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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/20/2023, 3/18/2024, and 6/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "generates a graphic image of the character, and superimposes the graphic image on the character area" from claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 5 recite the following limitations, with claim 1 being exemplary:
“An electronic apparatus comprising: a processor configured to (a) execute area extraction processing of extracting a character area including a character in an image, (b) processing of applying dithering to an area other than the character area in the image, and (c) emphasizing processing of emphasizing the character in the character area”.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to an apparatus and a method, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? YES. Independent claims 1 and 5 are directed towards a mathematical concept and a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, limitation (a) recites a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)), as at a conceptual level, a human could recognize text- or character-containing regions within an image. Limitations (b) and (c) recites mathematical concepts (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)). Dithering and emphasizing the character, which under broadest reasonable interpretation may include, for example, binarization and edge enhancement, are image-processing computations on pixel values.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. Independent claims 1 and 5 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the claims further recite the additional element of a “processor”. This additional element is not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 5 as it amounts to a mere generic computer element and thus amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO. Independent claims 1 and 5 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1 and 5, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claim 1 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP §2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 5 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claim 2: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation: wherein the processor binarizes the character area in the emphasizing processing is an image-processing computation on pixel values and falls under mathematical concepts (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Regarding claim 3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation: wherein the processor executes processing of emphasizing an edge in the emphasizing processing is an image-processing computation on pixel values and falls under mathematical concepts (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Regarding claim 4: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The recites the limitations: (a) wherein the processor extracts the character from the character area in the emphasizing processing, (b) generates a graphic image of the character, and (c) superimposes the graphic image on the character area. Limitation (a) falls under mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)) as a human could conceptually extract a character from the character area. Limitations (b) and (c) are image-processing computations on pixel values and fall under mathematical concepts (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
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.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150092244) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220284631) (hereafter, "Matsuoka").
Regarding claims 1 and 5, with claim 1 being exemplary, Yamada discloses a processor configured to execute area extraction processing of extracting a character area including a character in an image (¶0096, lines 1-3, the threshold process unit 260 determines whether the type of the object region that includes the target pixel is "text." This implies that the system has already classified object regions, including a "text" region, which is interpreted as extraction of a character area), processing of applying dithering to an area other than the character area in the image (¶0096, lines 3-10, If the type of the object region is not "text" (S312: NO), in S336 the threshold process unit 260 sets the process flag to "dither" and advances to S390. When the type of the object region is "text" (S312: YES), the threshold process unit 260 advances to S315; ¶0097, lines 7-9, The threshold process unit 260 also executes a thresholding process using dither matrices DM on all print pixels in non-text regions).
Yamada fails to disclose emphasizing processing of emphasizing the character in the character area.
However, Matsuoka discloses emphasizing processing of emphasizing the character in the character area (¶0066, lines 7-10, For example, the character area is subjected to an edge enhancement process (sharpness enhancement process) to enhance its high-frequency components).
Both Yamada and Matsuoka are analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of image processing of text characters. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the character emphasis of Matsuoka into the text extraction and dithering application method of Yamada. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the readability of the character (¶0066, lines 10-12, Accordingly, an edge portion of the character included in the character area is enhanced and the blurring of the character is reduced).
This method of improving Yamada was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Matsuoka.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yamada with the teachings of Matsuoka to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada in view of Matsuoka discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Yamada fails to disclose wherein the processor binarizes the character area in the emphasizing processing.
However, Matsuoka discloses wherein the processor binarizes the character area in the emphasizing processing (¶0073, lines 1-7, The tone reproduction processor 218 performs a tone reproduction process (halftone generation process) to binarize the gray data input from the color number conversion processor 216 and generate K (key plate) data. In that case, the tone reproduction processor 218 performs the tone reproduction process in accordance with the document type indicated by the document type signal Sa; ¶0063, lines 4-9, an image primarily including any of a character, photograph, and graphic (figure) or an image including a mixture of them. Then, the document type determiner 204 outputs a document type signal Sa. Since Sa can be the type “character”, the binarization process may be performed in accordance on the text area).
Both Yamada and Matsuoka are analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of image processing of text characters. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the binarization of character areas of Matsuoka into the text extraction and dithering application method of Yamada. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the data amount of the image file (¶0008, lines 6-8, to reduce the data amount while preventing the degradation of the image quality).
This method of improving Yamada was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Matsuoka.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yamada with the teachings of Matsuoka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada in view of Matsuoka discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor executes processing of emphasizing an edge in the emphasizing processing (Matsuoka, ¶0066, lines 7-10, For example, the character area is subjected to an edge enhancement process (sharpness enhancement process) to enhance its high-frequency components).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Matsuoka as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Hamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 20160125275) (hereafter, "Hamada") and Cedar et al. (US Patent No. 6256650) (hereafter, "Cedar").
Regarding claim 4, Yamada in view of Matsuoka discloses the electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
Yamada in view of Matsuoka fails to disclose wherein the processor extracts the character from the character area in the emphasizing processing, generates a graphic image of the character, and superimposes the graphic image on the character area.
However, Hamada discloses wherein the processor extracts the character from the character area in the emphasizing processing (¶0082, lines 1-2, The character pattern recognizer 120 performs character pattern recognition with respect to each visible text area), and superimposes the graphic image on the character area (¶0262, lines 1-5, The image display device 200 according to the second embodiment displays the text representing the character recognition result Y1 (hereinafter, called a “recognition text”) superimposed on the text areas that are detected from the input image X).
Furthermore, Cedar discloses generates a graphic image of the character (Col 3, lines 1-2, "WORDART" converts the text into images that represent outlines of the characters).
Yamada, Matsuoka, Hamada, and Cedar are all analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of image processing of text characters. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate character recognition and superimposition of Hamada and the graphic images of text of Cedar into the text extraction and dithering application method of Yamada and the character emphasizing methods of Matsuoka. The suggestion/motivation for incorporating Hamada would have been the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (see MPEP §2143(I)(C)). The improvement of the “base” device (the character area extraction and enhancement device disclosed by Yamada in view of Matsuoka) with the character recognition and superimposition of Hamada would have been within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The suggestion/motivation for incorporating Cedar would have been the improvement of quality in the images of text (Col 3, lines 11-13, The method employed by "WORDART" produces images of better quality than does the method relating to the bitmap image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Yamada and the teachings of Matsuoka with the teachings of Hamada and Cedar to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220272228) discloses the binarization of a character area (¶0080, lines 1-11, The content area detection unit 410 detects a content area (character area) based on the luminance value of each pixel included in the reading data obtained from the AD converter 206. The content area detection unit 410 calculates the difference between the average luminance value in the vicinity of the target pixel and the luminance value of the edge-enhanced reading data, and performs binarization such that a pixel whose difference is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold is binarized to be “1” and a pixel whose difference exceeds the threshold is binarized to be “0”).
O’Gara et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220122367) discloses the superimposing of text over the original location (¶0029, lines 13-20, The output interface producer 406 superimposes the text in the transparent font for each page on an underlying image corresponding to that page. The superimposed text includes words from each of the pages of the digitized document 150 superimposed on the corresponding underlying image at locations or positions that correspond to their respective positions on the page).
Misawa (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200134309) discloses the identification and enhancement of a character region (¶0008, lines 6-14, a smoothing unit configured to perform smoothing processing on a character region of the binary image data, a second binarization unit configured to perform binarization processing on the character region having been subjected to the smoothing processing by the smoothing unit, and a character recognition unit configured to perform character recognition processing on the character region having been subjected to the binarization processing by the second binarization unit).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMAO DING whose telephone number is (571)272-7237. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/X.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676