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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 10/04/2023. Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 13 through 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cathey et al. (US-20040145808-A1; hereinafter Cathey).
Regarding claim 1, Cathey discloses A range imaging system, comprising: a passive optical system having a set of lenses and an optical mask constituted to vary a point spread function (PSF) of said set of lenses so as to encode in an optical field arriving from a scene range information for objects in said scene that are at least X meters from said mask, X being at least 10; (see at least [0004]; "This invention relates to apparatus and methods for increasing the depth of field and decreasing the wavelength sensitivity of incoherent optical systems. This invention is particularly useful for increasing the useful range of passive ranging systems." and see at least [0076]; "However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances.") a digital light sensor arranged to receive said optical field; and (see at least [0012]; "A general incoherent optical system includes a lens for focusing light from an object into an intermediate image, and means for storing the image, such as film, a video camera, or a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) or the like. The depth of field of such an optical system is increased by inserting an optical mask between the object and the CCD." and see at least [0123]; "The actual processing done by digital range estimator 75 is, of course, considerably more complicated, since an entire scene is received by estimator 75, and not just the image of a point source.") an image processor, configured to processes signals receive signals from said sensor to decode said range information. (see at least [0106]; "Note that while the OTF of the FIG. 2C-PM system is nearly constant for the three values of misfocus, it does not resemble the ideal OTF of FIG. 10. Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the FIG. 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained. The effect of the mask may be removed in a variety of ways. In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over .psi.)." and see at least [0018]; "A second object of the invention is to increase the useful range of passive ranging systems. To accomplish this object, the mask modifies the optical transfer function to be object distance insensitive as above, and also encodes distance information into the image by modifying the optical system such that the optical transfer function contains zeroes as a function of object range.").
Regarding claim 13, Cathey discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein said optical mask is a phase mask. (see at least [0072]; "Mask 20 is composed of an optical material, such as glass or plastic film, having variations in opaqueness, thickness, or index of refraction. Mask 20 preferably is a phase mask, affecting only the phase of the light transmitted and not its amplitude. This results in a high efficiency optical system. However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances.").
Regarding claim 14, Cathey discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein said optical mask is an amplitude mask. (see at least [0072]; "Mask 20 is composed of an optical material, such as glass or plastic film, having variations in opaqueness, thickness, or index of refraction. Mask 20 preferably is a phase mask, affecting only the phase of the light transmitted and not its amplitude. This results in a high efficiency optical system. However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances.").
Regarding claim 15, Cathey discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein said optical mask is a phase- amplitude mask. (see at least [0072]; "Mask 20 is composed of an optical material, such as glass or plastic film, having variations in opaqueness, thickness, or index of refraction. Mask 20 preferably is a phase mask, affecting only the phase of the light transmitted and not its amplitude. This results in a high efficiency optical system. However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances.").
Regarding claim 16, Cathey discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein said optical mask is a 3D- printed optical mask. (see at least [0072]; "Mask 20 is composed of an optical material, such as glass or plastic film, having variations in opaqueness, thickness, or index of refraction. Mask 20 preferably is a phase mask, affecting only the phase of the light transmitted and not its amplitude. This results in a high efficiency optical system. However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances.").
Regarding claim 17, Cathey discloses A method of measuring a range to an object, comprising: capturing image data of the object by digital light sensor arranged to receive an optical field from a passive optical system having a set of lenses and an optical mask constituted to vary a point spread function (PSF) of said set of lenses so as to encode in said optical field range information for ranges that are at least X meters from said mask, X being at least 10; and (see at least [0004]; "This invention relates to apparatus and methods for increasing the depth of field and decreasing the wavelength sensitivity of incoherent optical systems. This invention is particularly useful for increasing the useful range of passive ranging systems." and see at least [0076]; "However, mask 20 may also be an amplitude mask or a combination of the two. Mask 20 is designed to alter an incoherent optical system in such a way that the system response to a point object, or the Point Spread Function (PSF), is relatively insensitive to the distance of the point from the lens 25, over a predetermined range of object distances." and see at least [0123]; "The actual processing done by digital range estimator 75 is, of course, considerably more complicated, since an entire scene is received by estimator 75, and not just the image of a point source.") processing said image data signals to decode said range information. (see at least [0106]; "Note that while the OTF of the FIG. 2C-PM system is nearly constant for the three values of misfocus, it does not resemble the ideal OTF of FIG. 10. Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the FIG. 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained. The effect of the mask may be removed in a variety of ways. In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over .psi.)." and see at least [0018]; "A second object of the invention is to increase the useful range of passive ranging systems. To accomplish this object, the mask modifies the optical transfer function to be object distance insensitive as above, and also encodes distance information into the image by modifying the optical system such that the optical transfer function contains zeroes as a function of object range.").
Regarding claim 18, Cathey discloses The method according to claim 17, wherein the object is static. (see at least [0070]; "Figure 1 (prior art) shows a standard optical imaging system. Object 15 is imaged through lens 25 onto Charge Coupled Device (CCD) 30. Such a system creates a sharp, in-focus image at CCD 30 only if object 15 is located at or very close to the in-focus object plane.").
Regarding claim 19, Cathey discloses The method according to claim 17, wherein the object is a moving object. (see at least [0070]; "Figure 1 (prior art) shows a standard optical imaging system. Object 15 is imaged through lens 25 onto Charge Coupled Device (CCD) 30. Such a system creates a sharp, in-focus image at CCD 30 only if object 15 is located at or very close to the in-focus object plane. If the distance from the back principal plane of lens 25 to CCD 30 is di, and focal length of lens 25 is f, the distance, d₀, from the front principal plane of lens 25 to object 15 must be chosen such that: in order for the image at CCD 30 to be in-focus. The depth of field of an optical system is the distance the object can move away from the in-focus distance and still have the image be in focus. For a simple system like Figure 1, the depth of field is very small.").
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.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey.
Regarding claim 6, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor is a thermography sensor. (see at least [00117]; "Figure 43 shows an infrared lens 112 used in place of lens 25 in the imaging system of Figure 2. Dotted line 114 shows the dimensions of lens 112 at an increased temperature. Infrared materials such as Germanium are especially prone to thermal effects such as changes in dimension and changes in index of refraction with changes in temperature. The change in index of refraction with temperature is 230 times that of glass. EDF filter 20 and processing 35 increase the depth of field of optical system 110, reducing the impact of these thermal effects.").
Examiner's Notes: A thermography sensor has a Long-wave infrared range (LWIR) and Germanium is a common lens for this heat mapping infrared sensor. The prior art mentions a Germanium lens and an infrared sensor so it could be teaching either a Mid-wave Infrared sensor (MWIR) or the LWIR. Under this assumption, this prior art could teach a LWIR which fits the description of this claimed invention and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 20, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The method according to claim 17, wherein the object is a vehicle. (see at least [0012]; "A general incoherent optical system includes a lens for focusing light from an object into an intermediate image, and means for storing the image, such as film, a video camera, or a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) or the like.").
Examiner's Note: Though there is no mention of the object being explicitly referred to as a vehicle in the prior art, the prior art could be interpreted as being for any object with range of the sensor. It would then be reasonable to assume the object in the prior art could be anything and thus could be a vehicle of some sort and therefore this claim is rejected.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Lew et al.(US-20230048370-A1; hereinafter, Lew).
Regarding claim 2, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The system according to claim 1, wherein (see at least [00101]; "In Figure 31, general lens system 40 has front principal plane (or focal plane) 42 and back principal plane 43. Generally, optical mask 60 is placed at or near one of the principal planes, but mask 60 may also be placed at the image of one of the principal planes, as shown in Figure 31. This allows beam splitter 45 to generate a clear image 50 of the object (not shown). Lens 55 projects an image of back focal plane 43 onto mask 60.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach "2-f" optical arrangement. Instead, Cathey teaches a back focal plane.
Cathey discloses a method to use an optical mask and Lew is directed at using discrete equations. Lew teaches:
“2-f” optical arrangement (see at least [0264]; "where F{ . } denotes a discrete 2D Fourier transform, 0 represents element-wise multiplication of two vectors or matrices. The basis images B = [Bxx, By, Bzz, Bxy, BXZ, Byz] E RNx6 in the image plane can be calculated as Bxx = gx O gx* (S6a); By = gy O gy* (S6b); Bzz = gz O gz* (S6c); Bxy = gx O gy* + gx* O gy (S6d); Bxz = gx O gz* + gx* O gz (S6e); Byz = gy O gz* + gy* O gz. (S6f);").
Both Cathey and Lew can utilize image planes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to include the methodology as taught by Lew. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the discrete 2D Fourier transformation taught by Lew to replicate the same “2-f” set up to achieve the same Fourier Optics setup for Cathey’s teachings. Therefore, by adding the methodology of Lew to Cathey, a 2-f optical arrangement can be attained with little change to Cathey and the claimed invention is then reproduced.
Regarding claim 3, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The system according to claim 1, wherein (see at least [0011]; "The mask causes the optical transfer function to remain essentially constant within some range away from the in-focus position. The digital processing undoes the optical transfer function modifying effects of the mask, resulting in the high resolution of an in-focus image over an increased depth of field." and see at least [00101]; "In Figure 31, general lens system 40 has front principal plane (or focal plane) 42 and back principal plane 43. Generally, optical mask 60 is placed at or near one of the principal planes, but mask 60 may also be placed at the image of one of the principal planes, as shown in Figure 31. This allows beam splitter 45 to generate a clear image 50 of the object (not shown). Lens 55 projects an image of back focal plane 43 onto mask 60.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach "2-f" optical arrangement. Instead, Cathey teaches what an optical mask does to enhance an image through optical transfer functions and its back focal plane is considered the same as a Fourier plane to those familiar in the art.
Cathey discloses a method to use digital processing and Lew is directed at using discrete equations. Lew teaches:
“2-f” optical arrangement (see at least [0264]; "where F{ . } denotes a discrete 2D Fourier transform, 0 represents element-wise multiplication of two vectors or matrices. The basis images B = [Bxx, By, Bzz, Bxy, BXZ, Byz] E RNx6 in the image plane can be calculated as Bxx = gx O gx* (S6a); By = gy O gy* (S6b); Bzz = gz O gz* (S6c); Bxy = gx O gy* + gx* O gy (S6d); Bxz = gx O gz* + gx* O gz (S6e); Byz = gy O gz* + gy* O gz. (S6f);").
Both Cathey and Lew can represent image data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to include the methodology as taught by Lew. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the discrete 2D Fourier transformation taught by Lew to replicate the same “2-f” set up to achieve the same Fourier Optics setup for Cathey’s teachings. Therefore, by adding the methodology of Lew to Cathey, a 2-f optical arrangement can be attained with little change to Cathey and the claimed invention is then reproduced.
Regarding claim 5, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0095]; "FIGS. 16-23 show the Point Spread Functions (PSFs) for the standard system of Figure 1 and the C-PM system of Figure 2 for varying amounts of misfocus.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach a Double helix PSF measurement. Instead, Cathey teaches different types of Point Spread Functions.
Cathey discloses multiple figures that show Point Spread Functions (PSF) and Lew is directed at specifying which kinds of PSFs are used. Lew teaches:
Specifically using double-helix PSF (see at least [0063]; "FIG. 29 is a table of the measurement precision of pixOL compared to other techniques: CHIDO, double helix (DH), and unpolarized vortex.").
Both Cathey and Lew can use PSFs. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to specify which PSFs are used as taught by Lew. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to specify which PSF methods are used when many are referenced. Therefore, by showing on one of the figures in Cathey the method of double-helix PSF technique, the claimed invention is reproduced.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Belenkii(US-20100128136-A1; hereinafter, Belenkii).
Regarding claim 4, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The system according to claim 1, wherein said passive optical system is characterized by an aperture diameter (see at least [0075]; "Y is a normalized misfocus parameter dependent on the size of lens 25 and the focus state: Where L is the length of the lens, 2 is the wavelength of the light, f is the focal length of lens 25, d₀ is the distance from the front principal plane to the object 15, and di is the distance from the rear principal plane to the image plane, located at CCD 30.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach the aperture diameter nor it being a minimum of 50 mm or 5 cm. Instead, Cathey teaches components of finding the aperture diameter of the lens for a passive optical system.
Cathey discloses a method to state generalized variables for a general size of a lens and Belenkii is directed at providing more definitive measurements for the aperture. Belenkii teaches:
Aperture diameter being at least 50mm or 5cm (see at least [Page 12, Lines 6-12]; "One the other hand, the isoplanatic angle θ₀ does not depend on the aperture diameter D and turbulence outer scale, whereas tilt correlation angle does. Finally, in strong turbulent conditions on the near-the-ground horizontal paths, tilt isoplanatic angle exceeds the isoplanatic angle by several orders of magnitude: θt >> θ₀. For example, for 6 cm aperture (D= 6cm) and 1 km range, θt = 120µrad, whereas at the same range, for (Cn)² = 5x10⁻¹³ (cm)^(-2/3) in the visible waveband (λ = 0.6 um) the isoplanatic angle is θ₀ = 1.3µrad.").
Both Cathey and Belenkii can describe camera lens size for experiment conduction. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to provide examples as taught by Belenkii. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to go into further detail with what is taught by Cathey to include an aperture diameter size like what is taught by Belenkii and provide a range of aperture diameters. Therefore, by being more specific about lens sizes and aperture diameter measurements in Cathey, we would find an aperture diameter that would meet or exceed the 50 mm requirement for the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Berlich et al.(US-20170371176-A1; hereinafter, Berlich).
Regarding claim 7, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] The system according to claim 1, wherein said image processor is configured to apply (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v).").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach applying a cepstrum transform to signals.
Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor.
Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Berlich is directed at evaluating data using an equation. Berlich teaches:
Cepstrum transform (see at least [Page 23, lines 12-17]; "Generally, the evaluating means 28 may be configured to calculate the cepstrum in accordance with the following rule: C(x, y) = Transformation2(Distortion(Transform1)) wherein C(x, y) refers to the cepstrum relative to the image directions x and y.").
Both Cathey and Berlich can process data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to include transforming equations as taught by Berlich. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add an option to utilize the cepstrum transform to the post-processor as taught by Cathey. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey and Berlich respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Kamebuchi et al.(US-20220019059-A1; hereinafter, Kamebuchi).
Regarding claim 12, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v).").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach applying object recognition image processing. Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor.
Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Kamebuchi is directed at using detection units with image data to evaluate image data. Kamebuchi teaches:
Object recognition image processing (see at least [0296]; "Furthermore, the vehicle exterior information detection unit 7400 may perform image recognition processing of recognizing a person, a vehicle, an obstacle, a sign, a character on a road surface or the like or distance detection processing on the basis of the received image.").
Both Cathey and Kamebuchi can process image data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to add and use a detection unit as taught by Kamebuchi. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add a detection unit to the processing sequence of the post-processor in Cathey’s teaching that would allow image recognition processing and would allow the system to identify the object. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey and Kamebuchi respectively.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Arenberg et al.(US-20070206181-A1; hereinafter, Arenberg).
Regarding claim 8, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v)." and see at least [0095]; "FIGS. 16-23 show the Point Spread Functions (PSFs) for the standard system of Figure 1 and the C-PM system of Figure 2 for varying amounts of misfocus.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach calculating the orientation of a lobe of varied PSF. Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor and different types of Point Spread Functions.
Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Arenberg is directed at detecting multiple wavelengths. Arenberg teaches:
Orientation of a lobe of varied PSF by wavelengths (see at least [0035]; "Removing this high frequency information leaves the low frequency information, which is mostly composed of the images formed at the un-tuned wavelengths. FIG. 6A shows the concept of multiple wavelengths (three for example) falling on a single detector 20. As shown in FIG. 6B, the image of a point source at the detector 20, in other words the PSF image, has a composite form derived from the multiple wavelengths. As further depicted in FIG. 7, the three components of the composite PSF include a small-diameter single lobe corresponding to the tuned wavelength, a larger diameter single lobe corresponding to a first wavelength different from the tuned wavelength, and multiple lobes corresponding to a second wavelength that is even further de-tuned than the first wavelength.").
Both Cathey and Arenberg can generate image data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to include an image processing method similar to the process taught by Arenberg. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include the image processing method utilizing wavelengths to obtain lobe orientation of a varied PSF to the post processing algorithm of Cathey. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey and Arenberg respectively.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey, Arenberg, and in view of Gallagher et al.(US-20120200671-A1; hereinafter, Gallagher).
Regarding claim 9, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v)." and see at least [0095]; "FIGS. 16-23 show the Point Spread Functions (PSFs) for the standard system of Figure 1 and the C-PM system of Figure 2 for varying amounts of misfocus.").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach calculating the center of mass of a lobe of varied PSF. Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor and different types of Point Spread Functions. Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Arenberg is directed at lobe description and Gallagher is directed at center of mass determination.
Arenberg and Gallagher teach:
Lobe description (Arenberg teaches see at least [0028]; "More specifically, the PSF dictates how the power from a point source of radiation is distributed on the image plane. The PSF of a perfect lens forms the Airy function, with a central peak and concentric rings of quickly decreasing magnitude with increasing radius. This describes one "lobe" of the PSF.").
Center of Mass determination (Gallagher teaches see at least [0092]; "Individual points in the object space can be determined by the "center of mass" of the crossing point of grid images, that is, by accurately correlating grid line centroids to their respective grid crossings.").
Collectively, Cathey, Arenberg, and Gallagher can calculate values from image data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods used in Cathey to evaluate PSF data to generate image data as taught by Arenberg and Gallagher together. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to utilize the method of Arenberg and combine it with the method of Gallagher to arrive at the same claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey, Arenberg, and Gallagher respectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey and in view of Wu et al.(US-20220171204-A1; hereinafter, Wu).
Regarding claim 10, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v).").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach decoding range information by using machine learning. Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor.
Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Wu is directed at implementing machine learning. Wu teaches:
Machine learning implementation (see at least [Page 11, Lines 23-25]; "Alternatively or additionally, in some embodiments, machine learning can be implemented to further enhance aberration correction performance.").
Both Cathey and Wu can enhance images through embodiments. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method used in Cathey to add an embodiment as taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add an embodiment that would allow for Machine learning to assist in image data interpretation for ranging information. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey and Wu respectively.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey, Wu, and in view of Dittmer et al. (US-20240242805-A1; hereinafter, Dittmer).
Regarding claim 11, Cathey discloses [Note: what Cathey fails to disclose is strike-through] (see at least [0094]; "Thus, it is desirable that the effect of the Figure 3 mask (other than the increased depth of field) be removed by post-processing before a sharp image is obtained...In the preferred embodiment, the function implemented by post-processor (preferably a digital signal processing algorithm in a special purpose electronic chip, but also possible with a digital computer or an electronic or optical analog processor) is the inverse of the OTF (approximated as the function H(u), which is constant over v).").
However, Cathey does not explicitly teach applying a cepstrum transform to signals nor decoding range information by using machine learning. Instead, Cathey teaches an image processor.
Cathey discloses a method to process image data and Wu is directed at machine learning implementation and Dittmer is directed at using Cepstrum analysis. Wu and Dittmer teach:
Machine learning implementation (Wu teaches see at least [Page 11, Lines 23-25]; "Alternatively or additionally, in some embodiments, machine learning can be implemented to further enhance aberration correction performance.").
Cepstrum analysis (Dittmer teaches see at least [0178]; "One approach to model the transfer function by calculating the impulse response function is using "Cepstrum" analysis. Cepstrum analysis has origins in analyzing seismic events and is useful in processing echo signals. Cepstrum analysis can allow separating different effects, as different events can be additive in the logarithm of the power spectrum and separable.")
Collectively, Cathey, Wu, and Dittmer can utilize methods to analyze data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods used in Cathey to incorporate Cepstrum analysis and further have it analyzed using machine learning as taught by Wu and Dittmer respectively. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to add an implementation of machine learning to the post-processing of Cathey and include a Cepstrum analysis as taught by Dittmer. Therefore, the claimed invention is replicated by combining the aspects of Cathey, Wu, and Dittmer respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A Flores whose telephone number is (571)272-9693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/MARK ANTHONY FLORES/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights