DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-4, and 6-12 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejections are necessitated due to claim amendments. Incorporating claim 5 into claim 1 created a new claim tree; i.e. previously claim 1[Wingdings font/0xDF] claim 2 was changed to claim 1&5 [Wingdings font/0xDF] claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Saphier teaches an optical inspection device comprising: an optical inspection main body on which a target substrate/sample is mounted [Para. 29, 35, 37 and 40]; a plurality of high-resolution cameras spaced from the target substrate and disposed in the optical inspection main body, wherein the high-resolution cameras photograph a plurality of high-resolution images [Abstract; Para. 35, 37 and 40].
However, Saphier doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
PASUPALETI teaches an image converter which converts the high-resolution images into a low- resolution image [Para. 67, claim 39], wherein the image converter includes a gray uniformizer which adjusts grays of the high-resolution images to allow a gray deviation among the high- resolution images to be equal to or less than a deviation reference value [Para. 69 “The blending is applied after the image intensities are normalized and the only difference between two images is the overall intensity shift.”; Para. 71 “the overlapping region of adjacent images should be identical, so that the intensity values of left overlapping portion of the image are equal to intensity values of the corresponding position in the right image for any point (i, j).” Para. 77 “the color planes may correspond to the RGB, CMYK, gray space and the like” and “The intensity differences can be monotonously increasing or decreasing functions or combination of both.”; abstract “normalize spatially varying intensity differences of the first image and the second image”. Fig. 6 and related description. It’s clear that the deviation reference could be any value; therefore, the cited portion of the reference reads on the claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by PASUPALETI; because the modification enables the system to improve panoramic image stitching by choosing a minimum-error seams and normalizing image intensities before blending to produce panoramas with fewer misalignment.
Saphier in view of PASUPALETI doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a resolution of each of the high-resolution images is higher than a resolution of the low-resolution image.
However, GAO teaches an image converter (simulation module) which converts (generates) the high-resolution images into a low- resolution image [Para. 30 and 31]; wherein a resolution of each of the high-resolution images is higher than a resolution of the low-resolution image [Para. 31. It’s clear that each high-resolution image is higher than low resolution image].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by GAO; because the modification enables the system to improve super resolution fluorescence microscopy by simulating realistic low-resolution image sequences and using deep learning to reconstruct super-resolution image from those low resolution inputs.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of Culter (Patent No. US 7,936,374).
Regarding 2, PASUPALETI teaches the gray uniformizer compares adjacent high-resolution images to detect high-resolution images with the maximum gray deviation [para. 32].
Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Culter teaches wherein the gray uniformizer compares adjacent high-resolution images to detect high- resolution images with the maximum gray deviation, and uniformizes grays among the detected high-resolution images to generate a plurality of compensated images when the gray deviation is greater than a deviation reference value [Col. 11 lines 58-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Cutler; because the modification enables the system to improve inter tile intensity consistency across adjacent cameras image.
Claims 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of Sahu et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0082454).
Regarding claim 3, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Sahu teaches wherein the image converter further includes an image bonding portion which generates the low-resolution image by combining the compensated images having a uniform gray, the gray deviation among which is equal to or less than the deviation reference value [Para. 5-Para. 7 “The one or more processors are further caused to determine a second histogram based on color data included in the second image that corresponds to the overlap region, determine, based on the first and second histograms, a mapping function that substantially maps the second histogram to the first histogram, and apply the mapping function to the second image to generate a normalized second image with respect to the first image”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Sahu; because the modification enables the system to uniformity between adjacent high resolution images tiles reducing visible seams and marking.
Regrading claim 9, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Sahu performing a compensation operation by comparing adjacent high-resolution images to detect high-resolution images with the maximum gray deviation, and uniformizing the grays among the detected high-resolution images when the gray deviation is greater than a deviation reference value [claim 1 and corresponding description]; and repeating the compensation operation to generate a plurality of compensated images to allow the gray deviation to be equal to or less than the deviation reference value [claim 8 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Sahu; because the modification enables the system to uniformity between adjacent high resolution images tiles reducing visible seams and marking.
Regarding claim 10, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Sahu teaches wherein the converting the high-resolution images into the low-resolution image further includes combining the compensated images having a uniform gray, the gray deviation among which is equal to or less than the deviation reference value, to generate the low- resolution image [Claim 2 and corresponding description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Sahu; because the modification enables the system to uniformity between adjacent high resolution images tiles reducing visible seams and marking.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of Bills et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0268105).
Regarding claim 6, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Bills wherein the high-resolution camera has a resolution of 0.6 m to 3 m per pixel [Para. 133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Bills; because the modification enables the system to reduce mismatch seams so the stitched result supports more accurate inspection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of Bills et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0268105) and further in view of D’Amico et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0125810).
Regarding claim 7, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO and Bills doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
However, Sahu teaches wherein the high-resolution cameras include twelve high-resolution cameras disposed in a 4x3 matrix form [Para. 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO and Bills to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by GAO; because the modification enables the system to improve the quality of stitched images.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of Sahu et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0082454) and further in view of Culter (Patent No. US 7,936,374).
Regarding claim 11, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO and Sahu doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Cutler teaches wherein the combining the compensated images having the uniform gray includes arranging patterns which are similar to each other between the compensated images and combining the patterns to each other [Col. 13 lines 55-60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO and Sahu to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Cutler; because the modification enables the system to improve inter tile intensity consistency across adjacent cameras image.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0309308) in view of PASUPALETI et al. (pub. No. US 2010/0194851) further in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0357096) further in view of CHOU et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0239967)
Regarding claim 12, Saphier in view PASUPALETI in view GAO and Sahu doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
CHOU teaches the deviation reference value is 0.5 [Para. Para. 68].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Saphier in view of PASUPALETI in view of GAO and Sahu to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by CHOU; because the modification enables the system to improve inter tile intensity consistency across adjacent cameras image.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-8 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry 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, call 888-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-4000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666