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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims 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.
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 1-20 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 claim 1 recites limitation “ending the video after receiving an indication to capture an image at a second point in time that is after the first point in time;” and “wherein at least one of the different images was captured prior to the second point in time and at least one of the different images is captured after the second point in time;”, these limitations are unclear. Because, once the video is ended at a second point in time as claimed in “ending the video after receiving an indication to capture an image at a second point in time that is after the first point in time;” (emphasis added) how is it possible to have the different image(s) captured after the second point in the time as claimed in “wherein at least one of the different images was captured prior to the second point in time and at least one of the different images is captured after the second point in time;” (emphasis added). This makes the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend on rejected independent claim 1.
The claim 11 recites limitation “after detecting an indication to capture an image of the object, stopping the video;” and “wherein at least one of the two or more individual images was captured prior to the detection of the indication and at least one of the two or more individual images is captured after the detection of the indication;”, these limitations are unclear.
Because, once the video is stop after an indication as claimed in “after detecting an indication to capture an image of the object, stopping the video;” (emphasis added) how is it possible to have more individual images captured after the detection of the indication as claimed in “wherein at least one of the two or more individual images was captured prior to the detection of the indication and at least one of the two or more individual images is captured after the detection of the indication” (emphasis added). This makes the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims 12-15 are rejected because they depend on rejected independent claim 11.
The claim 16 recites limitation “cease the particular video capture after receiving an indication to capture an image of the object;” and “wherein at least one of the two or more individual images 1s taken prior to receiving the indication to capture an image and at least one of the two or more individual images is captured after receiving the indication;”, these limitations are unclear.
Because, once the video is cease or stop after an indication as claimed in “cease the particular video capture after receiving an indication to capture an image of the object; (emphasis added) how is it possible to have more individual images captured after receiving the indication as claimed in “wherein at least one of the two or more individual images 1s taken prior to receiving the indication to capture an image and at least one of the two or more individual images is captured after receiving the indication” (emphasis added). This makes the claims indefinite.
Dependent claims 17-20 are rejected because they depend on rejected independent claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, 4-14, and 16-20 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (US Pub. 2020/0202503) in view of Ilic (US Pub. 2016/0309085).
With respect to claim 1, Mayer discloses A method, comprising:
presenting, by a computer system to a display of the computer system, a plurality of choices for entering information, including an image option to capture an image of an object that includes the information to be entered, (see figure 1A, numerical 102 smartphone {this obviates the various options to input information such as keypad, camera etc.});
receiving, by the computer system in response to a selection of the image option at a first point in time, a plurality of images of an object taken from a video [during which there is relative movement between the object and a camera that captures the video];
ending the video after receiving an indication to capture an image at a second point in time that is after the first point in time; (see figure 1A, capturing multiple of images at first, second times, also see figure 1A, numerical 102A, a smartphone, there is a ON/OFF switch “a selection of the image option” or “ending the video” once the final image with full information is capture “an indication to capture an image at a second point” on the smartphone to capture the images or videos);
[identifying, by the computer system, one or more clarity issues within the plurality of images;]
in response to determining that the video does not include a single image that meets a clarity threshold for the object, creating, by the computer system, a merged image of the object by combining portions of different images of the plurality of images such that the clarity threshold for the object is satisfied by the merged image, (see figure 1A, the glare present in two different places numerical 112A & 112B, and the final image 110C without the glare “images such that the clarity threshold for the object is satisfied by the merged image”, also see paragraph 0006); [wherein at least one of the different images was captured prior to the second point in time and at least one of the different images is captured after the second point in time]; and
capturing, by the computer system, information about the object using the merged image, (see figure 1A, the final image 110C), as claimed.
However, Mayer fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of images of an object taken from a video during which there is relative movement between the object and a camera that captures the video; and identifying, by the computer system, one or more clarity issues within the plurality of images; and wherein at least one of the different images was captured prior to the second point in time and at least one of the different images is captured after the second point in time, (emphasis added) as claimed.
Ilic in the same field teaches a plurality of images of an object taken from a video during which there is relative movement between the object and a camera that captures the video, (emphasis added; see Abstract, wherein, …captured in different orientations and distances from the object…); identifying, by the computer system, one or more clarity issues within the plurality of images, (emphasis added; see paragraph 0078, wherein … pre-processing 304 may comprise determining whether to use the acquired image frame in constructing a composite image. This determination may be made based on, for example, an amount of movement of image frame “clarity issues” 302 relative to a preceding image frame); and
wherein at least one of the different images was captured prior to the second point in time and at least one of the different images is captured after the second point in time, (emphasis added, this limitation is indefinite and unclear as rejected above under 35 USC 112, the best understood is that there are three images in total and a final image i.e. composite image is put together using those three images and that is shown in figures 22A-22D, and paragraph 0270-0272), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of improving quality of scan images using image analysis. The teaching of Ilic of capturing multiple images from different orientations and distances from the object and to identify if there is a need for obtaining more images depending upon a threshold of clarity can be incorporated in to Mayer system (see figure 1A, multiple images are captured), for suggestions, and modifying the system yields a technique for capturing imaging with high quality, (see paragraph 0031 of Ilic), for motivation.
With respect to claim 2, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses wherein creating the merged image includes: identifying, by the computer system, a first clarity issue in a first region of a first image; identifying, by the computer system, a second clarity issue in a second region of a second image, the second region different from the first region; and creating the merged image by merging the first region of the first image with a first corresponding region of the second image, and merging the second region of the second image with a second corresponding region of the first image, (see Mayer figure 1A, 112A & 112B for clarity issues in two different locations in two different images, and 110C, the merged image; also figure 3C, 314C, final reconstructed image), as claimed.
With respect to claim 4, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses wherein one or more clarity issues include glare reflected off of the object, (see Mayer figure 1A, 112B the glare “clarity issues”), as claimed.
With respect to claim 5, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses performing, by the computer system, one or more alignment operations to align the object in the different images, (see Ilic figure 9 and 11, paragraph 0013, wherein, …aligning the image frame…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses wherein performing the one or more alignment operations includes: performing optical character recognition in the different images to generate character data; and using the character data to align the different images, (see Ilic paragraph 0175, wherein, …frame 1102 aligned with frame 1100 based on …content ….in this example text…, and paragraph 0278, wherein, …OCR processing, …on k frames…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7 as best understood, combination of Mayer and Ilic discloses all the elements as disclose and rejected above in claim 1. However, they explicitly fail to disclose encrypting at least a portion of a given image; and sending the encrypted portion to an online server computer, as claimed.
It is well-known “official notice” in the art to have the data encrypted prior to transmitting the data between the two ports i.e. two computers for the safety of the data (see reference US Pub. 2014/0032406).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to utilize the conventional knowledge of encrypting the data before transmitting the data between the client and server as it is well known in the art and modifying the system yields a more secure data transmitting system.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses using, by the computer system, a last image of the video as a first image of the plurality of images; and
including, by the computer system, one or more previous images from earlier points in the video to the plurality of images; and processing, by the computer system, at least one of the one or more previous images prior to the indication to capture an image, (see Ilic paragraph 0220, wherein, a stream of image frames captured …to build a composite image…, i.e. continuous image capturing therefore last image becomes the first image and indication of the last image location is the first image at any time in the continuous stream of frames), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses wherein creating the merged image includes increasing a level of contrast between pixels with light image data and pixels with dark pixel data, (see Mayer figure 1A, numerical 110C, wherein the text has the increase contrast difference between the dark and the light pixels, as seen from the two positions of glare 112A and 112B), as claimed.
Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, because claims 11-14 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 respectively. Furthermore, Mayer discloses a smartphone “computer readable medium”, as claimed.
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, because claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Furthermore, Mayer discloses a smartphone “a camera unit”, as claimed.
With respect to claim 18, combination of Mayer and Ilic further discloses wherein the processor circuit is further configured to identify glare within the given region by identifying pixels in the given region that satisfy a threshold level of saturation, (see Mayer paragraph 52, wherein, …the first glare map 306A can represent pixels of the first image 304A, where each pixel in the glare map 306A can be represented by a binary value that reflects either the presence of glare 312A or the absence of glare 312A…), as claimed.
Claims 3 and 15 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (US Pub. 2020/0202503) in view of Ilic (US Pub. 2016/0309085) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harbinson et al (US 10,223,243).
With respect to claim 3 as best understood, combination of Mayer and Ilic discloses all the elements as disclose and rejected above in claim 1. However, they explicitly fail to disclose recognizing a string of characters adjacent to a given one of the one or more clarity issues; and validating the given clarity issue based on the string of characters failing to form a discernable word, as claimed.
Harbinson teaches recognizing a string of characters adjacent to a given one of the one or more clarity issues; and validating the given clarity issue based on the string of characters failing to form a discernable word, (see col. 2, lines 62-66, wherein …first rejection “validating the given clarity issue” may be selected …unable to read a magnetic ink character recognition (“MICR”) line “recognizing a string of characters adjacent to a given…; and …based on the string of characters failing to form a discernable word”, …), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of improving quality of scan images using image analysis. The teaching of Harbinson to check for the text string for the purpose of generating the quality validation can be incorporated in to the Mayer system (see figure 1 checking for the glare), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields a rejection of the image per the quality of the scan data (see col. 2, line 62) this makes the system more accurate, for motivation.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 3, because claim 15 is claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached on 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663