DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
II. This Office Action is in response to the Reply of Election of Species filed on 05/11/2026.
III. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected, claim 4-11 and 14 is/are objected to and claims 15-20 are withdraw from consideration. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary. There is a family of issued patent within the application, however none of the claims in the issued patents read on the current claims (with claims in 9418427 being the closest in scope).
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-14 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations:
“generate an estimated registration relationship via a combination of the first registration relationship and the second registration relationship; and register the second source image to the target image based in part the estimated registration relationship” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of image registration, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claim 1-3 and 12-13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Choi (US 20130039567) in view of Kashiwagi (US 20130039569).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an image registration system, comprising: a registration engine configured to:
generate an estimated registration relationship via a combination of the first registration relationship and the second registration relationship (see figure 4, 221 generates an optimized conversion relationship from each of plurality of conversion relationships by considering plurality of conversion relationships, where the plurality of conversion relationships is read as first and second registration relationships); and
register the second source image to the target image based in part the estimated registration relationship (see figure 4, 113, the volume-panorama image is read as the registration of the second and the target image, the target image and second image are employed to find optimized conversion relationship also marked in the figure below, paragraph 61, optimization conversion function generation unit 221 receives the conversion relationship representing a conversion relationship between the volume images from the input unit 21. The conversion relationship is determined to match the volume images when the volume-panorama image is generated by combining the volume images); and
PNG
media_image1.png
410
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
a computer-readable storage medium, wherein the registration engine comprises computer- executable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium (see figure 1, 10 and 20).
Choi is silent in disclosing obtain a first registration relationship between a first source image a target image (see figure 3 illustration below, “relationship of 1st and 2nd image”); obtain a second registration relationship between the first source image and a second source image.
Kashiwagi discloses obtain a first registration relationship between a first source image a target image (see figure 3 illustration below, “relationship of 1st and 2nd image”); obtain a second registration relationship between the first source image and a second source image (see figure 3 illustration below, “relationship of 2nd and target image”):
PNG
media_image2.png
270
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include first source image directly onto the fixed target space in order to enables direct pixel-by-pixel or voxel-by-voxel comparison and captures localized displacements or sequential changes between consecutive source captures to minimizes errors between each image during registration.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine determines deformable registrations between images (see figure 4, 43 is deformed to fit to register with the image in 42).
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine utilizes the estimated registration relationship as a final registration relationship between the second source image and the target image (see figure 4, 113, the volume-panorama image is read as the registration of the second and the target image, the target image and second image are employed to find the optimized conversion relationship, where the optimized conversion relationship is read as the final registration relationship).
Regarding claim 12, Choi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine is further configured to determine the first registration relationship and the second registration relationship (see figure 6, first conversion relationship is read as first registration relationship and second conversion relationship is read as second registration relationship).
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine is further configured to guide a registration of the second source image to the target image towards the estimated registration relationship (see figure 4, 42 and 43 are read as second source image and target image, respectively, paragraph 61, optimization conversion function generation unit 221 receives the conversion relationship representing a conversion relationship between the volume images from the input unit 21, the conversion relationship is determined to match the volume images when the volume-panorama image is generated by combining the volume images, this matched conversion relationship is read as estimated registration relationship).
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-11 and 14 is/are 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.
With regards to claim 4, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the combination of the first registration relationship with the second registration relationship correlates a first location of the second source image to a second location of the target image via a third location of the first source image, wherein the first registration relationship maps the second location of the target image to the third location of the first source image, and the second registration relationship maps the third location of the first source image to the first location of the second source image; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Kashiwagi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, nd image is map to 1st image),
PNG
media_image2.png
270
709
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
With regards to claim 5, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine is further configured to determine an initial set of registration relationships between a third source image and the first source image and the second source image, respectively; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Kashiwagi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the registration engine is further configured to determine an initial set of registration relationships between a third source image and target image (see figure 3 below, C is this relationship)
PNG
media_image3.png
272
709
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on a claim with allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 9, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the target image is registered to a common space, and wherein the registration engine is further configured to register first and second source images to the target image to generate final registration relationships between the first and second source images and the common space, the final registration relationships are based on respective registration relationships between the first and second source images and the target image; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Choi discloses the image registration system of claim 1, wherein
PNG
media_image4.png
410
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With regards to claim 10, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): “the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the at target image is registered to a common space, and wherein the registration engine is further configured to register first and second source images to the target image to generate final registration relationships between the first and second source images and the common space, the final registration relationships are based on respective registration parameters between the first and second source images and the target image”; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Similar to claim 9, claim 10’s limitations are partially disclosed by Choi. Choi discloses
the image registration system of claim 1,
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on a claim with allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 14, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the computer- readable storage medium further stores thereon a library comprising the first source image and the second source image, and wherein, after registration of the first and second source images to the target image, resultant registration relationships and the target image are added to the library; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Vomweg (US 20080292214) the image registration system of claim 1, wherein the computer- readable storage medium further stores thereon
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/29/26
Prosecution Insights