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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/28/2025, filed with the office on 02/26/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are pending. Claim 6 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments of independent claims 1 and 8, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recite a system and method of image reconstruction of a distorted image using Fourier amplitude, Fourier phase, and taking an inverse Fourier Transform. With respect to independent system claim 8:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 8 is directed to an apparatus i.e., a system or a machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mathematical algorithm or equation (i.e., abstract idea).
The limitation “extracting the Fourier phase with respect to the original images; extracting the Fourier amplitude with respect to the original images[[,]]; and acquiring a reconstructed image in which the distorted region has been reconstructed by performing an inverse Fourier transform on a value obtained by multiplying the Fourier phase and the Fourier amplitude[[,]]; and determining whether an iteration count reaches a preset maximum iteration count, wherein when the iteration count does not reach the preset maximum iteration count yet in the determining, the method further comprising: determining a reconstructed image acquired most recently to be a reference image for a next cycle; and acquiring a subsequent reconstructed image by extracting the Fourier phase and the Fourier amplitude with respect to the same plurality of original images, wherein the extracting of the Fourier phase and the extracting of the Fourier amplitude are performed independently of each other” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas or equations/relationships as shown in Figure 4 of Applicant’s disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the Mathematical Concepts grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “a process” are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein.
The additional elements of “acquire a plurality of original images comprising a distorted region” are recited as mere data gathering, which may not be considered as an element which integrates the above-listed identified abstract idea into a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(g).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO,
The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional step/element/limitation of “a processor” or “acquiring a plurality of original images comprising a distorted region” amount to no more than an abstract idea performed on a computer or insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, as presented above in Step 2A, Prong two. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III). Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
In addition, the elements of claims 1 is analyzed in the same manner as claim 8. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-7, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are identified as: being either directed towards mere data gathering or an abstract idea, mathematical calculation, and not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, claims 1-8 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1-8 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP2012156715A - Translation for Espacenet), in view of Wu et al. ("Single-shot diffraction-limited imaging through scattering layers via bispectrum analysis" - From IDS), in further view of Anastasio et al. (US 2021/0150779 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takashi teaches “A method of reconstructing an object from distorted images (Takashi paragraph [0046] "Image restoration is a process for reducing aberrations that appear in an image. Examples of aberrations include spherical aberration, coma aberration, field curvature, astigmatism, and the like of an imaging optical system"), the method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of original images comprising a distorted region (Takashi paragraph [0042] "images output from a plurality of image capture devices")”.
However, Takashi is not relied on to teach “extracting the Fourier phase with respect to the original images; extracting the Fourier amplitude with respect to the original images; and acquiring a reconstructed image in which the distorted region has been reconstructed by performing an inverse Fourier transform on a value obtained by multiplying the Fourier phase and the Fourier amplitude[[,]]; and determining whether an iteration count reaches a preset maximum iteration count, wherein when the iteration count does not reach the preset maximum iteration count yet in the determining, the method further comprising: determining a reconstructed image acquired most recently to be a reference image for a next cycle; and acquiring a subsequent reconstructed image by extracting the Fourier phase and the Fourier amplitude with respect to the same plurality of original images, wherein the extracting of the Fourier phase and the extracting of the Fourier amplitude are performed independently of each other.”
Wu teaches “extracting the Fourier phase with respect to the original images (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The Fourier phase of object [Fig. 1 (d)] is recovered separately and independently from the bispectrum analysis of the large speckle pattern (see details below and in Fig. 3)");
extracting the Fourier amplitude with respect to the original images (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The Fourier amplitude of object [Fig. 1 (c)] can be extracted from the autocorrelation of the single high-resolution camera image"); and
acquiring a reconstructed image in which the distorted region has been reconstructed by performing an inverse Fourier transform on a value obtained by multiplying the Fourier phase and the Fourier amplitude (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The final imaging result [Fig. 1(e)] is achieved by a simple inverse Fourier transform of the combination of the estimated Fourier amplitude and Fourier phase")[[,]]; and
by extracting the Fourier phase (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The Fourier phase of object [Fig. 1 (d)] is recovered separately and independently from the bispectrum analysis of the large speckle pattern (see details below and in Fig. 3)") and the Fourier amplitude (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The Fourier amplitude of object [Fig. 1 (c)] can be extracted from the autocorrelation of the single high-resolution camera image") with respect to the same plurality of original images (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The final imaging result [Fig. 1(e)] is achieved by a simple inverse Fourier transform of the combination of the estimated Fourier amplitude and Fourier phase"), wherein the extracting of the Fourier phase and the extracting of the Fourier amplitude (Wu page 2 left hand column paragraph 1 "The Fourier amplitude of object [Fig. 1 (c)] can be extracted from the autocorrelation of the single high-resolution camera image") are performed independently of each other (Wu page 2 left hand side paragraph 1 "The Fourier phase of object [Fig. 1 (d)] is recovered separately and independently from the bispectrum analysis of the large speckle pattern (see details below and in Fig. 3)").”
PNG
media_image2.png
565
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu Figure 1
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a process of image reconstruction for a distorted image as taught by Takashi to use a process of determine Fourier amplitude and phase, and taking the inverse Fourier Transform to reconstruct an image as taught by Wu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Wu “demonstrate[s] a single-shot noninvasive imaging scheme for realizing diffraction-limited observation of hidden objects behind scattering layers, without the use of iterative phase-retrieval algorithms. Inspired by techniques used in astronomy and based on the notion of closure-phase pioneered in radio-astronomy, we extract the object's Fourier phase deterministically and unambiguously via bispectrum (triple-correlation) analysis of a single scattered light pattern. Just as in Katz's et al. [15] work only a single camera image is required. In addition to being deterministic and straightforward to implement, the technique benefits from the reduced sensitivity of bispectrum to additive Gaussian noise [18], which is an important practical advantage" as noted by the Wu disclosure in page 1 right hand column paragraph 1.
However, the combination of Takashi and Wu is not relied on to teach “determining whether an iteration count reaches a preset maximum iteration count, wherein when the iteration count does not reach the preset maximum iteration count yet in the determining, the method further comprising: determining a reconstructed image acquired most recently to be a reference image for a next cycle; and acquiring a subsequent reconstructed image”.
Anastasio teaches “determining whether an iteration count (Anastasio paragraph [0043] "criteria used to define convergence of a reconstructed image include a total number of image reconstruction iterations in excess of a threshold maximum number of iterations") reaches a preset maximum iteration count (Anastasio Figure 2 and paragraph [0044] "The intermediate image reconstructed at 206 is evaluated at 208 to determine whether there is convergence of the reconstructed image according to the one or more criteria as described above" - where convergence means number of iterations has reached the threshold maximum number of iterations), wherein when the iteration count does not reach the preset maximum iteration count yet in the determining (Anastasio paragraph [0044] " If the current intermediate image is determined to have not converged at 208"), the method further comprising:
determining a reconstructed image acquired most recently to be a reference image for a next cycle (Anastasio Figure 2 and paragraph [0044] "If the current intermediate image is determined to have not converged at 208, another iteration of intermediate image reconstruction is performed at 206"); and
acquiring a subsequent reconstructed image (Anastasio Figure 2 and paragraph [0044] "If the current intermediate image is determined to have not converged at 208, another iteration of intermediate image reconstruction is performed at 206. If the current intermediate image reconstruction is determined to have converged at step 208, a deep learning projection is performed based on the current intermediate image at 210 and the resulting projection is used to reconstruct the final image at 212")”.
PNG
media_image3.png
691
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Anastasio Figure 2
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a process of image reconstruction for a distorted image by performing an inverse Fourier Transform as taught by Takashi and Wu to recursively reconstruct an image until a target threshold is obtained for the reconstructed image as taught by Anastasio.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “The disclosed systems and computer implemented methods enable accurate reconstruction of images from incomplete and/or noisy measurement data sets for a variety of imaging devices and reconstruction methods" as noted by the Anastasio disclosure in paragraph 26.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Takashi and Wu with the Anastasio disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of original images are acquired as a plurality of images from different timepoints (Takashi paragraph [0047] "the original image is f(x, y), the captured image (degraded image) is g(x, y)").”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of original images are acquired by dividing a single original image acquired as a single image from one timepoint into a plurality of sub-images satisfying an isoplanatic condition (Wu Figure 3 and paragraph 2 right hand column paragraph 3 "We divide the single camera image into multiple sub-images").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio references presented in the rejection of claim 1, applies to claim 5. Finally the method recited in claim 5 is met by Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein in the acquiring of the original images, the original images are acquired by being captured by a spatial sensor device comprising at least one of a camera, an ultrasonic sensor, a radio antenna, or an X-ray detector (Takashi paragraph [0041] "the imaging optical system and the imaging device main body are separate entities, but the present invention may be applied to a compact camera or the like in which the lens and imaging element are integrated").”
Claim 8 recites a system with elements corresponding to the method with steps
recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of the method
claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio references discloses “a processor (for example, Takashi paragraph [0017] "The CPU 310 of the information processing device 200 controls the entire information processing device")”.
Claims 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio, in view of Tang et al. ("Expression ratio evaluation in two-colour microarray experiments is significantly improved by correcting image misalignment" - From IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the extracting of the Fourier phase comprises: acquiring an aligned image set by aligning the plurality of original images (Wu Figure 3 and paragraph 2 right hand column paragraph 3 "We divide the single camera image into multiple sub-images")
acquiring an average image of the aligned image set; and extracting the Fourier phase from the average image (Wu paragraph 2 right hand column paragraph 3 "we can extract the Fourier phase of object from the bispectrum analysis of a single high-resolution speckle pattern, by exploiting the concept of replacing temporal average with spatial average").
PNG
media_image4.png
549
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu Figure 3
However, the combination of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio does not teach the use of shift correction for aligning the images.
Tang teaches “shift correction (Tang page 2 left hand column paragraph 3 "cross-correlation (Barnea and Silverman, 1972; Pratt, 1974), which gives a measure of the similarity of the two images. Since the major features (arrays of spots) present in the two images are geometrically equivalent, cross-correlation is sufficient to give robust values")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a process of image reconstruction for a distorted image by performing an inverse Fourier Transform as taught by Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio to use the method of shift correction as taught by Tang.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “The relative position of this maximum of correlation with respect to the cross correlation origin (centre of the map) constitutes an accurate measure of the translation (
δ
x,
δ
y) between the two images" as noted by the Tang disclosure in page 2 right hand column paragraph 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Takashi, Wu, and Anastasio with the Tang disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takashi, Wu, Anastasio, and Tang teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the extracting of the Fourier phase comprises: selecting a reference image that is a reference for shift correction from among the plurality of original images (Takashi paragraph [0047] "the original image is f(x, y), the captured image (degraded image) is g(x, y)");
performing shift correction with respect to the plurality of original images comprising the reference image based on the reference image using a cross-correlation operation that calculates a correlation with the reference image (Tang page 2 left hand column paragraph 3 "cross-correlation (Barnea and Silverman, 1972; Pratt, 1974), which gives a measure of the similarity of the two images. Since the major features (arrays of spots) present in the two images are geometrically equivalent, cross-correlation is sufficient to give robust values");
acquiring a summed image by summing the shift-corrected images (Tang paragraph 2 left hand column paragraph 4 and equation 1 "where f and g are the images; the sum is over x, y which are the coordinates of the pixels; u, v are the coordinates of the pixel being considered"); and
PNG
media_image5.png
113
794
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tang Equation 1
calculating a Fourier phase of the summed image Wu paragraph 2 right hand column paragraph 3 "we can extract the Fourier phase of object from the bispectrum analysis of a single high-resolution speckle pattern, by exploiting the concept of replacing temporal average with spatial average").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Takashi, Wu, Anastasio, and Tang references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 3. Finally the method recited in claim 3 is met by Takashi, Wu, Anastasio, and Tang.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights