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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/13/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner notes that the IDS cites the first office action of CN113920113A however the foreign reference submitted is of the publication not the office action cited.
Response to Amendment
Claim 3 is amended.
Claims 1-2 are withdrawn.
Claims 3-12 are pending.
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.
Claims 3-12 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the correction system" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the first standard whiteboard” and “the second standard whiteboard” in step 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same light source" in Step 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-12 recite multiple instances of “a light field”, in claim 3 on line 2 and again in step 3, within the first two lines for the rest of the claims. It is unclear if these are the same or different light fields and make it unclear which light field “the light field” in the dependent claims refers to.
Claim 4 recites “a pixel” it is unclear if this is the same “a pixel” from claim 3, a different pixel of the “pixels” in claim 3 or an entirely new “a pixel”.
Claims 4-12 are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 3-12 belongs to a statutory category of a method.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 3 recite(s) “A correction method based on the correction system for eliminating non-uniform distribution of a light field during hyperspectral image acquisition comprising the following steps:” and “S3: obtaining spatial distribution characteristics of a light field based on the hyperspectral images A; S4: spatially matching pixels in the hyperspectral images A and the hyperspectral image B; S5: performing light field correction on a pixel of the sample in the hyperspectral image B; and S6: performing reflectance correction on the sample after the light field correction” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicants specification, for example see Par. 15-28.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “S1: acquiring hyperspectral images A corresponding to the first standard whiteboard and the second standard whiteboard under illumination of a halogen light source; S2: acquiring a hyperspectral image B corresponding to a sample under illumination of the same light source;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “S1: acquiring hyperspectral images A corresponding to the first standard whiteboard and the second standard whiteboard under illumination of a halogen light source; S2: acquiring a hyperspectral image B corresponding to a sample under illumination of the same light source;” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or iv) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) as the courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claims 4-7 and 9-12 further describe the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim 8 further describes the data gathered in the data gathering steps cited above and is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons.
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(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurz (US 20140327760 A1) in view of Haung (CN113920113A) of which US 20250037312 A1 is considered to be a translation.
In claim 3 Kurz discloses a correction method based on the correction system for eliminating non-uniform distribution of a light field (Par. 15 “sample is illuminated with at least one electrical light source”) during hyperspectral image acquisition (Par. 15 “hyperspectral camera”) comprising the following steps: S1: acquiring hyperspectral images A (Par. 48 “calibration material is scanned with a separate image to acquire data for image calibration”) corresponding to the first standard whiteboard (Fig. 2, 3 Par. 26 “reference reflector”) and the second standard whiteboard (Par. 26 “multiple diffuse reference reflectors, preferably two reflectors, can be used for calibrating the hyperspectral images”) under illumination of a halogen light source (Par. 42 “halogen lamp tube”); S2: acquiring a hyperspectral image B (Fig. 4, s3) corresponding to a sample (Fig. 1, 1) under illumination of the same light source (See Fig. 1);
Kurz does not explicitly disclose S3: obtaining spatial distribution characteristics of a light field based on the hyperspectral images A; S4: spatially matching pixels in the hyperspectral images A and the hyperspectral image B; S5: performing light field correction on a pixel of the sample in the hyperspectral image B; and S6: performing reflectance correction on the sample after the light field correction.
Huang teaches S3: obtaining spatial distribution characteristics of a light field based on the hyperspectral images A (Fig. 2, S4 “spectral average area A”); S4: spatially matching pixels in the hyperspectral images A and the hyperspectral image B (Fig. 2, S4, whiteboard parameter ratio correction coefficient); S5: performing light field correction on a pixel of the sample in the hyperspectral image B (Fig. 2, S5 “dividing the hyperspectral data of the test sample by the hyperspectral data of standard reference whiteboard to obtain reflectance hyperspectral matrix”); and S6: performing reflectance correction on the sample after the light field correction (Fig. 2, S5 “corrected hyperspectral reflectance image matrix”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the calibration of Kurz to perform S3: obtaining spatial distribution characteristics of a light field based on the hyperspectral images A; S4: spatially matching pixels in the hyperspectral images A and the hyperspectral image B; S5: performing light field correction on a pixel of the sample in the hyperspectral image B; and S6: performing reflectance correction on the sample after the light field correction based on the teachings of Huang in order to improve the analysis efficiency and the accuracy of hyperspectral analysis (Huang Par. 42).
In claim 8, Kurz further discloses wherein the standard whiteboard has a reflectance between 2% and 99% (Par. 42, “reflectivity of the diffuse reference reflector can be selected in dependency on the measuring conditions, in particular in the range from 2% to 99%”).
Kurz does not explicitly disclose first standard whiteboard has a reflectance of 20%, and the second standard whiteboard has a reflectance of 60% (emphasis added).
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed for Kurz to have wherein the first standard whiteboard has a reflectance of 20%, and the second standard whiteboard has a reflectance of 60% based on the disclosure of Kurz would have been obvious to try in order to account for measuring conditions (Kurz Par. 42) and yielded predictable results because of the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Kurz recognition of the range of reflectance values.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 4-7 and 9-12 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claims 4 and 9, the claim differs from the closest prior arts of record, cited above, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious steps S3.1 through S3.3 in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
