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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/24/2025, filed with the office on 02/24/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-15, and 19-20 are pending. Claims 2, 7, 12 and 16-18 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objections of record of the specification with respect to the title of the invention is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments of independent claims 1, 19, and 20, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based on abstract idea. The claims recite a system, apparatus, and computer readable medium to image documents on a document table and provide warning when a user does not remove the document. With respect to independent system claim 1:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a system i.e., a device or a machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
The limitation “determine whether a position of a document image included in the captured image matches with a position of an image document included in the document table video” and “detect the imaged document” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
As such, a person could view an image of a document placed on a table or scanner and compare it with the positioning of the document in the video and determine whether the document or any object in the image and video is the same, which would mean the document is present/detected with a degree of error or lack thereof either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (e.g., processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements “acquire a document table video that is a video of a document table on which a document is placed and is obtained by an imaging device after the imaging device images the document table; perform imaging on the document table to generate a captured image” and “perform notification to a user that the imaged document remains on the document table” are recited as mere data gathering and outputting which are not indicated of integration into a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims as drafted recite “one or more processors” at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D) as well as the case law cited therein.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO,
The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional step/element/limitation amounts to no more than an abstract idea performed on a computer. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)(III). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
In addition, the elements of claims 19 and 20 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 1. Therefore, independent claims 19 and 20 are not patent eligible, either.
Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-20, under their broadest reasonable interpretation are identified as: being either directed towards mere data gathering or an abstract idea, mental process and mathematical calculation, and not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For all of the above reasons, claims 1-20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekpenyong (US 2018/0121718 A1) in view of Tsukimori et al. (US 2016/0191741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ekpenyong teaches “An information processing system (Ekpenyong paragraph [0012] "a system 100 for automatic document detection processing") comprising: one or more processors (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "a mobile application that executes on one or more processors of the mobile device includes the document detector 121") configured to: acquire a document table video that is a video of a document table on which a document is placed (Ekpenyong paragraph [0018] "Simultaneous to the camera 122 being initiated, the document detector 121 is initiated by the mobile application. The document detector 121 receiving the video being recorded by the camera 122") and is obtained by an imaging device after the imaging device images the document table (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "When the option for capturing an image of the document is selected, an integrated camera 122 of the mobile device 120 is initiated and the camera 122 begins recording video available through the lens of the camera 122");
perform imaging on the document table to generate a captured image (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "When the option for capturing an image of the document is selected, an integrated camera 122 of the mobile device 120 is initiated and the camera 122 begins recording video available through the lens of the camera 122");
determine whether a position of a document image included in the captured image (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "When the option for capturing an image of the document is selected, an integrated camera 122") (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "The document detector 121 receiving the video being recorded by the camera 122");
and in a case in which the position of the document image included in the captured image (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "When the option for capturing an image of the document is selected, an integrated camera 122") matches with the position of the imaged document included in the document table video (Ekpenyong paragraph [0017] "The document detector 121 receiving the video being recorded by the camera 122"), “
However, Ekpenyong is not relied on to teach the captured image “matches with a position of an imaged document” and “detect the imaged document and perform notification to a user that the imaged document remains on the document table”.
Tsukimori teaches the captured image “matches with a position of an imaged document (Tsukimori paragraph [0094] "An image reading apparatus according to this embodiment further determines whether a position of the edge of the first document matches with a position of the edge of the second document in a case where it is determined that the second document is placed on the document table")” and “detect the imaged document and perform notification to a user that the imaged document remains on the document table (Tsukimori paragraph [0064] "The notification unit 106 is configured to notify determination information based on the determination result of the second determination unit 105. To be specific, the notification unit 106 notifies a user that the first document is left behind on the document table 13 in the case where it is determined that the second document is the same as the first document").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify a system for document reading as taught by Ekpenyong to use a comparison between two images based on position and notifying the user when a document was not removed from the document table as taught by Tsukimori.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “in the related art, a dedicated sensor is required in order to detect the document being left behind on the document table. As a result, the number of components of the image reading apparatus increases. Thus, the present invention provides an image reading apparatus capable of preventing the increase of the number of components in order to detect the document being left behind on the document table” as noted by the Tsukimori disclosure in paragraph 7 and 8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Ekpenyong with the Tsukimori disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of teaches Ekpenyong and Tsukimori “the information processing system according to claim [[2]] 1 wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform display for notifying the user that the imaged document placed on the document table remains on the document table on a display unit (Tsukimori paragraph [0064] “the notification unit 106 may notify the user of the first document being left behind by displaying a message or an image on a display unit (not illustrated)”)
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Ekpenyong and Tsukimori references presented in the rejection of claim 1, applies to claim 3. Finally the system recited in claim 3 is met by Ekpenyong and Tsukimori.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ekpenyong and Tsukimori teaches “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform a process of detecting the imaged document (Ekpenyong paragraph [0023] "As images of the document appear in the frames of the buffer, the document detector 121 keeps track of document edges (e.g., the perimeter and corners of the document identified by rectangles)").”
Claim 19 recites an apparatus with elements corresponding to the system with elements recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of system claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Ekpenyong and Tsukimori references, presented in rejection of claim 1 apply to this claim.
Claim 20 recites a computer readable medium including computer executable instructions corresponding to the elements of the system recited in claim 1. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 20 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of the system claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Ekpenyong and Tsukimori presented in rejection of claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claims 6, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekpenyong and Tsukimori in view of Endo (US 10,091,373 B2).
Regarding claim 6 (similarly claim 8), the combination of Ekpenyong and Tsukimori teaches “the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: allow acquisition of [[a]] the document image that is a portion including the document from [[a]] the captured image obtained by imaging the document table on which the document is placed with the imaging device (Ekpenyong paragraph [0024] "the document detector 121 makes a determination as to whether the document region of interest can be identified from the video frames. If that is successful, a still image of the document can be automatically captured by activating the camera 122 to take a still image")”.
However, the combination of Ekpenyong and Tsukimori is not relied on to teach “prevent the acquisition of the document image of the imaged document in a case in which the captured image is obtained in a state in which the document table video includes the imaged document and the imaged document remains on the document table”.
Endo teaches “prevent the acquisition of the document image of the imaged document in a case in which the captured image is obtained in a state in which the document table video includes the imaged document and the imaged document remains on the document table (Endo column 6 lines 42-50 "The control unit 20 determines whether or not the document is on the document table 16, based on the output of the sensor unit 24 (Act 118). In a case where the document is on the document table 16 ( e.g., "Yes" at Act 118), the control unit 20 performs the processing of Act 117 again. That is, the control unit 20 performs the control operation such that the warning is continuously made until the document is removed from the document table 16").”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify a system for document reading as taught by Ekpenyong and Tsukimori to include stopping the process of scanning the document if the document was already scanned as taught by Endo.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “the warning is a message indicating that the document has not been removed from the document table 16. The warning may prevent loss of the document caused by user carelessness” as noted by the Endo disclosure in column 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Ekpenyong and Tsukimori with the Endo disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11 (similarly claim 13) , the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo teaches “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: prevent new imaging of the document table by the imaging device in a case in which the document table video includes the imaged document and the imaged document is detected (Endo column 6 lines 42-50 "The control unit 20 determines whether or not the document is on the document table 16, based on the output of the sensor unit 24 (Act 118). In a case where the document is on the document table 16 ( e.g., "Yes" at Act 118), the control unit 20 performs the processing of Act 117 again. That is, the control unit 20 performs the control operation such that the warning is continuously made until the document is removed from the document table 16").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo references presented in the rejection of claim 2, applies to claim 11. Finally the device recited in claim 11 is met by Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo.
Claims 4-5, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo, in view of Doi et al. (“Detecting Object-Level Scene Changes in Images with Viewpoint Differences Using Graph Matching” Published 2022).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo teaches the system of claim 1 and “in a case in which a new document is placed on the document table in a state in which the document table video includes the imaged document and the imaged document remains on the document table (Endo column 2 lines 4-8 "The notification unit is configured to provide a notification warning to indicate that the document has not been removed from the document table"), ”.
However, the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo is not relied on “perform identifiable display for enabling a user to identify the imaged document and the new document on a display unit.”
Doi teaches “perform identifiable display for enabling a user to identify the imaged document and the new document on a display unit (Doi Figure 1 and page 2 paragraph 3 "object-level change detection in images […] the regions and classes of objects with no matching pairs are categorized as appearing/disappearing objects in each scene").”
PNG
media_image1.png
655
1267
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Doi Figure 1
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify a system for document reading as taught by Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo to include the ability to determine which objects are new and which are unchanged as taught by Doi because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, identifying which documents remain unchanged vs which are changed permits the user to not forget to retrieve documents and avoids the repeated action of scanning the same document. This known benefit is applicable to the document reader/scanner as it is simply applying a known algorithm or method of identifying objects to the document reader/scanner. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the document reading system as taught by Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo to include the determination of unchanged and changed objects within an image as taught by Doi would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate an object change detection algorithm to any environment and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, and Endo with the Doi disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi teaches “The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform display such that a display aspect of the imaged document is different from a display aspect of the new document as the identifiable display (Doi Figure 1 and page 2 paragraph 3 "object-level change detection in images […] the regions and classes of objects with no matching pairs are categorized as appearing/disappearing objects in each scene").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi references presented in the rejection of claim 4, applies to claim 5. Finally the device recited in claim 5 is met by Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi.
Regarding claim 9 (similarly claim 10), the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi teaches “The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: allow acquisition of [[a]] the document image that is a portion including the document from [[a]] the captured image obtained by imaging the document table on which the document is placed with the imaging device (Ekpenyong paragraph [0024] "the document detector 121 makes a determination as to whether the document region of interest can be identified from the video frames. If that is successful, a still image of the document can be automatically captured by activating the camera 122 to take a still image"), and
prevent the acquisition of the document image of the imaged document in a case in which the captured image is obtained in a state in which the document table video includes the imaged document and the imaged document remains on the document table (Endo column 6 lines 42-50 "The control unit 20 determines whether or not the document is on the document table 16, based on the output of the sensor unit 24 (Act 118). In a case where the document is on the document table 16 ( e.g., "Yes" at Act 118), the control unit 20 performs the processing of Act 117 again. That is, the control unit 20 performs the control operation such that the warning is continuously made until the document is removed from the document table 16").
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi teaches “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: in a case in which the imaging device images the document table to acquire a new captured image in a state in which the document table video includes the imaged document, the imaged document remains on the document table (Endo column 2 lines 4-8 "The notification unit is configured to provide a notification warning to indicate that the document has not been removed from the document table"), and a new document is placed on the document table, make a process that is performed on a portion including the imaged document in the new captured image different from a process that is performed on a portion including the new document in the new captured image (Doi Figure 1 and page 2 paragraph 3 "object-level change detection in images […] the regions and classes of objects with no matching pairs are categorized as appearing/disappearing objects in each scene").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi references presented in the rejection of claim 4, applies to claim 9. Finally the device recited in claim 5 is met by Ekpenyong, Tsukimori, Endo, and Doi.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US Publication 2018/0035000 A1 to Harada et al. teaches to detect whether a document has been removed and if it hasn’t notifying the user by showing a warning on a display.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights