracted from the registered array of first features)
Regarding claim 17,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting, by the data processor, features within one or more predetermined regions of the single image of the pattern; (‘751 claim 16, detecting, by the processor, features within one or more predetermined regions of the single image of the pattern)
applying, by the data processor, a similarity transformation to the single image of the pattern to generate transformed test pattern features; (‘751 claim 16, applying, by the data processor, a similarity transformation to the single image of the pattern to generate a transformed test pattern)
determining, by the data processor, a transformation error between the transformed test pattern features and transformed ideal test pattern features; (‘751 claim 16, determining by the data processing, a transformation error between the transformed test pattern features and transformed ideal test pattern features)
comparing, by the data processor, a first similarity transformation error to a second similarity transformation error; (‘751 claim 16, comparing, by the data processor, a first similarity transformation error to a second similarity transformation error)
outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the first similarity transformation error is greater than or equal to a similarity transformation error threshold; (‘751 claim 16, outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the first similarity transformation error is greater than or equal to a similarity transformation error threshold) and
outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the first similarity transformation error is less than the similarity transformation error threshold. (‘751 claim 16, outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the first similarity transformation error is less than the similarity transformation error threshold)
Regarding claim 18,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying, within a user interface of the sample handling apparatus, the single image of the pattern and a query prompting a user to provide input regarding whether or not an entire pattern is visible therein; (‘751 claim 17, displaying, within a user interface of the sample handling apparatus, the single image of the pattern and a query prompting a user to provide input regarding whether or not an entire pattern is visible therein)
receiving, by the data processor via the user interface, a user input in response to the displayed query; (‘751 claim 17, receiving, by the data processor via the user interface via a user input in response to the displayed query)
outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the user input is a negative reply; (‘751 claim 17, outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the user input is a negative reply) and
outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the user input is a positive reply. (‘751 claim 17, outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the user input is a positive reply)
Regarding claim 19,
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the data processor from a single test image pattern data, a first illumination at a selected edge of the acquired image and a second illumination at a center of the acquired image; (‘751 claim 18, determining, by the data processor from a single test image pattern data, a first illumination at a selected edge of the acquired image data and a second illumination at the center of the acquired image)
determining, by the data processor, an illumination difference between the first and second illumination; (‘751 claim 18, determining, by the data processor, an illumination difference between the first and second illumination)
comparing, by the data processor, the illumination difference to an illumination difference threshold; (‘751 claim 18, comparing, by the data processor, the illumination difference to an illumination difference threshold)
outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the illumination difference is greater than or equal to the illumination difference threshold; (‘751 claim 18, outputting, by the data processor, the first annunciation when the illumination difference is greater than or equal to the illumination difference threshold) and
outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the illumination difference is less than the illumination difference threshold. (‘751 claim 18, outputting, by the data processor, the second annunciation when the illumination difference is less than the illumination difference threshold)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 12-14 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination the Examiner is interpreting the claim as having equal spacing.
The term “approximately” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim has having arrays of first features which are the same.
Claim 14 depends from claim 12 and is therefore also rejected.
The term “approximately” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim having the same magnitudes of the angles of rotation.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are not rejected under the prior art and would be in condition for allowance if the above double patenting and 112 rejections were overcome.
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding claim 1, neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination thereof, teaches:
A method of self-testing an imaging system of a sample handling apparatus, comprising:
mounting a self-test slide within a sample handling apparatus comprising an imaging system, wherein the mounted self-test slide is positioned with respect to an image sensor of the imaging system, the self-test slide comprising a pattern positioned on an optically transparent substrate, wherein the pattern comprises an array of first features and at least one second feature comprising a reference side, wherein the reference side is rotated at a non-zero angle with respect to an edge of the array of first features and wherein the at least one second feature comprises four second features, each of the four second features being positioned adjacent to a corner of the pattern;
acquiring, by the image sensor, image data representing a single image of the pattern;
receiving, by a data processor, the single image of the pattern;
determining, by the data processor based upon the received single image of the pattern, at least one of a linear distortion error or a non-linear distortion error for an optical system;
comparing, by the data processor, at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold;
outputting, by the data processor, a first annunciation when at least one of the determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is greater than or equal to the corresponding registration error threshold; and
outputting, by the data processor, a second annunciation, different than the first annunciation, when the at least one of determined linear distortion error or the non-linear distortion error is less than the corresponding registration error.
Ortyn (US 5,875,258) teaches a method for calibrating subsystems in a biological imaging apparatus. See Abstract. Ortyn fails to teach the determination of a linear or a non-linear distortion error as claimed.
Sheridan (US 2003/0027342) teaching the imaging of slides with fiducial markers in order to determine the proper placement of a specimen on the slide. While Sheridan mentions that non-linear distortions may be determine (See [0057]), Sheridan fails to teach the comparison of a distortion error to a corresponding registration error threshold.
Oyama (US 2010/021809) teaches a calibration of a camera using a patterned image. See Abstract. Oayama teaches determining a degree of image distortion (See [0050-0051]), however, Oyama does not teach the linear or non-linear distortions as claimed nor the comparison toa registration error threshold.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 and would therefore also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Wilburn whose telephone number is (571)272-3589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights