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 .
Under 35 USC § 101
Although claims 1 and 6 include abstract ideas, claims 1 and 6 also recite
additional elements such as “detecting the characteristic value of the sample a plurality of times while moving the analysis area in the plane of the sample so that a partial region of the analysis area overlaps”. The inclusion of these additional elements integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application that effects a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claims 1-8 are considered to be eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niizaka (Pub. No. US 2022/0057340).
As per claims 1, 3, 6 and 8, Niizaka teaches detecting a characteristic value distributed in a plane of a sample by scanning the sample for each analysis area (see ¶ [0007], [0012], and [0015], the examiner notes that the system acquires first and second fluoroscopic X-ray images (and optionally third/furth) while moving mechanism translates the X-ray detection position by a movement amount smaller than a pixel size (it will be referred by sub-pixel)); detecting the characteristic value of the sample a plurality of times while moving the analysis area in the plane of the sample so that a partial region of the analysis area overlaps (see ¶ [0007]-[0009], the examiner notes that the detector captures multiple images at different, sub-pixel-shifted positions so that pixels from one image overlap pixels from the other when “shifted in the first direction by an amount corresponding to the movement amount and displayed in an overlapping manner”, ¶ [0012], the examiner notes that pixels in one image that overlap a pixel in the other image by known movement amount smaller than the pixel size, and also orthogonal shifts with third/fourth positions); and performing statistical processing on detection results including the same region to calculate the characteristic value distributed in the plane of the sample in a unit of an overlapping region (see ¶ [0008]-[0010], i.e., the “division process” explicitly computes new sub-pixel values by dividing a pixel value in one image based on the two overlapping pixels from the other image, see ¶ [0011], then averages corresponding divided images. The examiner notes that this is statistical processing (averaging) of measurements from the same overlapped region to yield a super-resolved pixel, i.e., a value at the unit defined by the overlap).
As per claim 4, Niizaka further teaches that when an overlapping partial region in the analysis area is defined as a region obtained by dividing the analysis area into "n" (two or more natural numbers) pieces, the statistical processing is performed on "n" pieces of the detection results including the same region to calculate the characteristic value (see ¶ [0007]-[0008], i.e., acquiring first and second images with the detector translated by an amount smaller than a pixel size, such that two pixels in one image overlap a first pixel in the other when the images are shifted and displayed in an overlapping manner, the processor then performs a “division process” that divides, in the first direction, the pixel value of the first pixel based on the pixel values of the two overlapping pixels, yielding a divided image corresponding to those overlapping partial regions (¶ [0008]), it further states that generation of the super-resolved image is based on the divided image and the overlapping area ratio, i.e., using quantitative (overlapping area ratio) information about the same overlapped region (¶ [0009]), and expressly forms a first divided image and a second divided image and then averages corresponding pixels of those two divided images (i.e., statistical processing on n=2 pieces of detection results including the same region) to compute the final value for that region (¶ [0010]-[0011]).
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.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niizaka.
As per claims 2 and 7, while Niizaka teaches overlapped acquisitions created by translating the detector by a movement amount smaller than the pixel size and then shifting the images and displaying them in an overlapping manner, followed by statistical processing that divides, the first direction, the pixel value of a first pixel based on the pixel values of two pixels in the other image that overlap the first pixel, using an overlapping area ratio, and averaging corresponding pixels of first and second divided images (¶ [0007]-[0011], overlap-ratio in ¶ [0009]). In that framework, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to tie the “number of division n” as a result-effective variable inherently tied to chosen translation/overlap geometry (e.g., ½-pixel shift yields n = 2 in that direction (see ¶ [0014]) and would find it obvious to make n explicit and set/store it as information on positional resolution so as to standardize the scale at which the divided pixels are produced and displayed (see extension (i.e. “the detector is preferably configured to detect X-rays at a third position and a fourth position”) to orthogonal direction in ¶ [0012]. Doing so provides predictable results and directly supports the reference’s stated goal of achieving super-resolution while managing calculation time (¶ [0005]-[0008]). Under KSR, exposing and “setting” this already-implied quantity is a routine optimization/design choice to a known technique, not a patentable distinction.
As per claim 5, while Niizaka teaches overlapped acquisitions created by sub-pixel detector shifts and performing statistical processing (division based on overlapping pixels, use of overlapping-area ratio, and averaging first/second divided images) (see ¶ [0007]-[0012]), Niizaka fails to explicitly teach “wherein when an overlapping partial region of the analysis area is defined as a region obtained by dividing the analysis area into "n" (two or more natural numbers) pieces, the characteristic value of the sample is detected a plurality of times so that the detection results including the same region are less than "n" pieces.”
Since Niizaka teaches handles missing overlaps at the image boundary by virtually generating a second overlapping pixel to proceed with the division (see ¶ [0013], “Accordingly, another overlapping pixel is virtually generated such that even when there is only one pixel that overlaps the first pixel located at the end, calculation of dividing the first pixel in the first direction can be reliably performed”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to trat the number of divisions “n” of the analysis area as a result-effective design variable (MPEP § 2144.05) that reflects the desired positional resolution, while the number of acquisitions is constrained by time and mechanics. It would be routine to choose n
≥
2 for finer resolution yet collect fewer than n detection results including the same region (m<n), and then compute the characteristic value using the available overlapping measurements (m), e.g., by using the overlapping area ratio, averaging of the available divided images, and, at boundaries, fallowing Niizaka’s approach of virtually generating another overlapping pixel so the division can proceed. Doing so would reduce X-ray dose/scan time and computation while still improving apparent resolution, which would be viewed as an obvious optimization rather than a patentable distinction.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Harada et al. [‘942] discloses in X-ray imaging apparatus (100), the image processor (5b) applies a super-resolution procedure to a first region (A1) of each acquired image (Ia) that includes the subject (s), and, for the remaining second region (A2) in each image, raises the pixel count to reflect the resolution increase in A1 using a processing method simpler than the super-resolution procedure.
Sato et al. [‘602] discloses a method of forming a sample image by scanning a charged particle beam on a sample and forming an image based on secondary signals emitted from the sample, the method comprising the steps of forming a plurality of composite images by superposing a plurality of images obtained by a plurality of scanning times; and forming a further composite image by correcting positional displacements among the plurality of composite images and superposing the plurality of composite images, and a charged particle beam apparatus for realizing the above method.
Anthony et al. [‘191] discloses a method for producing an image of a target object’s region of interest includes multiple concentric circular scan paths whose radii increases from an innermost minimum to an outmost maximum, selecting a sample count for each path, and computing the sample coordinates so that, taken together, the sample locations are substantially uniformly distributed in the object’s cartesian frame. The object is then successively rotated to follow each circular path, and images are acquired at the prescribed sample locations; reconstructed image of the region of interest is generated from collected images. The reconstructed image is produced by applying super-resolution (SR) to the acquired image sequence to obtain a high-resolution result. For each concentric circular scan path, a series of low-resolution frames is captured; an iterative back-propagation SR procedure then generates one or more images with sub-pixel detail corresponding to those frames. These SR images are finally converted from polar to cartesian coordinates to create the reconstructed image.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857