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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 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.
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the amended limitations do not provide enough for detail providing a technical improvement and a "significantly more". Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification that the Examiner can find support for providing a technical improvement and a "significantly more" according to the limitations claimed in the claims. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims received on January 22, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 10 and 15-19 is acknowledged.
The cancelation of claims 2, 3 and 11 are acknowledged.
The new claims 21-23 are acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception in the form of an Abstract Idea, without significantly more:
Beginning with independent claim 1, a text recognition device claim, which recites:
a character position recognizer configured to recognize individual characters in an image, and configured to recognize a position of each of the individual characters; a correction processor configured to set a main region, the correction processor further being configured to perform one or both of correcting a slope of the main region and magnification calibration for at least one character recognized by the character position recognizer; and a text recognizer configured to perform text recognition in the main region corrected by the correction processor, wherein the correction processor is configured to distinguish an area forming a group among a plurality of text regions, by using one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length of two adjacent text regions, and wherein, based on a plurality of groups being existent, the correction processor is configured to select one group from the plurality of groups as the main region.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
A text recognition device, comprising a processor to perform the “position recognition” step, the “correction step”, the “text recognition” step, the “distinguishing” step and the “selecting” step is considered being performed by a generic computer. Therefore, If the apparatus, processor and memory are removed from the claim, the method can be easily performed by a human being without the need of any of a computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “text recognition”, with the “position recognition” step, “correction step”, “distinguishing” step and “selecting” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “position recognition” step, “correction step”, “distinguishing” step and “selecting” step and the “text recognition”
Independent claim 10, a process claim, which recites:
A text recognition method comprising: recognizing individual characters and a position of each of the individual characters in an image; setting and selecting a main region for at least one recognized character; calibrating a magnification of the selected main region; and performing text recognition in the main region where the magnification is calibrated, wherein selecting the main region comprises: regionalizing a target by setting a text region for the recognized individual characters; and selecting the main region from a plurality of groups.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “text recognition”, with the “position recognition” step, the “setting and selecting”, the “calibrating” step, the “setting” step and the “selecting” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “position recognition” step, “setting and selecting” and “calibrating”, the “text recognition”, the “setting” step and the “selecting” step.
Independent claim 23, a device claim, which recites:
A text recognition device comprising: a character position recognizer configured to: recognize individual characters in an image; and recognize a position of each of the individual characters; a correction processor configured to: classify a plurality of text regions into groups based on one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length between the plurality of text regions; select a main region from among the classified groups; and perform one or both of correcting a slope of the main region and magnification calibrating for at least one recognized character; and a text recognizer configured to: perform text recognition in the main region corrected by the correction processor; utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result; and digitize and output characters of the valid result.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
A text recognition device, comprising a processor to perform the “character position recognition” step, “recognizing character and position” step, “classifying” step, the “selecting” step, the “correction step”, the “text recognition” step and the “digitized” step is considered being performed by a generic computer. Therefore, If the apparatus, processor and memory are removed from the claim, the method can be easily performed by a human being without the need of any of a computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “digitized” step being, with the “character position recognition” step, “recognizing character and position” step, “classifying” step, the “selecting” step, the “correction step”, and the “text recognition” step pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally.
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “character position recognition” step, “recognizing character and position” step, “classifying” step, the “selecting” step, the “correction step”, the “text recognition” step and the “digitized” step.
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1, 10 and 23 are merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
1434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Likewise, the following dependent claims have been analyzed and do not recite elements that recite a practical application or significantly more and remain rejected under 35 USC 101: Claims 3-9 and 12-22.
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.
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 character position recognizer” in claim 1 and “a text recognizer” in claim 1.
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.
“a character position recognizer” in claim 1 is read as the image processor 120 shown in Fig.1, and “a text recognizer” in claim 1 is read as the image processor 120 shown in Fig.1.
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 § 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, 4-6, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecky’997 (US 9,298,997), and further in view of Sata’302 (US 2013/0034302).
With respect to claim 1, Lecky’997 teaches a text recognition device (Fig.1), comprising:
a character position recognizer configured to recognize individual characters in an image, and configured to recognize a position of each of the individual characters (Fig.3, step 320);
a correction processor configured to set a main region, and perform one or both of correcting a slope of the main region and magnification calibrating for at least one character recognized by the character position recognizer [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)]; and
a text recognizer configured to perform text recognition in the main region corrected by the correction processor (col.3, lines 44-61).
Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the correction processor is configured to distinguish an area forming a group among a plurality of text regions, by using one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length of two adjacent text regions, and wherein, based on a plurality of groups being existent, the correction processor is configured to select one group from the plurality of groups as the main region.
Sata’302 teaches wherein the correction processor is configured to distinguish an area forming a group among a plurality of text regions, by using one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length of two adjacent text regions [regarding to the extra space characters between characters (paragraph 10)], and
wherein, based on a plurality of groups being existent, the correction processor is configured to select one group from the plurality of groups as the main region [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10).].
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 Lecky’997 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the correction processor is configured to select a group with a largest number of text regions from the plurality of groups as the main region.
Sata’302 teaches wherein the correction processor is configured to select a group with a largest number of text regions from the plurality of groups as the main region [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). 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 recognize to considered the largest number of character regions from the plurality of groups as the main region to perform character to recognition because this will allow the characters on a document to be recognized more effectively].
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 Lecky’997 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Lecky’997 teaches wherein the correction processor is configured to calculate a tilted angle of the main region and make correction towards a horizontal direction, based on the main region being tilted [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)].
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, Lecky’997 teaches wherein the correction processor is configured to calculate center point coordinates of a plurality of text regions in the main region and calculate the slope of the main region using the center point coordinates of the plurality of text regions to calculate the tilted angle of the main region [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)].
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 1, Lecky’997 teaches wherein one or both of the character position recognizer [a text recognition model is considered being disclosed with to recognize the location and the orientations of the identifiers shown in an image (Fig.3, step 320)] and the text recognizer is configured to perform text recognition using a text recognition model [a text recognition model is considered being disclosed to perform text recognition (col.3, lines 44-61)].
With respect to claim 21, which further limits claim 1, Lecky’997 teaches digitize and output characters of the valid result [the recognized characters are being stored (Fig.5, step 564). Therefore, the recognized characters are considered being digitized and outputted as the valid result for storing].
Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the text recognizer is further configured to: utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result.
Sata’302 teaches utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). Therefore, the regions in the document having the characters is considered as the main region to perform character recognition and the recognized characters are considered as the valid result. ]; and
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 Lecky’997 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
Claims 7, 10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecky’997 (US 9,298,997), Sata’302 (US 2013/0034302) and further in view of Tanaka’485 (US 10,146,485).
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 1, Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the correction processor is configured to calculate a size and coordinates of an image box to be cut out from the image, to calibrate a magnification of a text region included in the main region.
Tanaka’485 teaches wherein the correction processor is configured to calculate a size and coordinates of an image box to be cut out from the image (Fig.7), to calibrate a magnification of a text region included in the main region (col.7, lines 51-57).
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 Lecky’997 and Sata’302 according to the teaching of Tanaka’485 to perform the magnification on the desired text region to perform text character recognition because this will allow the text characters in the desired text region to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 10, Lecky’997 teaches a text recognition method (Fig.3), comprising:
recognizing individual characters and a position of each of the individual characters in an image (Fig.3, step 320);
setting and selecting a main region for at least one recognized character (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20); and
performing text recognition in the main region (col.3, lines 44-61).
Lecky’997 does not teach calibrating a magnification of the selected main region; performing text recognition in the main region where the magnification is calibrated. wherein selecting the main region comprises: regionalizing a target by setting a text region for the recognized individual characters; and selecting the main region from a plurality of groups.
Tanaka’485 calibrating a magnification of the selected main region (col.7, lines 51-57);
performing text recognition in the main region where the magnification is calibrated (col.10, lines 55-60).
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 Lecky’997 according to the teaching of Tanaka’485 to perform the magnification on the desired text region to perform text character recognition because this will allow the text characters in the desired text region to be identified more effectively.
The combination Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 does not teach wherein selecting the main region comprises: regionalizing a target by setting a text region for the recognized individual characters; and selecting the main region from a plurality of groups
Sata’302 teaches wherein selecting the main region comprises: regionalizing a target by setting a text region for the recognized individual characters [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). 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 recognize to set a text region for the recognized individual characters to perform character recognitions and then to delete the extra space character because this will allow the characters to be recognized more effectively]; and
selecting the main region from a plurality of groups [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). 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 recognize to considered the largest number of character regions from the plurality of groups as the main region to perform character to recognition because this will allow the characters on a document to be recognized more effectively].
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 Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 14, the combination of Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 does not teach wherein the regionalizing of the target distinguishes an area forming a group among a plurality of text regions, by using one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length of two adjacent text regions, for regionalization.
Sata’302 teaches wherein the regionalizing of the target distinguishes an area forming a group among a plurality of text regions, by using one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length of two adjacent text regions, for regionalization [regarding to the extra space characters between characters (paragraph 10)], and
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 Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 12, the combination of Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 does not teach wherein the selecting of the main region from the plurality of groups selects a group with a largest number of text regions from the plurality of groups as the main region.
Sata’302 teaches wherein the selecting of the main region from the plurality of groups selects a group with a largest number of text regions from the plurality of groups as the main region [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10).].
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 Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 10, Lecky’997 teaches further comprising: correcting a slope of the selected main region, based on the selected main region being tilted [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)].
Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the calibrating of the magnification calibrates the magnification in the image where the slope is corrected.
Since has suggest to rotate the object from its original slope to a desired slope to perform text character recognition (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20) and Tanaka’485 teaches to enlarge the region cut out from an image (col.7, lines 51-57), 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 rotate the selected region on a received image to a desired angle and then to enlarge the said rotated region to perform text character recognition (wherein the calibrating of the magnification calibrates the magnification in the image where the slope is corrected) because this will allow the text character on a received image to be recognized more effectively.
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 Lecky’997, Tanaka’485 and Sata’302 to rotate the selected region on a received image to a desired angle and then to enlarge the said rotated region to perform text character recognition (wherein the calibrating of the magnification calibrates the magnification in the image where the slope is corrected) because this will allow the text character on a received image to be recognized more effectively.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 14, Lecky’997 teaches wherein correcting the slope comprises determining a tilted angle of the main region and making correction towards a horizontal direction [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)].
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 15, Lecky’997 teaches wherein correcting of slope comprise determining center point coordinates of a plurality of text regions in the main region and determining the slope of the main region using the center point coordinates of the plurality of text regions to determine the tilted angle of the main region [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)].
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 10, Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the calibrating of the magnification comprise determining a size and coordinates of an image box to be cut out from the image, to calibrate the magnification.
Tanaka’485 teaches wherein the calibrating of the magnification calculates a size and coordinates of an image box to be cut out from the image (Fig.7), to calibrate the magnification
(col.7, lines 51-57).
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 Lecky’997 and Sata’302 according to the teaching of Tanaka’485 to perform the magnification on the desired text region to perform text character recognition because this will allow the text characters in the desired text region to be identified more effectively.
With respect to claim 19, which further limits claim 10 The method of claim 10, wherein one or both of recognizing the position of each of the individual characters and performing final text recognition [a text recognition model is considered being disclosed with to recognize the location and the orientations of the identifiers shown in an image (Fig.3, step 320)], uses a text recognition model to perform text recognition [a text recognition model is considered being disclosed to perform text recognition (col.3, lines 44-61)].
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 10, Lecky’997 teaches wherein the image is captured by a camera (Fig.1A, item 140).
With respect to claim 22, which further limits claim 10, Lecky’997 teaches digitize and output characters of the valid result [the recognized characters are being stored (Fig.5, step 564). Therefore, the recognized characters are considered being digitized and outputted as the valid result for storing].
Lecky’997 does not teach wherein the text recognizer is further configured to: utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result.
Sata’302 teaches utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). Therefore, the regions in the document having the characters is considered as the main region to perform character recognition and the recognized characters are considered as the valid result. ]; and
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 Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecky’997 (US 9,298,997), Sata’302 (US 2013/0034302) and further in view of Anorga’415 (US 2018/0336415).
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Lecky’997 and Sata’302 does not teach wherein the text recognizer is configured to perform text recognition in the main region based on inference.
Anorga’415 teaches wherein the text recognizer is configured to perform text recognition in the main region based on inference (paragraph 55).
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 Lecky’997 and Sata’302 according to the teaching of Anorga’415 to perform text character recognition based on inference because this will allow the text characters in the desired text region to be identified more effectively.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecky’997 (US 9,298,997), Tanaka’485 (US 10,146,485), Sata’302 (US 2013/0034302) and further in view of Anorga’415 (US 2018/0336415).
With respect to claim 18, which further limits claim 10, the combination of Lecky’997, Tanaka’485 and Sata’302 does not teach wherein the performing of the text recognition performs text recognition in the main region based on inference.
Anorga’415 teaches wherein the text recognizer is configured to perform text recognition in the main region based on inference (paragraph 55).
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 Lecky’997 and Tanaka’485 according to the teaching of Tanaka’485 to perform text character recognition based on inference because this will allow the text characters in the desired text region to be identified more effectively.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecky’997 (US 9,298,997), Sata’302 (US 2013/0034302) and further in view of Anorga’415 (US 2018/0336415).
With respect to claim 23, Lecky’997 teaches a text recognition device (Fig.1) comprising:
a character position recognizer (Fig.3, step 320) configured to:
recognize individual characters in an image (Fig.3, step 320); and
recognize a position of each of the individual characters (Fig.3, step 320);
a correction processor configured to: perform one or both of correcting a slope of the main region and magnification calibrating for at least one recognized character [the label (main region) is being rotated from its original slope to a desired slope (Fig.1B and col.3, lines 10-20)]; and
a text recognizer configured to: perform text recognition in the main region corrected by the correction processor (col.3, lines 44-61);
digitize and output characters of the valid result [the recognized characters are being stored (Fig.5, step 564). Therefore, the recognized characters are considered being digitized and outputted as the valid result for storing].
Lecky’997 does not teach classify a plurality of text regions into groups based on one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length between the plurality of text regions; select a main region from among the classified groups.
Sata’302 teaches classify a plurality of text regions into groups based on one or both of an overlapping length and a spaced length between the plurality of text regions [regarding to the extra space characters between characters (paragraph 10). Therefore, the characters don’t have the extra space is considered being classified into a plurality of text regions for character recognition];
select a main region from among the classified groups [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). Therefore, the regions in the document having the characters is considered as the main region to perform character recognition.];
utilize only a recognized result of the main region as a valid result [the characters are being recognized and the extra space characters between characters are being deleted as the correction (paragraph 10). Therefore, the regions in the document having the characters is considered as the main region to perform character recognition and the recognized characters are considered as the valid result. ]; and
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 Lecky’997 according to the teaching of Sata’302 to distinguish the extra space characters element regions and then to remove it because this will allow the character string element regions to be identified more effectively.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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