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 .
Claims 2-27 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024 is considered and attached.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following reasons.
Claim 2 5th line “the recorded image” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 2 10th line “image candidates” should be “image candidate” in order to be consistent with other occurrences.
Claim 2 10th line a comma (,) should be inserted after “the object”.
Claim 2 11th line “the original recorded image” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 4 1st line “the point spread function” should be “the at least one point spread function”. Claim 9 1st line has similar issue. Claim 14 1st line has similar issue.
Claim 4 2nd line “at least one processed image candidate” should be “at least one initial processed image candidate”. Claim 9 2nd line has similar issue. Claim 14 2nd line has similar issue.
Claim 5 1st-2nd line “at least one processed image” should be “at least one processed image candidate”. Claim 10 1st-2nd line and claim 15 1st-2nd line has similar issue.
Claim 5 7th-8th line “the final processed image” has no antecedent basis. Claim 7 8th line, claim 10 8th line, claim 12 (page 5) 2nd line, claim 15 8th line and claim 17 8th line have similar issue.
Claim 6 1st line “at least one processed image candidate” should be “at least one initial processed image candidate”. Claim 11 1st line has similar issue. Claim 16 1st line has similar issue.
Claim 8 1st line “the image” should be “the recorded image”. Claim 13 1st line has similar issue.
Claim 18 “and or” should be “and/or”.
Claim 25 3rd line “the a raw” should be “the raw”.
Claim 26 4th line “the object” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 26 (page 8) 1st line “candidates” should be “candidate”.
Claim 26 (page 8) 2nd-3rd line “the original recorded image” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 26 (page 8) 2nd line a comma (,) should be inserted after “the object”.
Claim 27 4th line “the object” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 27 7th line “candidates” should be “candidate”.
Claim 27 8th line a comma (,) should be inserted after “the object”.
Claim 27 8th-9th line “the original recorded image” has no antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Per claim 27, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim 27 held to claim a “computer readable storage medium” that does not preclude signals or carrier waves from serving as said medium, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter. See specification the paragraph bridging pages 28 and 29. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1/2/3/4/5/8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,112,452 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Listed in the following table is a limitation-to-limitation comparison of the examined claim 2 and the conflicting claim 1.
Application being examined 18/826,296 (hereafter ‘296 application)
Conflicting patent 12,112,452 B2 (hereafter ‘452 patent)
2. A method for creating a processed image of an object, with image resolution and accuracy improved beyond the corresponding recorded images of said object, comprising:
accessing, using a computer image analysis system comprising one or more processors, the recorded image of the object;
creating, using the computer image analysis system, at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of an imaging system that forms the recorded image; and
refining, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said processed image is of higher optical resolution than the original recorded image.
1. A method for creating a processed image of an object, with image resolution and accuracy improved beyond the corresponding recorded images of said object, comprising:
recording, using a Fresnel Incoherent Correlation Holography (FINCH) optical system controlled by a computer comprising one or more processors, a recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram of an object;
creating, using a computer image analysis system comprising one or more processors, at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of the FINCH optical system; and
refining, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said single processed image is of higher optical resolution than the recorded image,
in which the recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram is computationally processed using the computer image analysis system into a reconstructed FINCH image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate,
in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one initial processed image candidate is knowledge of the reconstructed FINCH image point spread function,
wherein the refining of the at least one initial processed image is accomplished by applying an iterative algorithm to cause the processed image to best match the reconstructed FINCH image, wherein the iterative algorithm includes computational steps of applying a plurality of correction factors to a previous iteration of the processed image to create a new iteration of the processed image, comparing the new iteration of the processed image to the recorded image, and assessing the quality of the new iteration of the processed image, and terminating the algorithm to produce the single processed image from the last iteration.
Claim 1 of ‘452 patent teaches every limitation recited in claim 2 of ‘296 application.
Similar analysis can be applied to compare the limitations of claim 2 of ‘296 application with limitations in claims 2/3/4/5/8 of ‘452 patent. It is concluded that claim 2/3/4/5/8 of ‘452 patent teaches every limitation recited in claim 2 of ‘296 application.
Claims 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1/2/3/4/5/8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,112,452 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Listed in the following table is a limitation-to-limitation comparison of the examined claim 26 and the conflicting claim 1.
Application being examined 18/826,296 (hereafter ‘296 application)
Conflicting patent 12,112,452 B2 (hereafter ‘452 patent)
26. A computer image analysis system comprising a memory and one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to perform operations comprising:
accessing, in the memory, a recorded image of the object;
(Limitations in the right column (bolded text) explicitly and inherently teach underlined limitations in the left column.)
creating at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of an imaging system that formed the recorded image; and
refining the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said processed image is of higher optical resolution than the original recorded image.
1. A method for creating a processed image of an object, with image resolution and accuracy improved beyond the corresponding recorded images of said object, comprising:
recording, using a Fresnel Incoherent Correlation Holography (FINCH) optical system controlled by a computer comprising one or more processors, a recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram of an object;
creating, using a computer image analysis system comprising one or more processors, at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of the FINCH optical system; and
refining, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said single processed image is of higher optical resolution than the recorded image,
in which the recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram is computationally processed using the computer image analysis system into a reconstructed FINCH image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate,
in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one initial processed image candidate is knowledge of the reconstructed FINCH image point spread function,
wherein the refining of the at least one initial processed image is accomplished by applying an iterative algorithm to cause the processed image to best match the reconstructed FINCH image, wherein the iterative algorithm includes computational steps of applying a plurality of correction factors to a previous iteration of the processed image to create a new iteration of the processed image, comparing the new iteration of the processed image to the recorded image, and assessing the quality of the new iteration of the processed image, and terminating the algorithm to produce the single processed image from the last iteration.
Listed in the following table is a limitation-to-limitation comparison of the examined claim 27 and the conflicting claim 1.
Application being examined 18/826,296 (hereafter ‘296 application)
Conflicting patent 12,112,452 B2 (hereafter ‘452 patent)
27. A computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an image analysis system, causes the image analysis system to perform operations comprising:
accessing, in a memory of the image analysis system, a recorded image of the object;
(Limitations in the right column (bolded text) explicitly and inherently teach underlined limitations in the left column.)
creating at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of an imaging system that formed the recorded image; and
refining the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said processed image is of higher optical resolution than the original recorded image.
1. A method for creating a processed image of an object, with image resolution and accuracy improved beyond the corresponding recorded images of said object, comprising:
recording, using a Fresnel Incoherent Correlation Holography (FINCH) optical system controlled by a computer comprising one or more processors, a recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram of an object;
creating, using a computer image analysis system comprising one or more processors, at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of the FINCH optical system; and
refining, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said single processed image is of higher optical resolution than the recorded image,
in which the recorded image comprising at least one raw FINCH hologram is computationally processed using the computer image analysis system into a reconstructed FINCH image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate,
in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one initial processed image candidate is knowledge of the reconstructed FINCH image point spread function,
wherein the refining of the at least one initial processed image is accomplished by applying an iterative algorithm to cause the processed image to best match the reconstructed FINCH image, wherein the iterative algorithm includes computational steps of applying a plurality of correction factors to a previous iteration of the processed image to create a new iteration of the processed image, comparing the new iteration of the processed image to the recorded image, and assessing the quality of the new iteration of the processed image, and terminating the algorithm to produce the single processed image from the last iteration.
Claim 1 of ‘452 patent teaches every limitation, explicitly and inherently, recited in claims 26-27 of ‘296 application.
Similar analysis can be applied to compare the limitations of claims 26-27 of ‘296 application with limitations in claims 2/3/4/5/8 of ‘452 patent. It is concluded that claim 2/3/4/5/8 of ‘452 patent teaches every limitation recited in claims 26-27 of ‘296 application.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosen et al. (Rosen, Joseph, and Gary Brooker. “Fresnel incoherent correlation holography (FINCH): a review of research”, Adv. Opt. Techn., Vol. 1 (2012): 151–169, hereafter Rosen).
As per claim 2, Rosen teaches the invention as claimed including a method (Abstract) for creating a processed image of an object, with image resolution and accuracy improved beyond the corresponding recorded images of said object (page 168 left col. 1st para.), comprising:
accessing, using a computer image analysis system comprising one or more processors (Abstract “computer”), the recorded image of the object (FIG. 1; page 153 left col. eqn. (3));
creating, using the computer image analysis system, at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of an imaging system that forms the recorded image (page 153 left col. last 4 lines; page 153 right col. eqn. (4); page 153 right col. last para. including eqn. (7)); and
refining, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said processed image is of higher optical resolution than the original recorded image (page 154 left col. lines 1-9, and eqn. (8) being a single processed image; page 160 left col. section 7 “Resolution beyond the Rayleigh limit by FINCH” 1st para.; page 162 left col. last 5 lines “Therefore, the resolution improvement of FINCH over a regular incoherent microscope is approximately a factor of 1.4 and 1.5 for linear and non-linear reconstruction, respectively. The FINCH ’s resolution improvement over a coherent imaging system is a factor of 2”).
As per claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches wherein the recorded image comprises at least one raw hologram (Fig. 1; Abstract “FINCH creates holograms by a single-channel on-axis incoherent interferometer process”), and the method further comprises:
computationally processing, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one raw hologram into a reconstructed image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate (Rosen page 153 right col. eqn. (4)-(6) and corresponding descriptions; The combination of the reconstruction distance
z
r
and the transverse location of the reconstructed object point
r
r
-
determines a reconstruction image).
As per claim 4, dependent upon claim 3, Rosen teaches, in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one processed image candidate is knowledge of the reconstructed image point spread function (Rosen page 153 left col. last 4 lines; page 153 right col. eqn. (4)-(6) and corresponding descriptions; See also rejections applied to claim 3).
As per claim 6, dependent upon claim 4, Rosen teaches, in which the at least one processed image candidate is a set of a plurality of processed image candidates (Rosen page 154 left col. eqn. (8) uses 3 processed image candidates H1(x,y), H2(x,y) and H3(x,y). Therefore in the previous step, i.e., generating H(x,y) as in eqn. (7), 3 processed image candidates were generated.) .
As per claim 8, dependent upon claim 3, Rosen teaches, in which the image comprising at least one raw hologram is a single phase factor of a raw hologram (Rosen eqn. (7),
θ
being the single phase factor).
As per claim 9, dependent upon claim 8, Rosen teaches, in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one processed image candidate is knowledge of the point spread function of said single phase factor of a raw hologram (Rosen eqn. (4) and eqn. (7); page 153 right col. last para. “For a general 3D object g( x s ,y s ,z s ) illuminated by a narrowband incoherent illumination, the intensity of the recorded hologram is an integral of the entire PSF given by Eq. (4)”).
As per claim 11, dependent upon claim 9, Rosen teaches, in which the at least one processed image candidate is a set of a plurality of processed image candidates (Rosen eqn. (7) and eqn. (8), in which H1(x,y), H2(x,y) and H3(x,y) are 3 processed candidates).
As per claim 13, dependent upon claim 3, Rosen teaches, in which the image comprising at least one raw hologram is a plurality of phase factors of a raw hologram (Rosen page 154 left col. eqn. (8) uses 3 processed image candidates H1(x,y), H2(x,y) and H3(x,y) corresponding to 3 phase factors
θ
1
,
θ
2
, and
θ
3
. Therefore the raw hologram comprises 3 phase factors; page 154 right col. section 4. FINCH for fluorescence objects 1st para. “For each wavelength of fluorescent emission, the camera sequentially records three holograms reflected from the SLM, each with a different phase factor of the SLM’s function”).
As per claim 14, dependent upon claim 13, Rosen teaches in which the knowledge of the point spread function incorporated into the at least one processed image candidate is knowledge of the point spread function of said plurality of phase factors of a raw hologram ((Rosen page 153 left col. last 4 lines; page 153 right col. eqn. (4) and (7)).
As per claim 16, dependent upon claim 13, Rosen teaches in which the at least one processed image candidate is a set of a plurality of processed image candidates (Rosen page 154 left col. eqn. (8) uses 3 processed image candidates H1(x,y), H2(x,y) and H3(x,y). Therefore in the previous step, i.e., generating H(x,y) as in eqn. (7), 3 processed image candidates were generated.).
As per claim 20, dependent upon claim 13, Rosen teaches wherein the plurality of phase factors of a hologram were recorded sequentially (Rosen page 154 left last 3 lines and right col. first 3 lines; page 167 left col. first para. following section 8. “Discussion and conclusions” title: “Time resolution is currently reduced because three holograms need to be captured sequentially”).
As per claim 21, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches wherein the point spread function is a depth-variant point spread function (Rosen page 153 eqn. (4) calculating PSF, in which zs is the depth of a point with coordinates (xs ,ys ,zs); page 153 left col. last para. “A point source located at the point (xs ,ys ,zs ) a distance zs from a spherical positive lens …”).
As per claim 22, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches wherein the recorded image is a standard optical image (Rosen Fig. 15 left image “Standard microscope image” and middle image “Standard microscope image (cropped)”).
As per claim 23, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches, wherein the recorded image comprises a plurality of raw holograms (Rosen page 154 left col. 1st para. “Three holograms of the same object are recorded each of which with a different phase constant θ”), and the method further comprises:
computationally processing, using the computer image analysis system, the plurality of raw holograms into a reconstructed image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate (Rosen page 154 left col. 1st para. eqn. (8) and (9)).
As per claim 24, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches wherein the recorded image comprises at least one raw FINCH hologram (Rosen Abstract “FINCH creates holograms by a single-channel on-axis incoherent interferometer process”; page 154 left col. 1st para. “Three holograms of the same object are recorded each of which with a different phase constant θ”), and the method further comprises:
computationally processing, using the computer image analysis system, the at least one raw FINCH hologram into a reconstructed FINCH image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate (Rosen page 154 left col. 1st para. eqn. (8) and (9)).
As per claim 25, dependent upon claim 2, Rosen teaches, wherein the recorded image is converted to a raw hologram (Rosen Fig. 1; Abstract “FINCH creates holograms by a single-channel on-axis incoherent interferometer process”; page 154 left col. 1st para. “Three holograms of the same object are recorded each of which with a different phase constant θ”), and the method further comprises:
computationally processing, using the computer image analysis system, the raw hologram into a reconstructed FINCH image prior to the creating of the at least one initial processed image candidate (Rosen page 154 left col. 1st para. eqn. (8) and (9)).
As per claim 26, Rosen teaches the invention as claimed including a computer image analysis system comprising a memory and one or more processors (Rosen Abstract “computer”), the one or more processors being configured to perform operations comprising:
accessing, in the memory (FIG. 2; Abstract “computer”), a recorded image of the object (FIG. 1; page 153 left col. eqn. (3));
creating at least one initial processed image candidate incorporating knowledge of at least one point spread function of an imaging system that formed the recorded image (page 153 left col. last 4 lines; page 153 right col. eqn. (4); page 153 right col. last para. including eqn. (7)); and
refining the at least one initial processed image candidates into a single processed image of the object wherein said processed image is of higher optical resolution than the original recorded image (page 154 left col. lines 1-9, and eqn. (8) being a single processed image; page 160 left col. section 7 “Resolution beyond the Rayleigh limit by FINCH” 1st para.; page 162 left col. last 5 lines “Therefore, the resolution improvement of FINCH over a regular incoherent microscope is approximately a factor of 1.4 and 1.5 for linear and non-linear reconstruction, respectively. The FINCH ’s resolution improvement over a coherent imaging system is a factor of 2”).
Claim 27, an independent medium claim, recites steps corresponding to system claim 26. Therefore the recited steps of 27 are mapped to Rosen in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 26. Rosen additionally teaches computer readable storage medium and one or more processors (Abstract “computer”).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. (Rosen, Joseph, and Gary Brooker. “Fresnel incoherent correlation holography (FINCH): a review of research”, Adv. Opt. Techn., Vol. 1 (2012): 151–169, hereafter Rosen), as applied above to claim 4, in view of Botnar et al. (US 11079456 B2, hereafter Botnar).
As per claim 5, Rosen does not teach the recited limitations.
Botnar in an analogous field discloses a method of reconstructing magnetic resonance (MR) image data from k-space data (Abstract). Specifically, the method comprises obtaining k-space data of an image region of a subject, reconstructing the MR image data from the k-space data, calculating a difference between the reconstructed MR image transformed into k-space and the obtained k-space data, wherein the determination of the difference comprises determining an L2-norm of the result of the difference between the provided k-space data and the reconstructed MR image transformed into k-space, and denoising iteration with sparse iteration. If the result does not converge, a plurality of correction factors is applied to the new iteration until a convergence criterion is satisfied. See FIG. 1, col. 3 ln 17-27; col. 4 ln 60-col. 5 ln 12; col. 8 ln 25-67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to modify the teaching of Rosen to incorporate the teaching of Botnar to perform an iterative algorithm as claimed in claim 5. The motivation for this consideration is that “this helps increase signal-to-noise ratio and reduce artefacts while maintaining accuracy” as recognized by Botnar (col. 5 ln 16-23).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al. (Rosen, Joseph, and Gary Brooker. “Fresnel incoherent correlation holography (FINCH): a review of research”, Adv. Opt. Techn., Vol. 1 (2012): 151–169, hereafter Rosen), as applied above to claim 13, in view of BROOKER et al. (US Publication 2016/0246255 A1, hereafter BROOKER).
As per claim 19, Rosen does not teach that the plurality of phase factors of a FINCH hologram were recorded simultaneously.
BROOKER in a same field of endeavor teaches a FINCH imaging system (Abstract; FIG. 1). Specifically, BROOKER teaches hologram images with different phase angles can be captured simultaneously (para. [0020]: “The final effect is that the two holograms captured simultaneously are phase shifted π from each other”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the teachings of BROOKER with Rosen to consider capturing a plurality of phase factors of a hologram simultaneously in order to increase temporal resolution as recognized by BROOKER (para. [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 12, 15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior art Pavani et al. (US 20130215218 A1) discloses an optically-based target detection system includes a holographic detection filter designed to produce a concentrated spot when a target is present (Abstract). Specifically, Pavani discloses an iterative method for designing a near-phase-only holographic detection filter. The iteration optimizes for both optimal target response (depending on the choice of detection method) and minimal light loss (phase-only) in filter implementation. Detector properties such as sensitivity, linearity, and homogeneity can be used for setting the criterion for stopping the iterative optimization process. See FIG. 8, para. [0040], [0048]-[0050].
Prior art searched but not cited is recorded in PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights