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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Entenberg et al., (US 2020/0352516 A1) referred to as ENTENBERG hereinafter in view of Shavit et al., (US 2020/0312614 A1) referred to as SHAVIT hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, ENTENBERG shows an apparatus, comprising the ability to:
receive a low resolution image of the sample (Paragraphs [0012], [0079], [0129]);
perform a first image processing operation on the low resolution image to determine regions of interest (ROIs) of the sample within the low resolution image (Paragraphs [0129], [0134-0136], 0139]);
select one or more of the determined ROIs for high resolution imaging based on the determination or an input from a user (Paragraphs [0129], [0134-0136]);
receive high resolution images of the selected ROIs of the sample from the imaging device (Paragraphs [0013]-[0018]);
perform a second image processing operation on the high resolution images to generate processed high resolution images (Paragraphs [0119], [0158-0159]);
and generate a signal indicative of the processed high resolution images (Paragraphs [0119]-[0120], [0158]-[0159]).
However, ENTENBERG fails to but SHAVIT does specifically show a processor capable of being communicatively coupled to an imaging device that is configured to image a sample (FIG. 8, 502);
and a memory operatively coupled to the processor (FIG. 8, 504), the memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute operations.
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT mainly because using a memory and processor is common knowledge in the art at this level of sophistication but specifically because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 4, ENTENBERG shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further correlating the optimized image data to quantify structures in the optimized image data corresponding to a medical indication (Paragraphs [0134]-[0136]).
However, ENTENBERG fails to but SHAVIT does specifically show wherein the second image processing operation includes:
performing a set of image processing operations on the high resolution images to obtain optimized image data (Paragraphs [0047]-[0050]);
classifying pixels in the optimized image data into one or more classes (Paragraphs [0033], [0038], [0050]);
segmenting the optimized image data based on features of interest (Paragraphs [0033], [0038]-[0039], [0050]); and
quantifying the optimized image data ([0049]-[0051]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 5, ENTENBERG shows the limitations as per Claim 4 above, wherein the set of image processing operations include at least one of flat fielding the set of images, stitching the set of images, registration of the set of images, autocropping the set of images, or fusion of the set of images (Paragraphs [0013], [0047], [0128]-[0129]).
Regarding Claim 8, ENTENBERG shows a system comprising:
an imaging device configured to capture images of a sample (Paragraph [0085]);
receive the high resolution images from the imaging device (Paragraphs [0013]-[0018]);
and process the high resolution images to generate processed high resolution images (Paragraphs [0119], [0158]-[0159]);
However, ENTENBERG fails to but SHAVIT does specifically show a computing system communicatively coupled to the imaging device (FIG. 8, entire), the computing system including:
a processor communicatively coupled to the imaging (FIG. 8, 502);
a memory operatively coupled to the processor (FIG. 8, 504), the memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute operations including:
transmit a first signal to the imaging device, the first signal configured to cause the imaging device to capture a low resolution image of the sample (Paragraphs [0035]-[0037], [0040]);
receive the low resolution image from the imaging device (Paragraphs [0035]-[0037], [0040]);
process the low resolution image to determine regions of interest (ROIs) of the sample within the low resolution image (Paragraphs [0037]-[0039]);
select one or more of the determined ROIs for high resolution imaging based on the determination or an input from a user (Paragraphs [0040]-[0045]);
transmit a second signal to the imaging device, the second signal configured to cause the imaging device to capture high resolution images of the selected ROIs (Paragraphs [0040]-[0045]);
and generate a signal indicative of the processed high resolution images (Paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 9, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 8 above, further wherein:
the imaging device includes a low resolution objective and a high resolution objective, the causing the imaging device to capture the low resolution image includes causing the imaging device to use the low resolution objective to capture the low resolution image of the sample, and the causing the imaging device to capture the high resolution images includes causing the imaging device to use the high resolution objective to capture the high resolution image of the ROIs (SHAVIT: Paragraphs [0085], [0121], [0129]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 12, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 9 above, further wherein:
the imaging device includes a detector configured to capture optical signals received from the sample, and capturing the low resolution image includes down sampling of optical signals received from the sample (SHAVIT: Paragraphs [0035]-[0037], [0040]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 15, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 8 above, further wherein the second image processing operation includes:
performing a set of image processing operations on the high resolution images to obtain optimized image data, classifying pixels in the optimized image data into one or more classes;
segmenting the optimized image data based on features of interest, quantifying the optimized image data and correlating the optimized image data to quantify structures in the optimized image data corresponding to a medical indication (Paragraphs [0033], [0038]-[0040], [0047]-[0050] all disclose the various steps needed to perform somewhat routine processing operations on high resolution images.).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding Claim 16, ENTENBERG shows an apparatus, comprising the ability to:
receive a set of images of the sample captured by the imaging device (Paragraphs [0012]-[0016], [0079]-[0080]);
perform a set of image processing operations on the set of images to obtain optimized image data (Paragraphs [0119], [0158]-[0159]);
classify pixels in the optimized image data into one or more classes (Paragraphs ([0134]-[0136]);
segment the optimized image data based on features of interest (Paragraphs [0129], [0134]-[0136], [0139]);
quantify the optimized image data (Paragraphs [0135], [0139], [0149], [0159], [0173]);
correlate the optimized image data to quantify structures in the optimized image data corresponding to a medical indication (Paragraphs [0134]–[0136], [0173], [0178], [0182]);
and generate a signal indicative of a medical indication (Paragraphs [0134]–[0136], [0173], [0178], [0182]).
However, ENTENBERG fails to but SHAVIT does specifically show a processor capable of being communicatively coupled to an imaging device that is configured to image a sample (FIG. 8, 502);
and a memory operatively coupled to the processor (FIG. 8, 504), the memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to execute operations.
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT mainly because using a memory and processor is common knowledge in the art at this level of sophistication but specifically because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 17, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT shows the limitations as per Claim 16 above, wherein the set of images include one or more depth stacks of the sample (ENTENBERG: Paragraphs [0046], [0121]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 18, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 16 above, further wherein the performing the set of image processing operations includes generating synthetic images from the received set of images (SHAVIT: Paragraphs [0040], [0047]-[0050]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 19, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 16 above, further wherein the optimized image data is segmented based on a segmentation criteria, the segmentation criteria based on the features of interest (SHAVIT: Paragraphs [0033], [0038]-[0039], [0050]).
Both ENTENBERG and SHAVIT are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor of processing optical microscopy image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ENTENBERG in the spirit of SHAVIT because SHAVIT seeks to reduce hi-res complexity waste while still preserving the ability to identify salient structures accurately (Background).
Regarding claim 20, ENTENBERG in view of SHAVIT show the limitations as per Claim 916 above, further wherein the set of image processing operations include at least one of flat fielding the set of images, stitching the set of images, registration of the set of images, autocropping the set of images, or fusion of the set of images (ENTENBERG: Paragraphs [0013], [0047], [0128]-[0129]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10-44, 13-14 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights