DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 10 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 12 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the Inverse Fourier Transform", “the multiplication”, “the Fourier Transform” in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first rule" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the first spectral channel image" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12 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 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referenced to establish that the subject matter is ineligible.
Step 1: claim 1 recites a method and claim 12 recites a computer-readable medium. Claims 1 and 12 fall under one of the four recognized statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: However, claims 1 and 12 are further directed to the abstract idea of filtering values of a spectral image. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claims merely recite performing mathematic calculations that result in the filtering of a spectral image. Furthermore, the claims do not preclude the limitations from being performed as a mental process in the human mind using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include a computer-readable medium in claim 12. The involvement of a generic computer components does not provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations to hardware involve no more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: The claims do not provide an inventive concept as they do not provide an improvement to any type of particular machine. Automating the filtering of values in a spectral image does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. The claims do not improve the computer system that is implementing the abstract idea. Merely automating or otherwise making efficient traditional methods do not constitute an inventive concept. Therefore claims 1-9 and 12 are non-statutory.
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, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 (hereafter “Golub”).
Referring to claim 1, Golub discloses a method for modifying spectral imaging for gaining minimum spectral cross-contamination, the method comprising:
modifying spectral channel images of a spectral cube of a scene with an illumination mask (paragraph 79, A CS iteration scheme (exemplarily split Bregman) is then used to obtain images of the object intensity in each of L spectral bands in step 508); and
generating the illumination mask by convolutional low-pass filtering of a first spectral channel image of the spectral cube (paragraph 77, In an embodiment, we use the filter bank derived from a quasi-interpolating quadratic spline (see APZFrame). This filter bank generates a semi-tight frame) (paragraph 74, Filters h0 and h0 from the PR filter banks {H, H} are low-pass).
Referring to claim 9, Golub discloses wherein the spectral imaging comprises hyper spectral imaging (paragraph 7, An apparatus disclosed herein is a snapshot hyperspectral imager).
Referring to claim 12, Golub discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computational device, cause the computational device to:
modify spectral channel images of a spectral cube of a scene with an illumination mask (paragraph 79, A CS iteration scheme (exemplarily split Bregman) is then used to obtain images of the object intensity in each of L spectral bands in step 508); and
generate the illumination mask by convolutional low-pass filtering of a first spectral channel image of the spectral cube (paragraph 77, In an embodiment, we use the filter bank derived from a quasi-interpolating quadratic spline (see APZFrame). This filter bank generates a semi-tight frame) (paragraph 74, Filters h0 and h0 from the PR filter banks {H, H} are low-pass).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez et al. US Publication 2018/0309941 (hereafter “Lopez”).
Referring to claim 2, Golub discloses determining the spectral cube of the scene, wherein the spectral cube consists of one spectral channel image for every pre-defined wavelength (paragraph 79, A CS iteration scheme (exemplarily split Bregman) is then used to obtain images of the object intensity in each of L spectral bands in step 508);
selecting the first spectral channel image according to a first rule (paragraph 85, Their spectral bands are wavelengths numbered l=12, 17, 19, 26, 28 and 33);
deriving low-pass filtering parameters of a low-pass filter according to a second rule (paragraph 77, In an embodiment, we use the filter bank derived from a quasi-interpolating quadratic spline (see APZFrame). This filter bank generates a semi-tight frame);
generating the illumination mask by calculating the filtered spectral channel image corresponding to the Inverse Fourier Transform of the multiplication of the selected low-pass filter and the Fourier Transform of the spectral channel image (paragraph 63, The coherent point spread function h(y′; λ) associated with the RIP diffuser is also 1D, depending only on coordinate y′ at the image plane, and can be calculated as inverse Fourier transform of the piecewise constant pupil function); and
modifying the spectral channel images by the illumination mask by application of a third rule (paragraph 79, A CS iteration scheme (exemplarily split Bregman) is then used to obtain images of the object intensity in each of L spectral bands in step 508).
While Golub discloses performing an Inverse Fourier Transform of the selected low-pass filter, Golub does not disclose expressly using a real value of the Inverse Fourier Transform.
Lopez discloses using a real value of the Inverse Fourier Transform (paragraph 74, A phase retrieval algorithm using a non-negativity constraint and a support constraint, based on the illumination pattern, can re-construct the image. Phase retrieval algorithms for real-valued, non-negative images may be achieved).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to only use a real value of the Inverse Fourier Transform of the spectral channel image. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the complexity of resolving the values of the spectral channel image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bernstein with Golub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 and of Lopez et al. US Publication 2018/0309941 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tack et al. US Publication 2012/0327248 (hereafter “Tack”).
Referring to claim 6, Golub discloses wherein:
the second rule comprises order and cut-off frequency of the low-pass filter (paragraph 76, In an exemplary embodiment, we designed a family of 4-channel PR filter banks with diverse coefficients (see APZFrame). Their polyphase matrices have a specific structure, which is determined by a low-pass filter whose frequency response is ĥ0[n]=ĥ00[n]+ω−nĥ10[n]); and
the order approximates a smooth frequency response (paragraph 75, To extend the framelet transform to the lower resolution scale and to increase the representation redundancy, the transform is applied to the low-frequency coefficients array d0 using analysis polyphase matrix {(P)}[2n]).
Golub does not disclose expressly that the cut-off frequency is based on a smallest resolvable 2D spatial dimension in the scene.
Tack discloses the cut-off frequency is based on a smallest resolvable 2D spatial dimension in the scene (paragraph 103, A fourth parameter for the Fabry-Perot filter is the spectral resolution, i.e. the minimal difference in central wavelength of two neighboring spectral bands that can be resolved. This parameter depends on both the position of the central wavelength and the bandwidth of the filter).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to base a cutoff frequency of a filter on a smallest resolvable 2D spatial dimension in the scene. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the image quality of the filtered spectral image by using an ideal cut-off frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tack with Golub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernstein et al. US Publication 2004/0153284 (hereafter “Bernstein”).
Referring to claim 3, Golub discloses the spectral image, but does not disclose expressly wherein the spectral image contains a least significant sample information of the scene.
Bernstein discloses wherein the first rule states the spectral image contains a least significant sample information of the scene (paragraph 35, The normalizing step may comprise normalizing in a spectral band in which the sun-surface-sensor path spectral transmittance factor is close to unity, or resolving at least two spectral window bands that do not have a significant contribution from water absorption, using the spectral deviations of these window bands to retrieve an aerosol optical depth, and using the optical depth to normalize).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a least significant sample information of the scene. The motivation for doing so would have been to remove spectrally-diverse pixels that contain undesirable spectral features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bernstein with Golub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Referring to claim 4, Golub discloses wherein the least significant sample information corresponds to maximum reflectance (paragraph 35, The normalizing step may involve establishing the scale factor such that the maximum retrieved reflectance value for any wavelength and pixel of the spectrally-diverse pixels is unity).
Referring to claim 5, Golub discloses calculating average reflectance spectrum values for the spectral channel images and the channel image with a highest value is designated as the first spectral channel image (paragraph 6, In the Internal Average Relative Reflectance method this procedure is followed using a scene-average spectrum rather than a single bright pixel spectrum).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. CN Publication 106504208A (hereafter “Huang”).
Referring to claim 7, Golub discloses the low-pass filter, but does not disclose expressly wherein the low-pass filter comprises a Butterworth filter.
Huang discloses wherein the low-pass filter comprises a Butterworth filter (page 7. For such strip noise, besides the BLPF algorithm, other types of algorithms can reduce the influence of strip noise to a certain extent, and the result is shown in FIG. 4).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a Butterworth filter. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively reduce the influence of noise in the image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bernstein with Golub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golub et al. US Publication 2016/0313181 and of Lopez et al. US Publication 2018/0309941 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bernstein et al. US Publication 2004/0153284.
Referring to claim 8, Golub discloses modifying the spectral channel images by the illumination mask, but does not disclose expressly dividing the intensity value of every pixel of the spectral cube by the intensity value of the corresponding pixel of the illumination mask.
Bernstein discloses wherein the third rule states:
dividing the intensity value of every pixel of the spectral cube by the intensity value of the corresponding pixel of the illumination mask (paragraph 31, determining a statistical spectral deviation of the spectrally-diverse pixels, normalizing the statistical spectral deviation by applying a scale factor, and compensating image pixels with both the spectral baseline and the normalized spectral deviation).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the illumination mask to normalize the spectral cube. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the image quality of the filtered spectral image by using normalization to reduce dim and bright images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bernstein with Golub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682