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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on FILLIN "Enter date IDS was filed" \* MERGEFORMAT December 5, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In regarding independent claims 1 and 11: Step 1: Claims 1 and 11 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter. Step 2A: Claim s 1 and 11 are directed to an imaging device /method comprising: a plurality of transmitters which are disposed on both sides of a region to be measured, and each of which transmits a wave to the region; a plurality of receivers which are disposed on the both sides, and each of which receives the wave; and an information processing circuit which derives an imaging function corresponding to a scattering field function related to scattering of the wave according to a correspondence between (i) measurement data obtained by the plurality of transmitters and the plurality of receivers and (ii) a composition of a plurality of functions related to multiple first-order scattering forming multiple scattering, and visualizes a three-dimensional structure of a scatterer included in an object in the region, using the imaging function. Prong 1: The limitation of an image device/ method, comprising : transmitting, by each of a plurality of transmitters disposed on both sides of the region, a wave to a region to be measured , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical relationships. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in a mathematical procedure. Similarly, the limitation of receiving, by each of a plurality of receivers disposed on the both sides, the wave from the region; is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical relationships. Similarly, the limitation of deriving an imaging function corresponding to a scattering field function related to scattering of the wave according to a correspondence between (i) measurement data obtained by the plurality of transmitters and the plurality of receivers and a composition of a plurality of functions related to multiple first-order scattering forming multiple scattering, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical relationships. For example, “a scattering field function ” in the context of this claim encompasses the mathematical values of electromagnetic fields distributed in space and time . Similarly, the limitation of visualiz ing a three-dimensional structure of a scatterer included in an object in the region, using the imaging function ; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical procedure . For example, “scatterer included in an object in the region” in the context of this claim encompasses the scattered waves various forms of radiation such as light or radio waves moving through the target region . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mathematical relationships, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – transmitters/receivers /information processing circuit (claim 1), recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component / software application. Accordingly, th ese additional element s do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include transmitters, receivers, and information processing circuit . The additional elements perform only basic function s well-known in the art for their general purpose . Thus, the recited generic additional elements perform no more than their basic computer -implemented function. In the court of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, the court cites a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, —is purely functional and generic (page 16). Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic computer are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea. Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above. Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite anything more than an extension of the aforementioned abstract idea. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6435 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Vu Le can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-7332 . 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. /JESSICA YIFANG LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668 February 20, 2026 /VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668