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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an obtaining component that obtains,” “an expansion component that expands,” “a filter application component, that … applies,” in claim 1, “filter generation component that generates,” in claim 6, and “blurring component that blurs” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, they are being interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations and therefore the corresponding structure is a special purpose processor programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm corresponding to each of the above referenced “components.” See MPEP §2181(II)(B),
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17, and therefore claims 18–20 which depend therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is directed towards a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium. However, the computer readable storage medium is not claimed to be “non-transitory” and no special definition or disavowal of scope is provided in the Specification. Although the Specification in ¶ 272 states that “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se,” statements regarding claim construction are not effective disavowals of scope. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “computer readable storage medium” includes signals per se. Claim 17 can overcome this rejection simply by amending into the claim “non-transitory.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1–6, 11–14 and 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Leister et al., US Patent No. US 11,397,406 B2 (herein “Leister) in view of Hu et al., "Research on object-plane constraints and hologram expansion in phase retrieval algorithms for continuous-wave terahertz inline digital holography reconstruction," Appl. Opt. 53, 7112-7119 (2014) (herein “Hu”), cited in the IDS filed 6/19/2025.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, where substantive differences between the claims are noted with curly brackets {}, and with claim 1 as exemplary, Leister teaches {a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise – claim 1 / A computer-implemented method, comprising – claim 11 / A computer program product facilitating a process for apodization of a hologram, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, and the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to – claim 17 (Leister col. 1, ll. 53–58, generation of holographic display carried out in a general computer, where it is understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that a computer includes a processor and memory, and col. 13, ll. 11–20, and col. 1, ll. 18–21, and teach an apodization function encoded into the hologram by the light modulation device)}:
{an obtaining component that – claim 1} obtains {by a system operatively coupled to a processor – claim 11 / by the processor – claim 17} a signal of an energy-based initial hologram (Leister col. 2, ll. 18–23 and col. 3, ll. 46–49, light (energy-based) propagation to a spatial light modulation device (herein “SLM”) to generate a subhologram (initial hologram) on the SLM);
{an expansion component that – claim 1} expands {by the system operatively coupled to a processor – claim 11 / by the processor – claim 17} the initial hologram at a boundary of the initial hologram, resulting in an expanded hologram having an expanded portion at the boundary (Leister col. 24, ll. 16–18, 32–41, the region of encoding of object points on the SLM is extended to a region outside the subhologram, thereby widening or extending the hologram (expanded hologram) by 3.5 mm in the y direction, and 10mm in the x direction, in a neighboring region (at the boundary) but lying outside of the conventional (initial) hologram); and
{a filter application component that, - claim 1} [based on the expanded hologram,] applies {by the processor – claim 17} an apodization filter (Leister col. 30, ll. 27–38, an encoding region larger than the size of the subhologram (expanded hologram) is apodized) to overlap the expanded portion of the expanded hologram (Leister col. 25, ll. 14–24, amplitude apodization function is applied to a conventional hologram so that encoding regions (including expanded portions of the expanded hologram) overlap).
While Leister teaches applying an apodization filter in furtherance of “to” overlap the expanded portion of the expanded hologram, Leister does not explicitly teach that the application of the apodization filter is “based on the expanded hologram.”
Hu teaches based on the expanded hologram (Hu page 7117 right column., Tukey filtering function with apodization parameter, thus an apodization filter, is based on the expanded hologram).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Hu together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the filtering disclosed in Hu at least because doing so would result in improved SNR in the reconstructed image. See Hu page 7117, right column.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, with claim 2 as exemplary, Leister teaches wherein the expansion component expands only a portion of the initial hologram disposed at the boundary (Leister col. 25, ll. 24–31, pixel groupings for the subholograms being arranged in a set number of ways: overlapping, not overlapping, or slightly overlapping, where a slight overlap would be “only a portion”, where col. 26, ll. 20–24, 51–54 and fig. 7 teach the subhologram being extended by pixels outside of it at the boundary).
While Leister teaches a number of ways to arrange overlapping, Leister does not explicitly anticipate one particular way, including the “slightly overlapping” arrangement. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leister to use only the slightly overlapping pixel grouping at least because doing so would have been obvious to try with predictble results. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 3, Leister teaches wherein the filter application component applies the apodization filter (Leister col. 25, ll. 31–34, the apodization function (apodization filter) is used on the subhologram encoding region).
Leister does not, but Hu teaches to at least the expanded portion of the expanded hologram (Hu page 7117, including equation 14, teaching the expansion of the hologram by way of a Tukey filter that performs apodization).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Hu together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the filtering disclosed in Hu at least because doing so would result in improved SNR in the reconstructed image. See Hu page 7117, right column.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Leister teaches wherein the filter application component applies the apodization filter (Leister col. 25, ll. 31–34, the apodization function (apodization filter) is used on the subhologram encoding region). Leister does not, but Hu teaches only to the expanded portion (Hu page 7117, including equation 14, teaching the expansion of the hologram by way of a Tukey filter that performs apodization, where different regions of the filter and therefore the hologram have different amounts of apodization, and where the inner region comprised of the original hologram does not have apodization, whereas the other regions (expanded regions) do have apodization).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Hu together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the filtering disclosed in Hu at least because doing so would result in improved SNR in the reconstructed image. See Hu page 7117, right column.
Regarding claim 5, Leister teaches wherein the initial hologram comprises an aggregation of a plurality of holograms (Leister fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 18–27 and 44–48, claim 1, holographic reconstruction of a scene uses generated subholograms that compose a hologram, the subholograms being initial/pre-expansion processing subholograms).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 18, Leister does not explicitly teach but Hu teaches a filter generation component that generates the apodization filter by copying pixels from a border of the initial hologram and applying those pixels external to the initial hologram, at the boundary, resulting in the expanded portion of the expanded hologram (Hu page 7117, hologram is expanded by boundary replication (copying pixels from a border) with the apodization processing by a Tukey window function defined as in equation (14)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Hu together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the filtering disclosed in Hu at least because doing so would result in improved SNR in the reconstructed image. See Hu page 7117, right column.
Claims 7–8, 15–16 and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leister in view of Hu as set forth above, further in view of Dickson et al., United Stated Patent No. 5,691,830 (herein “Dickson”).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 19, with claim 7 as exemplary, and deficiencies of Leister as modified by Hu noted in square brackets, Leister as modified by Hu teaches [further comprising: a blurring component that blurs an internal area of] the expanded hologram, [internal to the boundary] (Leister col. 24, ll. 16–18, 32–41, the region of encoding of object points on the SLM is extended to a region outside the subhologram, thereby widening or extending the hologram (expanded hologram) by 3.5 mm in the y direction, and 10mm in the x direction, in a neighboring region (at the boundary) but lying outside of the conventional (initial) hologram).
Leister does not teach but Hu teaches prior to the application of the apodization filter by the filter application component (Hu pages 7116–7117, zero padding processing of the hologram prior to the Tukey filter being applied which realizes the apodization function).
Dickson teaches a blurring component that blurs an internal area of the hologram, internal to the boundary (Dickson col. 15, ll. 34–56, and col. 13, ll. 14–19, holographic blur filter (blurring component that blurs) is applied to a two-dimensional array of pixels defining the hologram (internal area)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Hu together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the padding order before Tukey filtering disclosed in Hu at least because doing so would result in improved SNR in the reconstructed image. See Hu page 7117, right column.
Further, taking the teachings of Leister and Dickson together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram processing of Leister to include the blur filter disclosed in Dickson at least because doing so would suppress aliasing effects and thus remove noise. See Dickson col. 13, ll. 17–19.
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, with claim 8 as exemplary, Leister as modified by Hu does not explicitly teach, but Dickson teaches wherein the blurring component progressively increases the blurring of the internal area at distances that are progressively increased from a center of the internal area (Dickson col. 3, ll. 65–67, fig. 19, and col. 13, l. 62–col. 14, l. 12, as shown, blur filter applied to hologram 1 H1 at its center, where θ angle increases blurring from the center, diverting away from the center (increased) over distance S1 resulting in hologram 2 H2).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Dickson together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram processing of Leister to include the blur filter disclosed in Dickson at least because doing so would suppress aliasing effects and thus remove noise. See Dickson col. 13, ll. 17–19.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leister in view of Hu as disclosed above, further in view of Wang et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0285735 A1 (herein “Wang”).
Regarding claim 9, Leister teaches the claimed obtaining component as disclosed above in the rejection for claim 1, however, Leister as modified by Hu does not explicitly teach, where Wang teaches employs a detector having a broken pixel (Wang fig. 4A, detector 124, claim 12, ¶88, detector having dead pixels (broken pixel) which are optically inactive pixels), and wherein application of the apodization filter by the filter application component is the same whether the detector has the broken pixel or does not have the broken pixel (Wang fig. 4A, claim 12, ¶108, the apodization element (apodization filter) is part of the illumination optics, upstream of the detector, and operating agnostically to the condition of the detector, this regardless of whether the detector has a broken pixel or not, where the detector integrates over the different AOI regions with dead pixel areas to accommodate the dead pixels).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister as modified by Hu and Wang together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram processing of Leister to include the dark pixel integration by a detector and apodization regardless of dark pixel status as set forth in Wang at least because doing so would provide improved measurement (detection) repeatability and stability. See Wang ¶48.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leister in view of Hu as disclosed above, further in view of Latychevskaia et al., “Resolution enhancement in digital holography by self-extrapolation of holograms,” Optics Express, Vol. 21, No. 6, March 25, 2013 (herein “Latychevskaia”).
Regarding claim 10, Leister does not explicitly teach, but Latychevskaia teaches wherein the expansion of the initial hologram by the expansion component allows for propagation of artifacts into the expanded portion instead of reflection of the artifacts off the boundary and back into area of the initial hologram (Latychevskaia section 4, fig. 5, truncated hologram (initial hologram) of 500 x 500 pixels is padded (expanded) to 1000x1000 pixels and iteratively constructed, where every five iterations the reconstructed hologram is convolved with a Gaussian filter to suppress accumulation of noisy peaks in the center (suppress artifacts in the area of the initial hologram), but allow for higher order fringes to emerge in the self-extrapolation (propagation of artifacts into the expanded portion)).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Leister and Latychevskaia together as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hologram expansion of Leister to include the filtering disclosed in Latychevskaia at least because doing so would result in enhanced resolution of the hologram. See Latychevskaia Abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bahm, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0183610 A1, directed towards processing of energy-based holograms.
Popovic, US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0193115 A1, directed towards the ordering of optical filtering prior to apodization.
Zhang et al., “Zhang et al., "Optimization of the window function for digital hologram apodization in reconstructing the holographic image" Journal of Optics 15, 2013, cited in the IDS filed 11/15/2023, directed towards design criteria for the apodization function of a filter for a digital holographic image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M KOETH whose telephone number is (571)272-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 09:00-17:00, Friday 09:00-13:00, EDT/EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
MICHELLE M. KOETH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/MICHELLE M KOETH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671