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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawa (US 2018/0124276).
Regarding Claim 1, Sawa teaches an information processing apparatus (Paragraph 2) comprising:
a processor (Element 12, wherein the control unit is a processor) configured to:
obtain a plurality of page images obtained by reading pages (Paragraphs 17 and 21, wherein images of a document, page images, can be obtained by scanning, reading, the pages);
identify, in two page images that are target pages among the plurality of page images, a torn part in edge parts adjacent to each other when the target pages are two facing pages that show one image (Paragraphs 23 and 24, wherein it is identified if the images that are scanned are not rectangular and have a torn edge); and
detect and output the two facing pages by using an obtained result of identification (Paragraph 26 and 35, wherein the composite image is outputted based on connecting the two torn images).
Regarding Claim 2, Sawa further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
detect the two facing pages while compensating for the torn part in accordance with the result of identification (Paragraphs 24, 31, and 41, wherein the images are combined together based on identifying the fit with the torn edges. In addition, further information can be used to combine for missing data).
Regarding Claim 5, Sawa further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
identify, in the edge parts, at least one of a part in which an outline is lost or a part in which a feature value related to a predetermined color is detected, as the torn part (Paragraphs 37 and 38, wherein color is used to determine how to combine the images).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa (US 2018/0124276) in view of Noro (US 2017/0126929).
Regarding Claim 3, Sawa does not teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
compensate for the torn part by using pixel values in a first range that is predetermined by assuming the torn part to be a base point.
Noro does teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
compensate for the torn part by using pixel values in a first range that is predetermined by assuming the torn part to be a base point (Paragraph 69, wherein the torn piece is compensated for through pixel determination based on the effective data).
Sawa and Noro are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Noro for the purpose of compensating for missing or incorrect data (Noro: Paragraph 69).
Regarding Claim 4, Noro further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
when the torn part has been compensated for, further compensate for the torn part in the two facing pages by using pixel values in a second range that is predetermined by assuming the torn part to be a base point (Paragraph 69, wherein the torn part utilizes a least square method and then utilizes the linear expression to compensate for the torn part).
Sawa and Noro are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Noro for the purpose of compensating for missing or incorrect data (Noro: Paragraph 69).
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawa (US 2018/0124276) in view of Wang (US 2014/0029073).
Regarding Claim 6, Sawa does not teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
detect the two facing pages while excluding the torn part in accordance with the result of identification.
Wang does teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
detect the two facing pages while excluding the torn part in accordance with the result of identification (Paragraph 42, wherein artifacts and areas affected by the tear are excluded from the determination).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
exclude the torn part when the torn part has an area that is larger than or equal to a predetermined threshold (Paragraphs 42-44, wherein the comparison is made and the area to recover is determined and processing is limited to smaller areas to ensure proper restoration).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Sawa does not teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
identify the two facing pages by making a comparison between pixel values in the edge parts.
Wang does teach wherein:
the processor is configured to:
identify the two facing pages by making a comparison between pixel values in the edge parts (Paragraph 42, wherein the edges are compared at pixel level).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
make the comparison for each set of pixels or each set of segmented regions obtained by segmenting the edge parts (Paragraph 42, wherein the comparison is made based on segments of pixel locations).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
make the comparison by using as a pixel value in each segmented region, an average of pixel values of pixels included in the segmented region (Paragraphs 37, and 42-44, wherein the area to be measured can be constant, averaged).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang further teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to:
segment a region obtained by excluding the torn part from the edge parts, into a predetermined number of segmented regions and compare the segmented regions with each other (Paragraph 42, wherein the comparison is made based on segments of pixel locations).
Sawa and Wang are combinable because they both deal with processing torn images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Sawa with the teachings of Wang for the purpose of more easily facilitate restoration of documents (Wang: Paragraph 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of A, B, D, E, G, and I-L all deal with compensating for torn documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699