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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/08/2024 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/08/2024, has been accepted for examination.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-6 are directed to method or process, which falls on the one of the statutory category.
(Step 2A) (Prong 1) Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? (Judicially recognized exceptions)?
Claim 1 recites: abstract ideas, specifically
“Step 1: Collect the original intensity images;” (i.e. data gathering)
“Step 2: Construct the three-dimensional refractive index space of the object;” (additional data gathering and/or a person could do this via or by using a pencil, paper and ruler to aid in measuring and/or is not significantly more)
“Step 3: Determine the corresponding position of the hologram collected at the corresponding wavelength on the 3D spectrum, and obtain the new refractive index distribution of the sample;” (as above, a person is capable of mentally performing basic analysis and/or judging quantity, or extent of or to determine/estimate a deviation from planarity of the region)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) only recites the additional elements of
“Step 4: Based on the new refractive index distribution of the sample, repeat Step 3 to complete the 3D spectrum iteration at the next wavelength and obtain the final refractive index distribution of the sample.” (data gathering by repeating step(s)) is/are considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The above claim limitations is found as post solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, memory and non-transitory computer readable medium in optimizing oilfield operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, claim 1 is/are not patent eligible.
As to claims 2-6, the claims is/are merely defining a data gathering
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 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuo et al. (CN108169173 A, translation) in view of Zuo et al. (CN105182514 A, translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zuo teaches of a wavelength-scanning-based lensless Fourier ptychographic diffraction tomography method, characterized by the following steps of collecting an original intensity image, irradiating a sample with incident light from different incident angles, and collecting a series of intensity images at different illumination angles by means of a camera; calculating the spatial frequency of incident light corresponding to each LED lamp in an illumination system according to a coordinate position of each LED in an LED array in space; initializing a large-field-of-view high-resolution three-dimensional spectrum of a measured object; performing iterative reconstruction on the three-dimensional spectrum, iterating the intensity image photographed at each illumination angle into the initialized three-dimensional spectrum,
and performing multi-round iteration; iterating to obtain a three-dimensional spectrum of the measured object, and transforming the three-dimensional spectrum to a space domain to finally obtain large-field-of-view highresolution refractive index information distribution of the measured three-dimensional object (Zuo, [pars 0006-0014] (figs. 1 and 2).
Zuo fail to explicitly specify the method of claim 1 is a wavelength scanning-based lensless microscopic imaging method, comprising: determining a corresponding position of a hologram collected at a corresponding wavelength on a three-dimensional spectrum to obtain new refractive index distribution of the sample, and completing three-dimensional spectrum iteration at (the new wavelength) or a single wavelength according to or based on the new refractive index distribution of the sample to obtain final refractive index distribution of the sample.
Zuo (2514) from the same field of endeavor teaches of an image reconstruction method for a lensless microscope based on an LED light source, comprising: using a red, green and blue LED as a light source of a lensless microscope; controlling the illumination wavelength of the LED to be red, green and blue, respectively; after respectively irradiating a sample, collecting, by a camera, three corresponding light intensity images (Zuo (2514) [pars 0014-15, 0043-44) (figs. 1-3)). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zuo in view of the teaching of Zuo (2514) that in the case of lensless coaxial holographic imaging based on wavelength scanning, determining a corresponding position of a hologram collected at a corresponding wavelength on a three-dimensional spectrum to obtain new refractive index distribution of the sample, and completing three-dimensional spectrum iteration at a single wavelength according to the new refractive index distribution of the sample and obtaining final refractive index distribution of the sample are conventional technical means in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zuo in the manner set forth in applicant’s claim 1, in view of the teaching of (Zuo (2514)) in order to accurately reconstructed image, as per the teachings of (Zuo (2514)), since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claim 2, Zuo when modified by Zuo (2514), Zuo also teaches of LED array illumination, a condenser/objective lens [pars. 0009-10].
Zuo fail to explicitly specify using lensless microscope comprises an LED array, a sample stage and a camera which are sequentially arranged.
Zuo (2514) teaches of the lensless microscope comprises an LED array, a sample stage and a camera which are sequentially arranged [par. 0014, and fig. 1), and further Zuo (2514) teaches of wherein the raw intensity images are collected using a lensless on-chip microscopy system, which includes a wavelength-scanning illumination source and a sensor; the wavelength-scanning illumination source is a combination of a supercontinuum laser and an acousto-optic tunable filter, or a wavelength-multiplexed source composed of multiple monochromatic laser sources or a wavelength-scanning laser; when the wavelength-scanning illumination source is a combination of a supercontinuum laser and an acousto-optic tunable filter, the broadband beam emitted by the supercontinuum laser is filtered by the acousto-optic tunable filter and irradiated on the sample on the sensor surface imaging system and its photosensitive surface [pars. 0008-9, 0021]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zuo in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 2, in order to accurately reconstructed image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zuo in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 2, in order to accurately reconstructed image, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claim 3, Zuo when modified by Zuo (2514), Zuo also teaches of wherein the effective pixelsize of the 3D refractive index space n(r) of the object meets the final imaging resolution, and the number of pixels N,,Nz in the 3D matrix satisfies the minimum sampling number in each direction [pars. 0012, 0032, 0036 and 0040].
Allowable Subject Matter
As to claims 4-6, the examiner has not indicated any allowable subject matter due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art wavelength-scanning-based lensless Fourier ptychographic diffraction tomography method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877