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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on November 13th, 2025, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the current claim(s) have been fully considered. But, the arguments/remarks are directed to the claims as amended, and so are believed to be answered by and therefore moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 10, 15, and 17-20 were amended. Claim(s) 16 was canceled. No new claim(s) were added. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are considered below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20150153559 A1) in view of Krief (US 20070069106 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a method for maximum contrast projection (MCP), comprising:
dividing image data into a plurality of tiles ([0086]: divides the image into blocks with a predetermined size (step S803)) and a plurality of sub-z-stacks (see Fig. 12, element S805 suggests the processing including dividing into blocks occurs in all images for the group of images), wherein the image data comprises a plurality of z-plane images having different z-coordinates ([0076] Subsequently, the image processing apparatus 102 acquires a plurality of layer images to be subjected to the focus stacking processing, [0086] The image processing apparatus 102 selects an arbitrary image from a group of images to be subjected to the combine processing) and a plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks comprise one or more tiles of the plurality of tiles, wherein the one or more tiles of the plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks belong to different z-plane images ([0086]: divides the image into blocks with a predetermined size (step S803). Examiner notes this is done for each image in the group of images see S806 in Fig. 6);
identifying a respective tile of the plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks that has a highest local contrast among the one or more tiles of a respective sub-z-stack ([0086]: divides the image into blocks with a predetermined size (step S803), and calculates a value indicating a contrast level for each of the blocks (step S804), [0088]: apparatus 102 then selects an image with the highest contrast from among a plurality of images contained in the determined depth of field for each of the blocks (step S808));
projecting pixels of the respective identified tile of the plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks to an MCP image ([0088]: and generates a single combined image by merging (joining) a plurality of partial images selected for the respective blocks (step S809)); and
outputting the MCP image ([0147]: it is also made possible to display the combined images).
Sato does not explicitly teach wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles having the same x,y-coordinates belongs to a respective sub-z-stack of the plurality of sub-z-stacks.
Krief explicitly teaches wherein each tile of the plurality of tiles having the same x,y-coordinates belongs to a respective sub-z-stack of the plurality of sub-z-stacks ([0070]: stack can be subdivided so that the contrast is evaluated on a sub-image, as shown in FIG. 8A, [0071]: final image for the current field of view is then built by fusing pixels from the image selected by the global contrast evaluation and the pixels determined locally through the local contrast evaluation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Sato by the teachings of Krief by substituting the blocks generated by Sato for the overlapping sub stacks generated by Krief. Doing so would provide the predictable result of local contrast evaluation on a part of the image stack.
Regarding Claim 4, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Sato teaches wherein the plurality of tiles are uniformly sized and comprise a grid ([0086]: divides the image into blocks with a predetermined size (step S803)).
Regarding Claim 5, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 1. However, Sato does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 5. Krief teaches further comprising detecting one or more structures of interest within the image data and segmenting the image data to define one or more structure tiles of one or more structure sub-z-stacks ([0071]: threshold segmentation procedure is then applied to separate the background of the image from the object of interest, [0071]: local contrasts are evaluated for each object of interest selected … local contrast evaluation is associated with an image stack index).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified Sato to include the teachings of Krief. Doing so would place more importance on contrast evaluation and optimization for blocks in the image that include a region of interest, thereby improving the quality of the final composite image.
Regarding Claim 6, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 5. In addition, Krief teaches further comprising identifying a structure tile of the one or more structure tiles of each of the one or more structure sub-z-stacks that has a highest local contrast ([0071]: final image for the current field of view is then built by fusing pixels from the image selected by the global contrast evaluation and the pixels determined locally through the local contrast evaluation, [0021]: Each image stack index includes one of the local images at a focus level corresponding to a local maximum contrast for the respective object of interest, [0021]: the local maximum contrast local image of one of the sorted objects of interest is substituted for the corresponding pixel in the specified-area image having the image-wide contrast level so as to form a fused image).
Regarding Claim 8, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 6. In addition, Krief teaches further comprising projecting pixels of each identified structure tile to the MCP image ([0037] FIG. 8C illustrates a method of optimizing the contrast stack evaluation by detecting out-of-focus objects of interest, evaluating local contrast, and then forming a fused image, [0075]: the Z-value corresponding to the highest-contrast in the stack is extracted).
Claim(s) 2-3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20150153559 A1) in view of Krief (US 20070069106 A1), Brenner (Brenner J. et al., "An Automated Microscope for Cytologic Research a Preliminary Evaluation," The Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, Vol. 24, No. 1, January 1976, 12 pages) and Emtman (US 20220101511 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Sato teaches wherein identifying the respective identified tile of the plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks that has the highest local contrast ([0086]: divides the image into blocks with a predetermined size (step S803), and calculates a value indicating a contrast level for each of the blocks (step S804), [0088]: apparatus 102 then selects an image with the highest contrast from among a plurality of images contained in the determined depth of field for each of the blocks (step S808))
Sato briefly mentions other known methods can be employed for contrast detection in at least [0089]. Sato does not explicitly teach calculating a Brenner gradient value for a plurality of the one or more tiles and generating a Brenner gradient distribution for the plurality of the plurality of sub-z-stacks, wherein a peak Brenner gradient value of a respective Brenner gradient distribution corresponds to the respective identified tile.
Brenner teaches using a Brenner gradient value ([pg. 110, paragraph 1]: a focus function f(Z) is calculated which is a measure of the average change in gray level between pairs of points…f(Z) is a maximum when the image is in focus) and generating a Brenner gradient distribution ([pg. 110, paragraph 1]: Z is the Z-axis or focus position…a plot of f(Z) versus Z is shown in Fig. 9) is known in the art to calculate contrast and display the distribution across different focus positions.
Although Brenner teaches generating a Brenner gradient distribution, Brenner does not explicitly teach generating a distribution for a plurality of sub z-stacks wherein a peak gradient value corresponds to respective identified tile. Emtman teaches generating a distribution for a plurality of sub z-stacks wherein a peak gradient value corresponds to respective identified tile ([0137]: may capture an image(i) at each position Z.sub.L(i). For each captured image(i), a focus metric fm(k,i) may be calculated based on a region or sub-region, [0137]: the focus metric values may involve a calculation of the contrast or sharpness of the region, see Fig. 6A generating the distribution of the focus metric against the position in the z-stack, identifying which image in the stack provides the highest focus metric, [0139]: finding the image with the highest overall contrast, which corresponds to a focus position of when the image was acquired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the Sato and Krief combination by the teachings of Brenner by substituting the generic mention of contrast evaluation for Brenner gradient contrast evaluation. Doing so would provide the predictable result of a contrast evaluated for each block in the image. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Sato, Krief, and Brenner combination by Emtman to include generating a distribution for a plurality of sub z-stacks wherein a peak gradient value corresponds to respective identified tile. Doing so would improve identification of the peak value corresponding to the block with the highest contrast, thereby improving the image quality of the combined image.
Regarding Claim 3, the Sato, Krief, Brenner, and Emtman combination teaches the method of claim 2. In addition, Brenner teaches using a Brenner gradient ([pg. 110, paragraph 1]: a focus function f(Z) is calculated which is a measure of the average change in gray level between pairs of points…f(Z) is a maximum when the image is in focus) as a measure of contrast is known in the art. In addition, Emtman teaches further comprising applying a nearest neighbor interpolation algorithm to sub-z-stacks corresponding to Brenner gradient distributions without a peak value ([0141]: peak focus position in some instances may fall between two images in an image stack, for which the focus peak position may be determined by interpolation or other techniques).
Regarding Claim 7, the Sato and Krief combination teaches the method of claim 6. In addition, Krief teaches wherein identifying the identified structure tile comprises calculating a [0021]: Each image stack index includes one of the local images at a focus level corresponding to a local maximum contrast for the respective object of interest) and
Although Sato and Krief both mention selecting a block or sub-image with the highest contrast, Neither Sato nor Krief teach calculating a Brenner gradient value and generating a Brenner gradient distribution for the plurality of the one or more structure sub-z-stacks, wherein each identified structure tile corresponds to a peak Brenner gradient value of each Brenner gradient distribution.
Brenner teaches using a Brenner gradient value ([pg. 110, paragraph 1]: a focus function f(Z) is calculated which is a measure of the average change in gray level between pairs of points…f(Z) is a maximum when the image is in focus) and generating a Brenner gradient distribution ([pg. 110, paragraph 1]: Z is the Z-axis or focus position…a plot of f(Z) versus Z is shown in Fig. 9) is known in the art to calculate contrast and display the distribution across different focus positions.
Although Brenner teaches generating a Brenner gradient distribution, Brenner does not explicitly teach generating a Brenner gradient distribution for the plurality of the one or more structure sub-z-stacks, wherein each identified structure tile corresponds to a peak Brenner gradient value of each Brenner gradient distribution. Emtman teaches generating a distribution for the plurality of the one or more structure sub-z-stacks, wherein each identified structure tile corresponds to a peak gradient value of each distribution ([0137]: may capture an image(i) at each position Z.sub.L(i). For each captured image(i), a focus metric fm(k,i) may be calculated based on a region or sub-region, [0137]: the focus metric values may involve a calculation of the contrast or sharpness of the region, see Fig. 6A generating the distribution of the focus metric against the position in the z-stack, identifying which image in the stack provides the highest focus metric, [0139]: finding the image with the highest overall contrast, which corresponds to a focus position of when the image was acquired).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the Sato and Krief combination by the teachings of Brenner by substituting the generic mention of contrast evaluation for Brenner gradient contrast evaluation. Doing so would provide the predictable result of a contrast evaluated for each block in the image. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Sato, Krief, and Brenner combination by Emtman to include generating a distribution for the plurality of the one or more structure sub-z-stacks, wherein each identified structure tile corresponds to a peak value of each distribution. Doing so would improve identification of the peak value corresponding to the block with the highest contrast, thereby improving the image quality of the combined image.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
Claim 9 remains 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE VAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (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 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.
/JANICE E. VAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667