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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the maximum allowable length of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 2, in lines 3-4 of the claim, the phrase “a pair of relatively high contrast sensitivity image and relatively high-resolution image” should be amended to read “a pair of relatively high contrast sensitivity images and relatively high-resolution images”.
As for claim 2, in line 5-7 of the claim, the phrase “and performs an image size . . .” should be amended to read “and perform an image size . . .” in the best understanding of the examiner, as it appears that the grating interferometer acquisition unit also performs this function. However, clarity issues appear to exist; see the rejection set forth below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A grating interferometer image acquisition unit configured to acquire . . .” in claims 1-9.
“A numerical phantom generation unit configured to generate . . .” in claims 1-9.
“A convolution layer generation unit configured to perform calculation processing . . .” in claims 1-9.
“An activation function application calculation unit configured to apply . . .” in claims 1-9.
“A CNN (convolutional neural network) repetitive machine learning unit configured to correct a convolution calculation factor . . .” in claims 1-9.
“An image matching output unit configured to match and provide . . .” in claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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.
The term “relatively high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In line 4 of claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “relatively high-resolution image” and “relatively high sensitivity image”. The specification does not readily appear to define the term “relatively high” in such a way to provide the metes and bounds of these relative terms in the claim. What resolution is needed for a “relatively high-resolution image”? What sensitivity is needed for a “relatively high sensitivity image”? Without answers to these questions, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the symmetrical grating interferometer" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites, in line 3, “a grating interferometer image acquisition unit” (or just “a grating interferometer”), but there is no recitation of “a symmetrical grating interferometer” to provide antecedent basis for the limitation “the symmetrical grating interferometer” as found in claim 1.
The term “relatively high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In line 4 of claim 2, the claim recites the limitations “relatively high contrast sensitivity image[s]” and “relatively high-resolution image[s]”. The specification does not readily appear to define the term “relatively high” in such a way to provide the metes and bounds of these relative terms in the claim. What contrast and sensitivity is needed for a “relatively high contrast sensitivity image”? What resolution is needed for a “relatively high-resolution image”? Without answers to these questions, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the subject" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What subject is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 2 depends, recites “a sample”, but neither claim 1 or claim 2 recite “a subject”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the acquired phase difference image" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What acquired phase difference image is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 3 depends, fails to set forth a phase difference image.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same level of images" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What does “the same level” refer back to in this limitation? Is it the resolution, contrast sensitivity, and image noise set forth earlier in claim 3? Or does it refer to a different level?
The term “relatively high” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In line 6 of claim 3, the claim recites “generate a plurality of numerical phantoms for relatively high accuracy”. The specification does not readily appear to define the term “relatively high” in such a way to provide the metes and bounds of these relative terms in the claim. What level of accuracy is needed to generate numerical phantoms that have “relatively high accuracy”? Without an answer to this question, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the filter" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What filter is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, fails to set forth a filter. Perhaps claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4, the claim which first recites “a filter”?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the generated filter" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What generated filter is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, fails to set forth a generated filter. Perhaps claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4, the claim which first recites generating a filter?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the horizontal and vertical size of the input image" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What horizontal and vertical size of what input image is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, fails to set forth the horizontal and vertical size of the input image. Perhaps claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4, the claim which first recites “a horizontal and vertical size” of input data? The examiner notes that while there appears to be antecedent basis for “input data” in claim 4, there does not appear to be antecedent basis for “input image” in claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the filter" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What filter is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 6 depends, fails to set forth a filter. Perhaps claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4 or claim 5?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "to solve the problem" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What problem is being set forth here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 6 depends, fails to set forth solving a problem.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the loss" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What loss is being referred to here? Is this the same as the loss value of a cost function as set forth in line 6 of the claim, or does this refer to a different loss?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the input image and the ground truth" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What input image and what ground truth are being referred to here? Claim 1 sets forth “input data”, but not an input image, while there does not appear to be any earlier recitation of a ground truth in claims 1 or 9.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,266,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘162 patent claim all the salient limitations of the instant application as follows.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘162 patent claims an apparatus for enhancing contrast sensitivity and resolution in a grating interferometer by machine learning (see lines 1-2 of the ‘162 claim), the apparatus comprising: a grating interferometer image acquisition unit configured to acquire a relatively high-resolution image and a relatively high sensitivity image by linearly moving a position of a sample from the symmetrical grating interferometer (see lines 4-8 of the ‘162 claim); a numerical phantom generation unit configured to generate a numerical phantom for performing machine learning (see lines 9-11 of the ‘162 claim); a convolution layer generation unit configured to perform calculation processing of a convolutional neural network to extract features from input data (see lines 12-14 of the ‘162 claim); an activation function application calculation unit configured to apply a ReLu (Rectified linear unit) activation function to an output value of the convolution calculation to perform smooth repetitive machine learning (see lines 15-18 of the ‘162 claim); a CNN (convolutional neural network) repetitive machine learning unit configured to correct a convolution calculation factor while repeatedly performing forward propagation and backward propagation processes (see lines 19-22 of the ‘162 claim); and an image matching output unit configured to match and provide as output features extracted by repetitive machine learning of the CNN repetitive machine learning unit (see lines 23-26 of the ‘162 claim).
Further claim correspondence is as follows:
Claim 2 of the instant application with claim 2 of the ‘162 patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application with claim 3 of the ‘162 patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application with claim 4 of the ‘162 patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application with claim 5 of the ‘162 patent (the examiner makes the assumption here that claim 5 of the instant application is best dependent on claim 4 as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection set forth above).
Claim 6 of the instant application with claim 6 of the ‘162 patent (the examiner makes the assumption here that claim 6 of the instant application is best dependent on claim 5 as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection set forth above).
Claim 7 of the instant application with claim 7 of the ‘162 patent.
Claim 8 of the instant application with claim 8 of the ‘162 patent.
Claim 9 of the instant application with claim 9 of the ‘162 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 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, along with the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for enhancing contrast sensitivity and resolution in a grating interferometer by machine learning, the apparatus comprising, among other essential features, a numerical phantom generation unit configured to generate a numerical phantom for performing machine learning; an activation function application calculation unit configured to apply a rectified linear unit activation function to an output value of the convolution calculation to perform smooth repetitive machine learning; a CNN (convolutional neural network) repetitive machine learning unit configured to correct a convolution calculation factor while repeatedly performing forward propagation and backward propagation processes; and an image matching output unit configured to match and provide as output features extracted by repetitive machine learning of the CNN repetitive machine learning unit, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, US2021/0374936 to Koopman et al. teaches deep learning for semantic segmentation of a pattern that performs image matching (see abstract) featuring a deep learning model that has an activation function that can be a rectified linear unit (see paragraph 0150), convolutional neural networks (see paragraph 0141), and forward and backward propagation (see paragraph 0177). US Pat. 10,748,036 to Tu et al. teaches training a neural network to predict superpixels that also includes a convolution layer that is interleaved with a rectified linear unit (see Col. 7, lines 16-37) and features forward and backward propagation when training (see Col. 21, lines 34-49). Finally, WO 2019/071433 to Cao teaches recognizing a pattern in data using a convolutional neural network (see abstract). However, this prior art, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose the entirety of the claimed invention as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Towards On-Chip Optical FFTs for Convolutional Neural Networks” by George et al. teaches an all-optical Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) using nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers, with the FFT performing convolution operations for neural networks. The optical FFTs take advantage of the energy efficient arithmetic of wave interference to perform the convolutions of the convolutional neural network (see Part I, Introduction and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights