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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 03/09/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending.
Corrective Actions by Applicant
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on04/29/2026 has been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendments to independent claims 1 and 9 overcome all previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. This is persuasive, in view of the interview on 01/08/2026. More specifically, although Zhang discloses downsampling in general, Zhang fails to specifically disclose computing a baseline estimate from a downsampled/intermediate image, as now claimed. Thus, all previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the claim amendments necessitate new 103 rejections presented below.
Examiner Note
Regarding the new independent claim limitations of “wherein the baseline estimate represents out-of-focus contributions”, although “out-of-focus” appears at face value to be a relative term of degree, the originally-filed specification does provide multiple examples of how to measure this degree, as required by MPEP 2173.05(b).I, and thus avoids a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
For example, paragraph 0078 states that out-of-focus contributions can be features with a spatial frequency lower than a cutoff frequency, and paragraph 0079 states that out-of-focus contributions can be features larger than a predetermined feature scale.
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 1, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harding discloses a digital image processing apparatus for computing a baseline estimate of a digital input image (see figure 30 and paragraph 0097), wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to:
(paragraph 0088 specifies that the images can be subsampled/downsampled, but only after the background removal process);
compute the baseline estimate using a fit to at least part of the digital (see figures 24A-C and paragraphs 0069 and 0088, where a lung background trend/baseline estimate can be computed by fitting a polynomial to the lung surface),
wherein the baseline estimate is represented as a discrete curve graph representing background intensity values at a plurality of pixels or voxels of the (see figure 24C and paragraph 0069, where the discrete curve graph 2420 of the digital output image is the result of subtracting the fitted surface/baseline estimate from the discrete curve graph 2410 of the original input image, thus the fitted surface is also a discrete curve graph),
and wherein the baseline estimate represents out-of-focus contributions (paragraphs 0069 and 0088 specify that the fitted surface represents a background trend, which reads on out-of-focus contributions);
and compute a digital output image based on one of a) the baseline estimate or b) the digital input image, from which the baseline estimate has been removed (see figures 24A-C and paragraphs 0069 and 0088, where the fitted surface/baseline estimate can be subtracted from the original image 2401 to obtain an output image 2402).
As illustrated above via strikethrough, Harding merely fails to disclose first downsampling the digital input image (i.e. obtaining a digital intermediate or downsampled image), and then applying the method to said downsampled image, instead of an unaltered input image.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Jiang discloses obtain a digital intermediate image by downsampling the digital input image by a predetermined downsampling factor (see figure 3, steps 60-62 and paragraphs 0022-0023, where a digital input image can be subsampled/downsampled; paragraph 0030 specifies that a predetermined subsampling ratio/downsampling factor can be used, such as 16);
compute the baseline estimate using a fit to at least part of the digital intermediate image, wherein the baseline estimate is represented as a discrete curve graph representing background intensity values at a plurality of pixels or voxels of the intermediate image (see figure 3, steps 64-66 and paragraphs 0023-0025 and 0031-0033, where the subsampled image can be further processed to obtain a fitted background image/baseline estimate, such as by applying low-pass, median, or smoothing filters; Harding's method in combination would still predictably represent this subsampled image as a discrete curve graph),
wherein a number of pixel or voxel locations of the intermediate image is lower than a number of pixel or voxel locations of the digital input image by an integer factor related to the predetermined downsampling factor (paragraph 0030 specifies that a predetermined subsampling ratio/downsampling factor can be used, such as 16).
Harding and Jiang are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Jiang into Harding because subsampling results in more thorough removal of foreground information, resulting in a more accurate baseline estimate (see Jiang paragraph 0030), which can then, similarly to Harding, be subtracted from the original image to obtain the foreground content (see Jiang figure 3, step 68 and paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Harding discloses a computer-implemented image processing method for computing a baseline estimate of a digital input image (see figures 24A-C and paragraphs 0069 and 0088).
The remainder of claim 9 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Harding in view of Jiang discloses claim 9 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Harding in view of Jiang discloses the method being adapted to operate a digital image processing apparatus (see Harding figure 30 and paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 12, Harding in view of Jiang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having processor-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, facilitate performance of the method according to claim 9 (see Harding figure 30 and paragraphs 0097-0098).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1), and further in view of Jannard et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2010/0013963-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Jannard discloses wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to carry out the downsampling simultaneously to filtering the digital input image (see paragraph 0076, where demosaicing filters can be adapted to simultaneously perform demosaicing and downsampling).
Harding and Jannard are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Jannard into Harding and Jiang because doing so allows for more efficient filtering performance (see Jannard paragraph 0076).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1), and further in view of Mazet et al. (“Background removal from spectra by designing and minimizing a non-quadratic cost function”, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems paper, 28 April 2005).
Regarding claim 4, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Mazet discloses wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to compute the baseline estimate using an iterative half-quadratic minimization scheme (see page 2, left column, where half-quadratic minimization is used to minimize cost functions for determining the baseline/background estimate).
Harding and Mazet are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Mazet into Harding and Jiang because the half-quadratic minimization scheme provides a very attractive approach for criterion minimization (see Mazet page 5, left column).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1), and further in view of Tadross (U.S. Publ. US-2021/0383534-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Tadross discloses wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to obtain a predetermined feature length, the predetermined feature length being representative of image features contained in the digital input image (see figure 8 and paragraph 0076, where lines of chosen lengths passing through the current segmentation of a foreground object are selected for subsequent analysis of intensities), wherein the digital image processing apparatus is further configured to compute an adapted feature length based on the predetermined feature length and the predetermined downsampling factor (see paragraph 0076, where the threshold length of the lines is selected based on the size of the downsampled image), and wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to compute the baseline estimate based on the adapted feature length (see figure 8 and paragraph 0076, where a more refined segmentation map of the foreground object is generated using the intensity profiles gathered along the adapted length of the lines, which also updates the estimation of the background).
Harding and Tadross are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Tadross into Harding and Jiang because doing so allows for improving foreground segmentation accuracy (see Tadross paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 6, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Tadross discloses wherein the predetermined downsampling factor is less than the predetermined feature length (see paragraph 0076, where as the size of the downsampled image decreases, e.g., as the downsampling factor increases, the length of the lines decreases).
Harding and Tadross are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Tadross into Harding and Jiang because doing so allows for improving foreground segmentation accuracy (see Tadross paragraph 0078).
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1), and further in view of Kang (Chinese Patent CN204405940U).
Regarding claim 7, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kang discloses wherein the digital image processing apparatus is an embedded processor (see paragraphs 0004-0006, where a multifunctional microscope contains an embedded processor and embedded operating system).
Harding and Kang are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kang into Harding and Jiang because doing so provides network communication and image processing capabilities inside the microscope, which conventional microscopes lack (see Kang paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 8, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kang discloses a microscope comprising an embedded processor, the embedded processor comprising the digital image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see paragraphs 0004-0006, where a multifunctional microscope contains an embedded processor and embedded operating system).
Harding and Kang are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kang into Harding and Jiang because doing so provides network communication and image processing capabilities inside the microscope, which conventional microscopes lack (see Kang paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 11, Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kang discloses wherein the method is executed on an embedded processor of a microscope (see paragraphs 0004-0006, where a multifunctional microscope contains an embedded processor and embedded operating system).
Harding and Kang are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image processing apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kang into Harding and Jiang because doing so provides network communication and image processing capabilities inside the microscope, which conventional microscopes lack (see Kang paragraph 0004).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harding et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2017/0032535-A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2007/0268501-A1), and further in view of Gebrekidan et al. ("Refinement of spectra using a deep neural network: Fully automated removal of noise and background", Journal of Raman Spectroscopy paper, 12 January 2021).
Regarding claim 13, Harding in view of Jiang discloses each baseline estimate of a pair computed from the digital input image of the pair using the method according to claim 9 (see Harding figures 24A-C and paragraphs 0069 and 0088).
Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the remainder of claim 13.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Gebrekidan discloses a machine learning product for processing a digital input image, the machine learning product being configured to compute a baseline estimate of the digital input image (see page 1, where a U-Net deep neural network is trained to identify and remove backgrounds/baseline estimates), the machine learning product having been trained by pairs of different digital input images and baseline estimates (see page 2, right column).
Harding and Gebrekidan are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Gebrekidan into Harding and Jiang because doing so enables automated background detection and removal (see Gebrekidan page 1).
Regarding claim 14, Harding in view of Jiang discloses each baseline estimate of a pair computed from the digital input image of the pair using the method according to claim 9 (see Harding figures 24A-C and paragraphs 0069 and 0088).
Harding in view of Jiang fails to disclose the remainder of claim 14.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Gebrekidan discloses a method of training a machine learning product by pairs of different digital input images and baseline estimates (see page 2, right column).
Harding and Gebrekidan are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to image foreground/background separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Gebrekidan into Harding and Jiang because doing so enables automated background detection and removal (see Gebrekidan page 1).
Regarding claim 15, Harding in view of Jiang and Gebrekidan discloses claim 15 as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 16, Harding in view of Jiang and Gebrekidan discloses claim 16 as applied to claim 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following suggestion is reiterated from the non-final office action mailed on 12/12/2025.
The examiner suggests that claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, if claim 5 were to be amended to read:
The digital image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to obtain a predetermined feature length, the predetermined feature length being representative of image features contained in the digital input image,
wherein the digital image processing apparatus is further configured to compute an adapted feature length based on the predetermined feature length and the predetermined downsampling factor,
and wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to compute the baseline estimate based on the adapted feature length by including image features with a feature length larger than the adapted feature length in the baseline estimate and excluding image features with a feature length smaller than the adapted feature length from the baseline estimate (emphasis on new limitations added via underline),
or with similar phraseology. Such an amendment would have support from at least paragraphs 0076-0085 of the originally filed specification. Although Tadross discloses wherein the digital image processing apparatus is configured to compute the baseline estimate based on the adapted feature length (see 103 rejection of claim 5 above), neither Tadross nor the prior art of record discloses or reasonably suggests doing so by including image features with a feature length larger than the adapted feature length in the baseline estimate and excluding image features with a feature length smaller than the adapted feature length from the baseline estimate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights