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 § 101 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, or else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant is advised to consult the 2019 PEG for more details of the analysis. Step 1 According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-8, 9-16 are directed to a system, and method of operating of an optical system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A, Step 2A, Prong 1 Following the determination of whether or not the claims fall within one of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity) (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this case, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception as explained below. Regarding Claims 1 and 9 these claims recite receiving input data from an object through the first lens; performing a first Fourier transform on the input data through the kernel; generating learning data by performing calculation on a result of the first Fourier transform and pattern data; and generating result data by performing a second Fourier transform on the learning data, wherein the input data, the learning data, and the result data include both a positive number and a negative number. The claims recite a mental process. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. These are recited at a high level such that they could be performed mentally, and they are also disclosed as a human user performing these functions, simply using a computer as a tool-see spec, [0018]-[0020], Fig. 1, etc. Thus, the claim recites abstract ideas. Step 2A, Prong 2 Following the determination that the claims recite a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, Prong 2). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as explained below. In Prong Two, a claim is evaluated as a whole to determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. A claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception, and thus is patent eligible, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims recite recite an abstract idea and further the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). Regarding Claims 1 these claims This limitation is understood to be generic computer equipment and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.0S(f)) Step 2B Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons given above in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis. Furthermore, each additional element identified above as being insignificant extra-solution activity is also well-known, routine, conventional as described below. Claims 1 and 9 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The underlying concept merely receives information, analyzes it, and store the results of the analysis – this concept is not meaningfully different than concepts found by the courts to be abstract (see Electric Power Group , collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis; see Cybersource , obtaining and comparing intangible data; see Digitech , organizing information through mathematical correlations; see Grams , diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results; see Cyberfone , using categories to organize store and transmit information; see Smartgene , comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options). Further the claimed invention appears to be something that can be performed by head and hand (Gottschalk v. Benson). The claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem (DDR v. Hotels.com). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites generating learning data by performing calculation on a result of the first Fourier transform and pattern data; and generating result data by performing a second Fourier transform on the learning data, wherein the input data, the learning data, and the result data include both a positive number and a negative number. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the computer art. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2A/2B Prong 2 Dependent Claims Regarding to claim 2, 10 Claim 2, 10 merely recite other additional elements that defining phases of an image which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 3, 11 Claim 3, 11 merely recite other additional elements that defining the kernel which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 4, 6, 12, 14 Claim 4, 6, 12, 14 merely recite other additional elements that calculating the learning data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 5, 7, 13, 15 Claim 5, 7, 13, 15 merely recite other additional elements that calculating the result data which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. Regarding to claim 8, 16 Claim 8, 16 merely recite other additional elements that the disclose the result data are input to a ReLU function which performing generic functions that when looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, these claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are not patent eligible. CLAIM INTERPRETATION The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03) (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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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 35 112, 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: 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; 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 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. (FP 7.30.05) 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 limitation(s) is/are: a kernel in claim 1 . 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. (FP 7.30.06) 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 4-7 and 12-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Referring to claim 4-7 and 12-15, c laims 4-7 and 12-15 recite multiple formulas. But the limitations are indefinite because variable s x, y and u, v , and functions of f(x,y) and G(u, v) , and the operator between the functions are not defined in the claim s and th ese make the claims for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter and the make the formulas unexaminable. Please define the variables and functions and the operator according to the specification. Thus, the scope of the limitation cannot be determined by the e xaminer. For the purpose of examination, the e xaminer will interpret limitation s with BRI. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 , 3, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Macfaden US 20210056358 . In regard to claim 1 , Macfaden disclose An optical system comprising: ([0006]-[0016] an optical processing system) a first lens configured to receive input data from an object; (Fig. 2, [0055]-[0063] lens 1 to receive input from an object, for example, light source 5) a kernel configured to perform a first Fourier transform on the input data and to generate learning data by performing calculation on a result of the first Fourier transform and pattern data; (Fig. 2, [00 07 ] - [00 21 ] [0025]-[00 31 ] [0055]-[0063] a kernel to perform a Fourier transform on the input and producing data by calculating on a result of the Fourier transform and the determine d the data pattern ) and a second lens configured to generate result data by performing a second Fourier transform on the learning data, wherein the input data, the learning data, and the result data include both a positive number and a negative number. (Fig. 2, [0019-[0020] [0045]-[0048] 0055]-[0063] [0132] len s 2 to generate the result by pe r forming i n verse Fourier transform on the data formed and the various data include both a positive number and a negative components ) In regard to claim 3 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 1, Macfaden disclose wherein the kernel corresponds to a filter of a convolutional neural network (CNN). ([0007]-[0012][0044] the kernel corresponds to a filter of a CNN) In regard to claims 9 , 11 , claims 9 , 11 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 1 , 3 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1 , 3 . 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 s 2 , 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macfaden US 20210056358 in view of Yamazoe et al. (Yamazoe) US 2015/0131066 In regard to claim 2 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 1, But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ wherein phases of an image represented by the input data and an image represented by the result data are opposite. ” Yamazoe disclose wherein phases of an image represented by the input data and an image represented by the result data are opposite . ([0046] the input image and the target image pattern has opposite phase) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yamazoe ’s method of mask pattern generation and optical image calculation into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yamazoe ’s method of mask pattern generation and optical image calculation with opposite phase output would help to provide more patterned image in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing more patterned image would help to provide more user desired output. In regard to claim 10, claim 10 is a method claims corresponding to the system claim 2 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 2. Claim s 4-7, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macfaden US 20210056358 in view of Y uan et al. ( Yuan ) US 7228005 In regard to claim 4 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 1, Macfaden disclose the Fourier transformation with the input data and the pattern data (Fig. 5, [0047]-[0066] calculating the Fourier transformation with input data and pattern data, Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables and operator between them to make the formula examinable) But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ wherein the learning data are calculated by Equation 1: F{f(x, y)}(u, v) * G(u, v) where the f(x, y) represents the input data, the G(u, v) represents the pattern data, the F{f(x, y)}(u, v) represents a result of the first Fourier transform for the ” Yuan disclose wherein the learning data are calculated by Equation 1: F{f(x, y)}(u, v) * G(u, v) where the f(x, y) represents the input data, the G(u, v) represents the pattern data, the F{f(x, y)}(u, v) represents a result of the first Fourier transform for the ( col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 64, col. 6, line 18-65. Col. 10, line 5-60, col. 11, line 12-65, disclose Fourier transform Note: please define the functio n , f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables and operator between them to make the formula examinable) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yuan’s image kernel into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yuan’s image kernel calculation with Fourier transform would help to provide more image manipulation in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing more image manipulation with Fourier transform would help to provide more user desired output. In regard to claim 5 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 4, Macfaden disclose wherein t he result data are calculated by the inverse Fourier transform ([0054]-[0058] the data is calculated by inverse Fourier transform) But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ wherein the result data are calculated by Equation 2: G1(u,v)}(x,y) -F-1{F{f2(x,y)}(u,v) * G1(u,v)}(x,y) -F-1{F{f1(xy)}(u,v)"G2(u,v)}(x,y) +F-1{F{f1(x,y)}(u,v) "G2(u,v)}(x,y). ” Yuan disclose wherein the result data are calculated by Equation 2: G1(u,v)}(x,y) -F-1{F{f2(x,y)}(u,v) * G1(u,v)}(x,y) -F-1{F{f1(xy)}(u,v)"G2(u,v)}(x,y) +F-1{F{f1(x,y)}(u,v) "G2(u,v)}(x,y). (col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 64, col. 6, line 18-65. the result are calculated by the inverse Fourier transformation, Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables to make the formula examinable) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yuan’s image kernel into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yuan’s image kernel calculation with Fourier transform would help to provide more image manipulation in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing more image manipulation with Fourier transform would help to provide more user desired output. In regard to claim 6 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 1, Macfaden disclose the data are calculated by Fourier transformation (Fig. 5, [0047]-[0066] calculating the Fourier transformation with the data, Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables and operator between them to make the formula examinable) But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ disclose wherein the learning data are calculated by Equation 3: where the f(x, y) represents the input data, the G(u, v) represents the pattern data, the F{f(x, y)}(u, v) represent represents a result of the first Fourier transform for the f(x, y), f'(x, y) 0, g'(x, y) 0,a> = 0, and b >= 0. ” Yuan disclose isclose wherein the learning data are calculated by Equation 3: where the f(x, y) represents the input data, the G(u, v) represents the pattern data, the F{f(x, y)}(u, v) represent represents a result of the first Fourier transform for the f(x, y), f'(x, y) 0, g'(x, y) 0,a> = 0, and b >= 0 . (col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 64, col. 6, line 18-65. Col. 10, line 5-60, col. 11, line 12-65, disclose Fourier transform . Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables and operator between them to make the formula examinable) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yuan’s image kernel into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yuan’s image kernel calculation with Fourier transform would help to provide more image manipulation in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing more image manipulation with Fourier transform would help to provide more user desired output. In regard to claim 7 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 6, Macfaden disclose wherein t he result data are calculated by the inverse Fourier transform ([0054]-[0058] the data is calculated by inverse Fourier transform. Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables to make the formula examinable) But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ wherein the result data are calculated by Equation 4: G'(u,v)}(x,y) - F-1{F{f(a)}(u,v) * G'(u,v)}(x,y) - b" f(x,y). “ Yuan disclose wherein the result data are calculated by Equation 4: G'(u,v)}(x,y) - F-1{F{f(a)}(u,v) * G'(u,v)}(x,y) - b" f(x,y). (col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 64, col. 6, line 18-65. the result are calculated by the inverse Fourier transformation, Note: please define the function, f(x,y) and G(u,v) with their corresponding variables to make the formula examinable) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yuan’s image kernel into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yuan’s image kernel calculation with Fourier transform would help to provide more image manipulation in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that provid ing more image manipulation with Fourier transform would help to provide more user desired output. In regard to claims 12-15, claims 12-15 are method claims corresponding to the system claims 4-7 above and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 4-7. Claim s 8 , 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macfaden US 20210056358 in view of Hamerly et al. ( Hamerly ) US 20 21/0357737 In regard to claim 8 , Macfaden disclose The optical system of claim 1, But Macfaden fail to explicitly disclose “ wherein the result data are input to a ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit) function. ” Hamerly disclose wherein the result data are input to a ReLU (Rectified Linear Unit) function . ([0149][0150] the data are input to a ReLu) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Hamerly’s method of optics training into Macfaden ’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of optical system related training . The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Hamerly’s method of using ReLu function with optical data calculation would help to identify more features in the data in to Macfaden ’s’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that identifying more features in the image would facilitate ML model training . In regard to claim 16, claim 16 is a method claims corresponding to the system claim 8 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE US 6424449 B1 2002-07-23 Namiki et al. Optical Information Processing Apparatus For Image Processing Using A Reflection Type Spatial Light Modulator Namiki et al. disclose A collimator optical system collimates light from the coherent light source. A reflection type spatial light modulator returns collimated light from the collimator optical system to the collimator optical system. A Fourier transformation optical system Fourier-transforms light from the reflection type spatial light modulator and shares at least partial optical system with the collimator optical system. An emission light from another coherent light source passes through an incident light path composed of another collimator optical system, spatial modulator and polarized beam splitter in this order and reaches the reflection type spatial light modulator. Then, a reflection light from the reflection type spatial light modulator passes through a reflection light path which is reverse to the incident light path and reaches a polarized beam splitter. That is, the incident light path and reflection light path are split by the polarized beam splitter. Then, a shared optical system which is at least part of Fourier transformation optical system for the incident light and further at least part of reversed Fourier transformation optical system for the reflection light is disposed in optical path between the polarized beam splitter and reflection type spatial light modulator … see abstract. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3045 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Welch can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7212 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT XUYANG XIA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2143 /XUYANG XIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143