DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Response to Arguments 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 11
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 3/13/23. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 12 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 § 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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) in view of Ozaki (US 5,748,345).
Regarding claim 1, Dhakal teaches a method comprising:
using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area (see section 3.C), perform the predetermined processing on a second or subsequent document on an area corresponding to the reference area (see abstract, section 1, 3). Dhakal does not teach information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: detect the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, upon detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, specify predetermined processing and an area to be processed in the first document based on the detected one or more markers; perform the specify predetermined processing on the area to be processed in the first document.
Ozaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches information processing apparatus comprising: a processor (see col. 4, lines 20-67, col. 5, lines 1-20) configured to: detect the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document (see col. 4, lines 30-67, col. 11, lines 60-col. 12, lines 20), upon detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, specify predetermined processing and an area to be processed in the first document based on the detected one or more markers (see abstract, col. 4, lines 50-67, col. 8, lines 1-50, col. 11, lines 50-col. 12, lines 30); perform the specify predetermined processing on the area to be processed in the first document (see col. 12, lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Ozaki. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate erroneous color discrimination (see col. 1, lines 35-50). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal, while the teaching of Ozaki continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is analyzed as a method that implements the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Dhakal a method comprising: using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area (see section 3.C), perform the predetermined processing on a second or subsequent document on an area corresponding to the reference area (see abstract, section 1, 3). Dhakal does not teach expressly a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising: detecting one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, upon detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, specify predetermined processing and an area to be processed in the first document based on the detected one or more markers; performing the predetermined processing on the area to be processed in the first document.
Ozaki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising (see col. 4, lines 20-67, col. 5, lines 1-20): : detecting one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document (see col. 4, lines 30-67, col. 11, lines 60-col. 12, lines 20), upon detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers on the first document, specify predetermined processing and an area to be processed in the first document based on the detected one or more markers (see abstract, col. 4, lines 50-67, col. 8, lines 1-50, col. 11, lines 50-col. 12, lines 30); performing the predetermined processing on the area to be processed in the first document (see col. 12, lines 1-30).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Ozaki. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate erroneous color discrimination (see col. 1, lines 35-50). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal, while the teaching of Ozaki continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) with Ozaki (US 5,748,345), and further in view of Mortenson et al (US 6,999,204 B2).
Regarding claims 2-4, Dhakal with Ozaki teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Dhakal with Ozaki does not teach expressly a marker expressed by a machine-readable code; information indicating content of the predetermined processing; stipulates the content of the predetermined processing by type of color.
Mortenson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a marker expressed by a machine-readable code (see col. 2, lines 47-67); information indicating content of the predetermined processing (see col. 3, lines 45-60, col. 5, lines 1-10); stipulates the content of the predetermined processing by type of color (see col. 2, lines 50-67, col.3, lines 50- col. 4, lines 20).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal with Ozaki to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Mortenson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to achieve greater accuracy in capture and save time when document processing (see col. 3, lines 1-15). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal with Ozaki, while the teaching of Mortenson continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) with Ozaki (US 5,748,345), and further in view of Pintsov et al (US 2004/0247168 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Dhakal with Ozaki teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Dhakal with Ozaki does not teach expressly map the reference area with the area corresponding to the reference area on the second or subsequent document if the second or subsequent document conforms to a predetermined characteristic of the first document; at least one of a dimension, color, layout, color scheme, and title of the document.
Pintsov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches map the reference area with the area corresponding to the reference area on the second or subsequent document if the second or subsequent document conforms to a predetermined characteristic of the first document (see 0040-0041); at least one of a dimension, color, layout, color scheme, and title of the document (see 0040-0041).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal with Ozaki to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Pintsov. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable authenticating extractible image features (see 0008). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal with Ozaki, while the teaching of Pintsov continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) with Ozaki (US 5,748,345), and further in view of Dance et al (US 6,463,220 B1)
Regarding claims 7-8, Dhakal with Ozaki teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Dhakal with Ozaki does not teach expressly a document camera; processing related to image reading.
Dance, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a document camera (see col. 1, lines 60-67); processing related to image reading (see col. 3, lines 60-col. 5, lines 10).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal with Ozaki to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Dance. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable detection that is faster and operate rapidly with reliability (see col. 4, lines 25-37). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal with Ozaki, while the teaching of Dance continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) with Ozaki (US 5,748,345), and further in view of Seckler et al (CHI: “Designing Usable Web Forms – Empirical Evaluation of Web Form Improvement Guidelines”),
Regarding claims 9-10, Dhakal with Ozaki teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Dhakal with Ozaki does not teach expressly in response to a determination that the area to be processed is not specified successfully, present an indication that specification is unsuccessful; determination that the area to be processed is not specified successfully is a determination that the area to be processed contains no characters.
Seckler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to a determination that the area to be processed is not specified successfully, present an indication that specification is unsuccessful (see pg. 1280-1282); determination that the area to be processed is not specified successfully is a determination that the area to be processed contains no characters (see pg. 1280-1282).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal with Ozaki to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Seckler. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable better forms that increase user satisfaction and usage (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal with Ozaki, while the teaching of Seckler continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhakal et al (AITB: “One-Shot Template Matching for Automatic Document Data Capture”) with Ozaki (US 5,748,345), and further in view of Gerstner et al (US 10,628,702 B1).
Regarding claims 13-15, Dhakal with Ozaki teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. Dhakal with Ozaki does not teach expressly using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area, perform the predetermined processing on the second or subsequent document on the area corresponding to the reference area, without detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers in the second or subsequent document; upon receiving a second or subsequent document, determine whether a characteristic of the second or subsequent document matches a predetermined characteristic of the first document; and upon determining that the characteristic of the second or subsequent document matches the predetermined characteristic of the first document, using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area, perform the predetermined processing on an area in the second or subsequent document corresponding to the reference area, without detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers in the second or subsequent document; predetermined characteristic is color and/or size of the first document.
Gerstner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area, perform the predetermined processing on the second or subsequent document on the area corresponding to the reference area, without detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers in the second or subsequent document (see col. 2, lines 1-30, col. 4, lines 30-50, col. 5, lines 1-30); upon receiving a second or subsequent document, determine whether a characteristic of the second or subsequent document matches a predetermined characteristic of the first document; and upon determining that the characteristic of the second or subsequent document matches the predetermined characteristic of the first document, using the area to be processed in the first document as a reference area, perform the predetermined processing on an area in the second or subsequent document corresponding to the reference area, without detecting the one or more visually recognizable markers in the second or subsequent document (see col. 7, lines 40-67, col. 2, lines 1-40, col. 9, lines 1-40, col. 12, lines 40-67, col. 13, lines 1-40, col. 14, lines 1-40); predetermined characteristic is color and/or size of the first document (see col. 3,lines 40-60, col. 4, lines 20-40, col. 6, lines 40-67, col. 8, lines 1-30, col. 10, lines 50-67, col. 12, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dhakal with Ozaki to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Gerstner. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable matching images without requiring large volume of template images (see col. 2, lines 1-20). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Dhakal with Ozaki, while the teaching of Gerstner continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2675
Prosecution Insights