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
Objection to the tile has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s newly submitted replacement title.
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding “Maeda does not teach or suggest a first image generating unit configured to receive a known character string. Nor does Maeda teach or suggest an outputting unit configured to output correct answer data of the character string. As the Office Action admits, Maeda does not relate to ‘learning images.’” has been fully considered; in response the examiner would like to point out that in accordance with the claims, there is no clear definition as to what a “known character string” nor “correct answer data” is. The examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation of both terms to mean, any string of characters in and image corresponds to a “known character string” in the context that a user is inputting the character string, therefore it would be known. With respect to “correct answer data”, the broadest reasonable interpretation would be a correctly acquired message from the handwritten message, thus it is a correct data. In the claims, there is no further explanation as to what a possible question would be for a “correct answer data”, therefore the interpretation given is a reasonable one. Given this explanation, the examiner sustains that Maeda ‘980 discloses “receiving a known character string and generate a first image including the character string (paragraph [0074], where a handwritten sheet is inputted to generate a first image containing the handwritten note (know character string))”. Furthermore, Maeda ‘980 also discloses “outputting the combined image and correct answer data of the character string (paragraph [0075]-[0077] and [0079], where the combined image is outputted (printed) along with the handwriting image after being acquired from the handwritten area)”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 2007/0076980) in view of Ichihashi (US 2019/0122080).
(1) regarding claims 1, 16, and 17:
Maeda ‘980 discloses a learning image generation apparatus (paragraph [0054]-[0055], image combining apparatus 1 in Fig. 1) comprising:
a first image generating unit configured to receive a known character string and generate a first image including the character string (paragraph [0074], where a handwritten sheet is inputted to generate a first image containing the handwritten note (known character string));
a second image generating unit configured to generate a second image to be combined with the first image (paragraph [0070]-[0071], where an image is generated to be combined with the handwritten image);
an image combining unit configured to combine the first image and the second image to generate a combined image (paragraph [0075]-[0077], where handwritten image and the photograph are combined into a combined image); and
an outputting unit configured to output the combined image and correct answer data of the character string (paragraph [0075]-[0077] and [0079], where the combined image is outputted (printed) along with the handwriting image after being acquired from the handwritten area).
Maeda ‘980 discloses all the subject matter as described above except where a combined image is a learning image;
However, Ichihashi ‘080 teaches where a combined image is a learning image (paragraph [0070], where the combined image is a learning image used for a learning model);
Having a system of Ichihashi ‘080 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Maeda ‘980 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maeda ‘980 to include the limitations as taught by Ichihashi ‘080 because it is possible to generate image data on a captured image having an improved performance, compared with captured images generated individually by a plurality of imaging sections, using the image data on the captured images generated individually. It is noted that the effects described in the present specification are given as an example only, and the effects are not limited to those described in the present specification and may contain additional effects (paragraph [0015]).
(2) regarding claim 2:
Maeda ‘980 further discloses wherein the first image generating unit generates the first image by converting the character string into image data (paragraph [0074], where a handwritten sheet is inputted to generate a first image containing the handwritten note).
(3) regarding claim 3:
Maeda ‘980 further discloses wherein the outputting unit outputs text data representing the character string as the correct answer data (paragraph [0169], where the handwritten sheet is determined to be correct).
(4) regarding claim 7:
Maeda ‘980 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including a noise component.
However, Ichihashi ‘080 teaches wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including a noise component (paragraph [0087], where the image has a noise component).
Having a system of Ichihashi ‘080 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Maeda ‘980 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Maeda ‘980 to include the limitations as taught by Ichihashi ‘080 because it is possible to generate image data on a captured image having an improved performance, compared with captured images generated individually by a plurality of imaging sections, using the image data on the captured images generated individually. It is noted that the effects described in the present specification are given as an example only, and the effects are not limited to those described in the present specification and may contain additional effects (paragraph [0015]).
(5) regarding claim 8:
Maeda ‘980 further discloses wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including a color image (paragraph [0086]-[0087], color pixels of the image).
(6) regarding claim 9:
Maeda ‘980 further discloses wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including a character string different from the character string (paragraph [0074], where the image can be any image including one with a different text in it).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, and 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A. Claim 4 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the first image generating unit generates M (where M is a natural number equal to or greater than 2) first images by performing different processing on the character string when converting the character string into the image data, and the second image generating unit generates at least M learning images by combining the second image with each of the M first images”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
B. Claim 5 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including the seal impression image obtained by processing the character string, and the image combining unit generates the learning image in which the seal impression image included in the second image is superimposed and combined on the character string included in the first image”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
C. Claim 6 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including a ruled line or a frame line to be combined with the character string included in the first image or the periphery of the character string included in the first image”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
D. Claim 10 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the second image generating unit generates the second image including an image obtained by horizontally inverting a character string different from the character string”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
E. Claim 11 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the image combining unit generates a plurality of learning images by changing a parameter in a case where the first image and the second image are combined, and the outputting unit outputs the plurality of the learning images”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 12-15 depend on claim 11, therefor a similar analysis applies.
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 LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights