DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Interpretation 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5
Allowable Subject Matter 6
Conclusion 7
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 11/16/22. Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
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 sample text dataset acquisition component, configured to acquire a sample text dataset, and preprocess each text image in the sample text dataset, wherein, the sample text dataset comprises a text position, positions of various characters in a text, and a character category; a label image generation component, configured to generate a label image according to the text image which is preprocessed, wherein, the label image comprises a text region, a text boundary region, a character region, a character boundary region, and the character category, and perform diffusion annotation on the text boundary region and the character boundary region; a text recognition model training component, configured to input the label image into a text recognition model for training, extract image features using a convolution layer, perform down-sampling using a pooling layer, restore an image resolution using up-sampling layer or a deconvolution layer, normalize an output probability for the last layer using a sigmoid layer to output multiple prediction maps with different scales, and optimize a loss function of the text recognition model using an optimizer to obtain a trained text recognition model; a prediction map outputting component, configured to preprocess a text image to be recognized, input the text image which is preprocessed to be recognized into the trained text recognition model, and output, by the trained text recognition model, a clear-scale prediction map; and a text sequence outputting component, configured to analyze the clear-scale prediction map to obtain a text sequence of the text image to be recognized” in claims 8-12.
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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. The claims invoke 112 (f) means plus function as mentioned above, but the original disclosure, pg. 18, cites “components may be a series of computer program instruction segments capable of complete specific functions”, which does not incorporate physical structure into the claim language and deems the claim indefinite. The scope of protection is unclear since what is considered to be the various components? The nature of 112 sixth paragraph invokes structure from the specification, but when the specification does not have sufficient structure supporting the “non-structural term”, the scope of the claim is indefinite due to the lack of recitation. The Examiner will interpret the cited invocation of means plus function as reasonably broad as possible to one ordinary skilled in the art. Therefore, the interpretation given for the non-structural term is considered to be any general purpose computer, processor or hardware with an algorithm or any dedicated circuitry that performs the claimed functions. Correction is required. Examiner suggests amending the components to be tied to a processor in order to avoid 35 USC 112 (f) means plus function and to avoid any issues of new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 13-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 13, the Applicant’s claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art by “performing diffusion annotation on the text boundary region and the character boundary region; inputting the label image into a text recognition model for training, extracting image features using a convolution layer, performing down-sampling using a pooling layer, restoring an image resolution using up-sampling layer or a deconvolution layer, normalizing an output probability for the last layer using a sigmoid layer to output multiple prediction maps with different scales, and optimizing a loss function of the text recognition model using an optimizer to obtain a trained text recognition model; preprocessing a text image to be recognized, inputting the text image to be recognized which is preprocessed into the trained text recognition model, and outputting, by the trained text recognition model, a clear-scale prediction map; and analyzing the clear-scale prediction map to obtain a text sequence of the text image to be recognized”. It is noted that the examiner has not found any other prior art to anticipate or obviate the quoted claim limitations when read in light/combination of the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Claims 8-12 are rejected. Claims 1-7, 13-19 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ndegwa et al (US 2022/0292861 A1) is cited to teach docket analysis.
Liu et al (US 2021/0407041 A1) is cited to teach extracting and convoluting feature content.
Selva et al (US 11,176,443 B1) is cited to teach text detection.
Wang et al (US 2018/0314894 A1) is cited to teach object detection.
Wang (US 2021/0295089 A1) is cite to teach neural network for automatically tagging input image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666