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 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 1-24, 32-44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites “deciding a display condition of the first image data based on a relationship between the first subject and the second subject” which appears to fall under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally determine or decide a display condition, such as by selecting a display condition from a list or selecting a display range for contrast enhancement through a user interface, for example. Claim 1 further recites “acquiring first imaging data including a first subject and a second subject imaged by a spectral imaging apparatus; acquiring first image data indicating an indicator related to discrimination between the first subject and the second subject from the first imaging data” which appear to be data gathering steps which are insignificant extra solution activities. The claim does not recite any additional limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor does it prove an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the display condition includes a display range” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally determine or calculate a display range or select a display range through a user interface.
Dependent claim 3 recite “wherein the indicator is an indicator based on a brightness of light in a plurality of wavelength ranges” where the indicator is acquired and as such is merely a data gathering step which are insignificant extra solution activities.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges is selected from a combination” which merely describes the data that is gathered such as using a multi spectral camera to capture images with plurality of wavelength ranges.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges is selected based on attributes of the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes the data that is gathered such as using a multi spectral camera to capture images with plurality of wavelength ranges.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges is selected based on imaging conditions of the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes the data that is gathered such as using a multi spectral camera to capture images with plurality of wavelength ranges.
Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the imaging condition includes a lighting condition” which merely describes that the data that is gathered is obtained using illumination.
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the indicator includes a contrast of a brightness of light in a plurality of wavelength ranges” which merely describes the indicator data that is gathered includes brightness information.
Dependent claim 9 recite “wherein the indicator includes a normalized difference vegetation index” which merely describes the indicator data that is gathered includes an index value.
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the relationship includes a relationship between the first subject and the second subject in an image indicated by the first image data” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject.
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the relationship between the first subject and the second subject in the image includes a relationship in a state in which the image includes noise” which merely describes the image data that is gathered which inherently includes noise.
Dependent claim 12 recites “wherein the relationship includes attributes of the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes the image data that is gathered includes a relationship between a first subject and a second subject. The subjects inherently include a relationship, such as a distance between them.
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the relationship includes imaging conditions of the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes the image data that is gathered includes imaging conditions. Image data inherently includes imaging conditions such as lighting condition, camera settings etc.
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the relationship includes a relationship of the indicator between the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject.
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein the indicator includes a first indicator corresponding to the first subject, and a second indicator corresponding to the second subject, and the relationship of the indicator includes a relationship based on a degree of difference between the first indicator and the second indicator” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject.
Dependent claim 16 recite “wherein the relationship includes a relationship in a state in which image processing is executed on the image” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject.
Dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the image processing includes processing related to noise included in the image” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can visually identify the noise or artifacts and manually correct the image using a generic computer and an input device.
Dependent claim 18 recites “wherein the processing related to the noise includes edge enhancement processing and/or noise reduction processing” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can visually identify the noise or artifacts and manually correct the image using a generic computer and an input device.
Dependent claim 19 recites “wherein the relationship includes a relationship in a state in which arithmetic processing is executed on the image” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject. Moreover, limitation falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally perform simple arithmetic.
Dependent claim 20 recites “wherein the arithmetic processing includes processing related to visibility of the image” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally perform simple arithmetic.
Dependent claim 22 recites “wherein the relationship includes a relationship between the first subject and the second subject with respect to a subject imaged in the past by the spectral imaging apparatus” which merely describes that the image data that is gathered is imaged in the past.
Dependent claim 23 recites “wherein deciding the display condition includes selecting the display condition from among a plurality of display conditions based on the relationship” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally select a display condition from among a plurality of selections.
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the indicator includes a first indicator corresponding to the first subject, and a second indicator corresponding to the second subject, the relationship includes a relationship based on a degree of difference between the first indicator and the second indicator” which merely describes the data that is gathered involves a relationship between the image data of the first and second subject. The limitation “selecting the display condition from among the plurality of display conditions is performed based on a relationship between the degree of difference and a threshold value” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally select a display condition from among a plurality of selections.
Dependent claim 32 recites “wherein the spectral imaging apparatus is a multispectral camera” which merely describes the data that is gathered is based on a multispectral camera.
Dependent claim 33 recites “wherein the first imaging data includes spectral image data corresponding to light in a plurality of wavelength ranges” which merely describes the data that is gathered is based on a multispectral camera which captures images in a plurality of wavelength ranges.
Dependent claim 34 recites “wherein the second subject is a subject having a larger indicator than the first subject” which merely describes that the data that is gathered includes distinct values for the first and second subject.
Dependent claim 35 recites “wherein the first image data is image data in which the indicator is displayed by a heat map” which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claim 36 recites “wherein acquiring the first image data is performed based on a selected region of the first subject and/or the second subject” which merely describes that the data that is gathered which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claim 37 recites “wherein the discrimination includes discrimination of goodness or badness of the first subject and the second subject” which merely describes that the data that is gathered which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
With regard to claim 38, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 44, see discussion of claim 1.
Dependent claim 39 recites “wherein the processor acquires values of a plurality of timers related to calibration of the spectral imaging apparatus” which is merely a data gathering step which is an insignificant extra solution activity. Claim further recites “outputs update data related to update of the calibration based on the values” which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claim 40 recites “wherein the processor outputs histogram data related to the indicator based on the first imaging data” which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Dependent claim 41 recite “wherein the histogram data includes first histogram data indicating a ratio of the indicator” which merely describes the data that is output which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity. Additionally, determining the ration may fall under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate a ratio value.
Dependent claim 42 recites “wherein the histogram data includes second histogram data indicating a ratio of a brightness of a wavelength component of light emitted from the first subject and/or the second subject” which merely describes the data that is output which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity. Additionally, determining the ration may fall under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally calculate a ratio value.
Dependent claim 43 recites “wherein the histogram data is displayed based on a selected region of the first subject and the second subject” which is merely a data output step which is an insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, 19-20, 22-23, 32-34, 36-38 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.1
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach acquiring first imaging data including a first subject and a second subject imaged by a spectral imaging apparatus (see abstract, § 2.2: multispectral image comprising plurality of objects); acquiring first image data indicating an indicator related to discrimination between the first subject and the second subject from the first imaging data (see § 2.2, p. 410 ¶¶ 1-2: difference in spectral error of objects evaluated); and deciding a display condition of the first image data based on a relationship between the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, § 2.2, p. 410 ¶¶ 1-2: enhancement based on the evaluation).
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach wherein the display condition includes a display range (see fig. 8: display of enhanced image).
With regard to claim 3, D1 teach wherein the indicator is an indicator based on a brightness of light in a plurality of wavelength ranges (see abstract, § 2.2: pixel values indicative of brightness or intensity).
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges are selected from a combination (see abstract, § 2.2: multispectral bands are implicitly selected).
With regard to claim 5, D1 teach wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges are selected based on attributes of the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, 2.2: bands are implicitly selected based on objects being imaged).
With regard to claim 6, D1 teach wherein the plurality of wavelength ranges are selected based on imaging conditions of the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, 2.2: bands are implicitly selected based on objects being imaged).
With regard to claim 7, D1 teach wherein the imaging condition includes a lighting condition (see abstract: multispectral images are implicitly imaged in a lighting condition).
With regard to claim 8, D1 teach wherein the indicator includes a contrast of a brightness of light in a plurality of wavelength ranges (see abstract, § 2.2: contrast or difference in spectral error of pixel values).
With regard to claim 10, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes a relationship between the first subject and the second subject in an image indicated by the first image data (see § 2.2, p. 410 ¶¶ 1-2: difference in spectral error of objects evaluated).
With regard to claim 11, D1 teach wherein the relationship between the first subject and the second subject in the image includes a relationship in a state in which the image includes noise (see abstract, § 2.2: image inherently includes noise).
With regard to claim 12, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes attributes of the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, § 2.2: spectral error read as attribute).
With regard to claim 13, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes imaging conditions of the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, § 2.2: relationship implicitly related to imaging conditions).
With regard to claim 14, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes a relationship of the indicator between the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, § 2.2: difference read as relation).
With regard to claim 15, D1 teach wherein the indicator includes a first indicator corresponding to the first subject, and a second indicator corresponding to the second subject, and the relationship of the indicator includes a relationship based on a degree of difference between the first indicator and the second indicator (see abstract, § 2.2: spectral error of first object and spectral error of second object read as first and second indicators, difference in the error).
With regard to claim 16, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes a relationship in a state in which image processing is executed on the image (see § 2.2: image processing performed to determine the residual error).
With regard to claim 19, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes a relationship in a state in which arithmetic processing is executed on the image (see § 2.2: arithmetic processing performed to determine the residual error).
With regard to claim 20, D1 teach wherein the arithmetic processing includes processing related to visibility of the image (see § 2.2: processing performed on the pixel values related to visibility; residual error determined based on original and target colors, read as visibility).
With regard to claim 22, D1 teach wherein the relationship includes a relationship between the first subject and the second subject with respect to a subject imaged in the past by the spectral imaging apparatus (see abstract, § 3.1 ¶ 1: multispectral camera).
With regard to claim 23, D1 teach wherein deciding the display condition includes selecting the display condition from among a plurality of display conditions based on the relationship (see § 2.2.1 last ¶: user selects the bands for enhancement).
With regard to claim 32, D1 teach wherein the spectral imaging apparatus is a multispectral camera (see abstract, § 3.1 ¶ 1: multispectral camera).
With regard to claim 33, D1 teach wherein the first imaging data includes spectral image data corresponding to light in a plurality of wavelength ranges (see abstract, § 3.1: multi spectral imaging bands or wavelength ranges).
With regard to claim 34, D1 teach wherein the second subject is a subject having a larger indicator than the first subject (see § 2.2: spectral error object larger than background object).
With regard to claim 36, D1 teach wherein acquiring the first image data is performed based on a selected region of the first subject and/or the second subject (see § 2.2: object of interest).
With regard to claim 37, D1 teach wherein the discrimination includes discrimination of goodness or badness of the first subject and the second subject (see abstract, § 2.2: spectral error and difference read as goodness or badness).
With regard to claims 38 and 44, see discussion of claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 17-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regard to claim 17, D1 fail to explicitly teach wherein the image processing includes processing related to noise included in the image. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that noise reduction in images is extremely well known in the art prior to the effective filing date and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced noise reduced images.
With regard to claim 18, D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing related to the noise includes edge enhancement processing and/or noise reduction processing. Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that noise reduction in images is extremely well known in the art prior to the effective filing date and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced noise reduced images.
With regard to claim 21, D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing related to the visibility includes gradation processing and/or gamma-correction processing. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that gamma correction is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to enhance image contrast.
Claims 25-31 are allowed pending updated search and/or interference search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 Bautista, Pinky A., and Yukako Yagi. "Multispectral enhancement method to increase the visual differences of tissue structures in stained histopathology images." Analytical Cellular Pathology 35.5-6 (2012): 407-420.
Prosecution Insights