DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 02/25/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections for claims 1-15 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections for the above claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "subsequent processing layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not define any initial processing layers.
Claim 11 is 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 11 is unclear because independent claim 1 defines “subsequent processing layers” (which is an antecedent issue described above), where as claim 11 defines processing layers. It appears that claim 11 should be cancelled and incorporated into claim 1.
Claims 12, 14-15 and 17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 12 and 17 recites the broad recitation “inputting the result image calculated by the first image-to-image model into the second image-to-image model in unaltered form or in processed form”, and the claim also recites “calculating the processed form of the result image…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “inputting the result image calculated by the first image-to-image model into the second image-to-image model in unaltered form or in processed form” is required because the next limitation states that the processed form is utilized in calculation.
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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Liang) (High-Resolution Photorealistic Image Translation in Real Time: A Laplacian Pyramid Translation Network) in view of Amthor et al. (herein after will be referred to as Amthor) (US 20210356729).
Regarding claim 16, Liang discloses
downscaling the [See Liang [Fig. 2] Downscale H.sub.L-1 image.]
inputting the downscaled [See Liang [Fig. 2] I.sub.L is input into model and outputs I^L image.]
inputting the [See Liang [Fig. 2] H.sub.L-1 image and the I^L image are input into a second model for outputting an image with a higher resolution than I^L.]
Liang does not explicitly disclose
a computer-implemented method for image processing a microscope image, comprising:
providing training data which comprises a plurality of training microscope images and associated target images, and wherein the training microscope images and the target images differ in an image property; calculating downscaled training microscope images from a plurality of the training microscope images, and calculating downscaled target images from the associated target images; and training the first image-to-image model with downscaled training microscope images as inputs and downscaled target images as targets.
However, Amthor does disclose
a computer-implemented method for image processing a microscope image, comprising: [See Amthor [0042] Algorithm for image-to image mapping, wherein parameters are ascertained by a machine learning process. Also, see Abstract, processing microscope images.]
providing training data which comprises a plurality of training microscope images and associated target images, and wherein the training microscope images and the target images differ in an image property; calculating downscaled training microscope images from a plurality of the training microscope images, and calculating downscaled target images from the associated target images; and training the first image-to-image model with downscaled training microscope images as inputs and downscaled target images as targets. [See Amthor [0023] The machine learning algorithm is trained by way of supervised learning wherein use is made of microscope images as input images and target images spatially registered to the microscope images.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Liang to add the teachings of Amthor, in order to perform a simple substitution of generic images to microscopic images and/or a simple substitution of how the machine learning is trained (i.e. where both supervised/unsupervised training each have their own advantages and disadvantages).
Regarding claim 18, Liang (modified by Amthor) disclose the method of claim 16. Furthermore, Liang does not explicitly disclose
wherein a training of the second image-to-image model, an input into the second image-to-image model comprises: A) one of the training microscope images, as well as simultaneously: B) a downscaled target image associated with the training microscope image, or a result image calculated from the training microscope image by the first image-to-image model, or a processed image based on the downscaled target image and/or on the result image calculated from the training microscope image; wherein the method further includes using the target image associated with said training microscope image as a target in the training of the second image-to-image model.
However, Amthor does disclose
wherein a training of the second image-to-image model, an input into the second image-to-image model comprises: A) one of the training microscope images, as well as simultaneously: B) a downscaled target image associated with the training microscope image, or a result image calculated from the training microscope image by the first image-to-image model, or a processed image based on the downscaled target image and/or on the result image calculated from the training microscope image; wherein the method further includes using the target image associated with said training microscope image as a target in the training of the second image-to-image model. [See Amthor [0023] The machine learning algorithm is trained by way of supervised learning wherein use is made of microscope images as input images and target
images spatially registered to the microscope images.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486