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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/30/2026 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16 and 19 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira’863 (10,007,863), and further in view of Slattery’209 (US 2020/0302209) and Nijemecevic’354 (US 2011/0274354), and FEI’739 (CN 106650739).
With respect to claim 1, Pereira’863 teaches a computing device for text recognition [regarding to the system shown in Fig.1A], the computing device comprising:
a processor coupled to a storage medium that stores instructions, which upon execution by the processor [the system shown in Fig.1A is inherent disclosed with a processor coupled to a storage medium that stores instructions in order to provide the functions of the system shown in Fig.1A], cause the processor to:
receive a data file comprising an image (col.13, line 54 and Fig.4A, step 401);
identify at least one contour in the image (col.13, lines 61-64, col.14, lines 17-19 and 34-36);
partition the at least one contour into a plurality of segments (col.14, lines 17-19 and Fig.4A, step 4A),
identify a text character in each segment of the plurality of segments (col.14, lines 65 and 66). (col.14, lines 65 and 66),
Pereira’863 does not teach wherein the identifying the at least one contour comprises determining a plurality of contiguous pixels corresponding to a plurality of overlapping characters, and wherein each of the contiguous pixels is within a predetermined spatial distance threshold to another contiguous pixel; wherein partitioning the at least one contour comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed; and dividing the bounding box; and wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
Slattery’209 teaches wherein the identifying the at least one contour comprises determining a plurality of contiguous pixels corresponding to a plurality of overlapping characters (paragraph 13), and wherein each of the contiguous pixels (Fig.2A, item 201) is within a predetermined spatial distance threshold to another contiguous pixel (Fig.2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pereira’863 according to the teaching of Slattery’209 to determine pixel associated with ligatures because this will allow the text to be recognized more effectively.
The combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 does not teach wherein partitioning the at least one contour comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed; and dividing the bounding box; wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
Nijemecevic’354 teaches wherein partitioning the at least one contour comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed (Fig.3a and Fig.3b); and dividing the bounding box (Fig.3a and Fig.3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 according to the teaching of Nijemecevic’354 to segment the character with bounding box because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
The combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 does not teach wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
FEI’739 teaches wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 according to the teaching of FEI’739 to segment the characters with different size of bounding boxes with different height or width because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to: append at least two of the identified text characters to form a word (col.15, lines 4-8);
perform word correction on the word to generate a corrected word; and output the corrected word (col.15, lines 4-8).
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the at least two of the identified text characters are appended based on a predetermined spatial location difference threshold (col.15, lines 4-8).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim1, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the at least one contour comprises a plurality of contours, and wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to filter the plurality of contours to remove a non-text contour in the plurality of contours (col.14, lines 51-56).
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Pereira’863 does not teach wherein each of the contiguous pixel comprises a pixel value above a predetermined pixel value threshold.
Slattery’209 teaches wherein each of the contiguous pixel comprises a pixel value above a predetermined pixel value threshold (paragraph 13 and Fig.2A, item 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863, Nijemecevic’354 and FEI’739 according to the teaching of Slattery’209 to determine pixel associated with ligatures because this will allow the text to be recognized more effectively.
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 does not teach wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box.
Nijemecevic’354 teaches wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box (Fig.3a and Fig.3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 according to the teaching of Nijemecevic’354 to segment the character with bounding box because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 does not teach wherein the bounding box is divided based on a width-to-height ratio of different bounding box.
FEI’739 teaches wherein the bounding box is divided based on a width-to-height ratio of different bounding box (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 according to the teaching of FEI’739 to segment the characters with different size of bounding boxes with different height or width because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the at least one contour comprises a plurality of contours, and wherein partitioning the at least one contour comprises: determining a plurality of bounding boxes, wherein each contour of the plurality of contours is inscribed in a separate bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes (col.13, lines 64-67 and col.14, lines 1-16); and dividing each bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes into a set of segments based on a predetermined pixel width value, wherein the predetermined pixel width value is determined based on a smallest width in the plurality of bounding boxes (col.13, lines 64-67 and col.14, lines 1-16).
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 1, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the text character is identified using a text classification machine learning model (col.14, lines 51-56).
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 9, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the text classification machine learning model comprises a convolutional neural network (col.14, lines 65-66).
With respect to claims 11-15, they are a method claims that claim how the computer device of claims 1-7, 9 and 10 to identify the character in an image. Claims 1-15 are rejected for the same manner as described in the rejected claims 1-7, 9 and 10.
With respect to claim 16, Pereira’863 teaches a computing device [regarding to the system shown in Fig.1A] for text recognition, the computing device comprising:
a processor coupled to a storage medium that stores instructions, which upon execution by the processor [the system shown in Fig.1A is inherent disclosed with a processor coupled to a storage medium that stores instructions in order to provide the functions of the system shown in Fig.1A], cause the processor to:
receive a data file comprising an image (col.13, line 54 and Fig.4A, step 401);
identify a plurality of contours in the image (col.13, lines 61-64, col.14, lines 17-19 and 34-36);
filter the plurality of contours to remove contours corresponding to non-text portions of the image (col.14, lines 51-56);
partition each of the remaining contours in the plurality of contours into one or more segments (col.14, lines 17-19 and Fig.4A, step 4A);
identify a text character in each partitioned segment using a text classification machine learning model (col.14, lines 51-66); and
output the identified text characters (Fig.1B, step 173 and col.15, lines 4-8)).
Pereira’863 does not teach wherein the identifying a contour in the plurality of contours comprises determining a plurality of contiguous pixels corresponding to a plurality of overlapping characters, and wherein each of the contiguous pixels is within a predetermined spatial distance threshold to another contiguous pixel; wherein partitioning each of the remaining contours comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed; and dividing the bounding box; wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
Slattery’209 teaches wherein the identifying a contour in the plurality of contours comprises determining a plurality of contiguous pixels corresponding to a plurality of overlapping characters (paragraph 13), and wherein each of the contiguous pixels (Fig.2A, item 201) is within a predetermined spatial distance threshold to another contiguous pixel (Fig.2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pereira’863 according to the teaching of Slattery’209 to determine pixel associated with ligatures because this will allow the text to be recognized more effectively.
The combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 does not teach wherein partitioning each of the remaining contours comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed; and dividing the bounding box; wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
Nijemecevic’354 teaches wherein partitioning each of the remaining contours comprises: determining a bounding box in which a contour in the at least one contour is inscribed; and dividing the bounding box (Fig.3a and Fig.3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863 and Slattery’209 according to the teaching of Nijemecevic’354 to segment the character with bounding box because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
The combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 does not teach wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box.
FEI’739 teaches wherein the bounding box is divided based on a height of the bounding box or a width of a different bounding box (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 according to the teaching of FEI’739 to segment the characters with different size of bounding boxes with different height or width because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 6, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the instructions, upon execution by the processor further cause the processor to: determine at least two identified text characters satisfying a predetermined spatial location difference threshold col.15, lines 4-8); append the at least two identified text characters to form a word col.15, lines 4-8); perform word correction on the word to generate a corrected word col.15, lines 4-8); and output the corrected word col.15, lines 4-8).
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 16, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the plurality of contours is filtered using a text classification machine learning model (col.14, lines 65-66).
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 16, the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 does not teach wherein the bounding box is divided based on a width-to-height ratio of different bounding box.
FEI’739 teaches wherein the bounding box is divided based on a width-to-height ratio of different bounding box (Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Pereira’863, Slattery’209 and Nijemecevic’354 according to the teaching of FEI’739 to segment the characters with different size of bounding boxes with different height or width because this will allow the characters to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 16, Pereira’863 teaches wherein the text character is identified using a text classification convolutional neural network (col.14, lines 65-66).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682