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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections based on title and informality in claim 5 have been withdrawn.
Regarding rejection under 112, as discussed in pages 7-8 of the applicant’s remarks, the examiner respectfully notes that the previous office did not reject claims 1-6, but rather interpreted the claims under 112(f). The interpretation under 112(f) persists with the amended claims because they still describe features by what they do, not by what they are.
The distinctions cited in the remarks between the application and the cited prior art are not reflected in the amended claim language.
In pages 8-10, applicant seeks to distinguish between the application and Watanabe, the primary reference used to reject claim 1.
On page 9, the applicant cites passages from Watanabe describing its approach to receiving image signals and processing the pixels in the frame. The applicant contrasts this with their claims 1 and 2. However, the applicant fails to explain how the cited art is insufficient to reject the claims. Additionally, the amendments to claim 1 do not include these features that distinguish it from the prior art, such as different pixel read modes, receiving a drive signal from a CCD input, or the transformation of an incident image.
Likewise, on page 10, the applicant contrasts claim 1 with passages from Watanabe on the transmission of image signals based on time. The applicant contrasts this with the grabber unit used to receive graphic signals and organize them by a time variable. Nevertheless, the applicant does not explain deficiencies of the examiner’s interpretation of the “grabber unit” as described on page 7 of the office action. Additionally, the applicant does not explain how the passages of Watanabe cited in the office action fail to teach thse features. These features are not present in the amendment to claim 1 to distinguish them from the prior art.
Furthermore, on page 11, the applicant asserts that Cluff, the secondary reference, fails to teach the “identification module” of claim 1. The optical character recognition procedure, as described on page 8, of the office action is the identification module. The rejection based on the prior art has been fleshed out in more detail below. The applicant does not explain how that feature differs from Cluff. Additionally, at the bottom of page 11 and top of page 12, the applicant describes “separate smaller images for each number” for the digit recognition. This feature is not present in the amended claims.
The applicant on page 12 distinguishes the digitizer from the digitizer taught by Cluff, the secondary reference for claim 1, from the digitizer in the application. Applicant cites time stamps being output in specific file formats. However, this distinction is not reflected in the amended claims.
On page 13, the applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine Watanabe with Cluff to reject claim 1. However, the applicant does not describe a conflict between the references or dispute the motivation statement for the two references.
On page 15, the applicant contrasts the signal splitter taught in claim 2 with the signal splitter taught by Tzou [0009]. However, the applicant does not explain the deficiency in the cited art, nor does the applicant include the distinct features of their application in the amended claim 2.
Finally, on page 15, the applicant asserts that there is no motivation to combine Watanabe and Cluff with Tzou to reject claim 2. However, the applicant does not describe a conflict between the references or dispute the motivation statement for the combination of references.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (Pub No. US 6529236 B1) in view of Cluff (Pub No. US 7756617 B1).
As per claim 1, Watanabe teaches the claimed:
1. An apparatus for image data acquisition and processing (Watanabe claim 10: “A digital camera system for shooting a subject and outputting a digital image signal representative of said subject, including: a digital camera and an image reproducing device connected to said digital camera via a communication channel, said digital camera comprising: an imaging device selectively operable, in response to a drive signal, in a partial pixel read mode for outputting a first image signal of one frame in which pixels constituting an image of said subject are reduced in a vertical direction, or in a full pixel read mode for outputting a second image signal of one frame of two fields including all of said pixels constituting the image…” The camera and the control system for the camera correspond to the source machine. This camera and the related imaging device are the graphic signal receiver unit. The imaging device is the display unit.).
a grabber unit configured to capture or extract one or more data images from the graphic signals received by the graphic signal receiver unit at a predefined time interval; and (The graphic signal receiver unit corresponds to the camera and the imaging device described above. The data image signals are received from that signal receiver unit. Watanabe claim 10: “said transmitting circuit having an isochronous transmitting function for serially transmitting said first image signal in an isochronous mode at the guaranteed data rate while guaranteeing an amount of data to be transferred for a preselected period of time, and an asynchronous transmitting function for transmitting the second image signal in an asynchronous mode at a data rate matching an ability of a destination to which said communication channel is connected, said image reproducing device comprising: a second transmitting circuit for receiving said first image signal on said communication channel,” The isochronous transmitting function transmits at a regular interval and the period of time is predetermined.
The examiner is interpreting the “grabber unit” as a frame grabber, which is part of an image processing system that captures frames one at a time. Watanabe col. 4, lines 25-35: “Also, the image sensor 22 is operable, in accordance with. the drive signal 100, in a partial pixel read mode for decimating, or reducing, the pixels associated one-to-one with the PDs to one-half or one-fourth and reading one frame at a time. In the embodiment, the partial pixel read mode is set up when the image being picked up should be displayed in real time for framing.”).
an image processing unit configured to process the captured one or more data images received from the grabber unit, the image processing unit including one or more processors and a computer readable medium storing instructions, which instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, perform the steps of: (Watanabe col. 8 lines 50-60: “(28) The CPU 26 plays the role of a controller for controlling the entire camera 10a as to the display, storage and transmission of the image data. The CPU 26 selectively generates command information for causing the device 10b to display and store the image data, or control signals for controlling the various sections of the camera 10a in accordance with various kinds of command information received from the device 10b.” A CPU necessarily reads instructions from a computer readable medium. The grabber unit is the image sensor, which processes the frames into image data. The CPU controls the system processing the image data, so it is applied to the grabber unit.).
Watanabe alone fails to disclose the following limitations. However, Cluff teaches the following:
identifying, by an identification module, a numeric value present in each of the captured data images using a digit recognition technique; (Cluff describes using OCR to read numeric digits of an image of an odometer. Cluff col. 6 lines 1-10: “Processing Means 22 then processes the stored image using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) procedure to convert the portion of the image pointing to the odometer digits into digitally recognizable characters. Processing Means 22 then stores the digits into memory 26 using the unique trip identifier and a date and time provided by Real Time Clock 60. Both the captured image and the digits obtained by OCR of the image represent the starting odometer reading for a particular trip.” The OCR recognizes a digit present in the image. This is the identification module using a digit recognition technique.).
digitizing, by a digitizer, each of the identified numeric values with corresponding time stamps to provide digitized data files; (Cluff col. 5 60 – col. 6 line 10:“During or after the process of capturing an image, Processing Means 22 acquires image data from the Image Capture Means 38 and stores it in memory 26 with the unique identifier and a date and time stamp provided by the Real Time Clock 60. Processing Means 22 then processes the stored image using an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) procedure to convert the portion of the image pointing to the odometer digits into digitally recognizable characters. Processing Means 22 then stores the digits into memory 26 using the unique trip identifier and a date and time provided by Real Time Clock 60. Both the captured image and the digits obtained by OCR of the image represent the starting odometer reading for a particular trip.” Cluff describes taking the images of digits from the image capture and storing them in memory. These are the digitized data files. The captured images are associated with a time stamp.).
collecting, by a recording module, the digitized data files; and
communicating, by a communication module, the data files to a destination device.
(Watanabe claim 1: “said control circuit feeding said first image signal to said transmitting circuit to thereby sequentially transmit said first image signal on said communication channel, said control circuit setting up said full pixel read mode in response to a command input by an operator to thereby feed said second image signal to said transmitting circuit or said recording circuit; said transmitting circuit having an isochronous transmitting function for serially transmitting said first image signal in an isochronous mode at the guaranteed data rate while guaranteeing an amount of data to be transferred for a preselected period of time, and an asynchronous transmitting function for transmitting the second image signal in an asynchronous mode at a data rate matching an ability of a destination to which said communication channel is connected.” The transmitting function for transmitting image signals in an isochronous could be combined with the time-stamped data of Cluff, and would be sent to a destination device.).
An apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters, the apparatus comprising: (Watanabe alone does not teach the processing of numeric characters. However, the combination of Cluff and Watanabe as described above teaches the acquisition and processing of numeric characters by using OCR in the frames captured by Watanabe.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the image capture of a numeric digit and the time-stamping of image data as taught by Cluff with the system of Watanabe in order to organize and label the image data output to a remote at regular intervals. Additionally, one would be motivated to use the system of Watanabe to identify and transmit images of numeric characters in an image and organize them for transmission since numbers often reveal important context about an image scene.
As per claim 7, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 3, Watanabe teaches the claimed:
3. The apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters as claimed in wherein the source machine is at least one of a source computer, control system and a distributed control system (DCS) server unit. (Watanabe col. 1 line 55-col. 2 line 5:“In accordance with the present invention, a digital camera for shooting a subject and outputting a digital image signal representative of the subject includes an imaging device selectively operable, in response to a drive signal, in a partial pixel read mode for outputting an image signal in which pixels constituting the image of the subject are reduced, or in a full pixel read mode for outputting an image signal having all of the pixels. A converting circuit converts each of the image signals selectively output from the imaging device to a digital image signal. A signal processing circuit processes the digital image signal. An outputting circuit outputs the image signals selectively output from the imaging device. A control circuit controls the operation of the digital camera.” The control circuit that controls the digital camera is the source machine, which is a control system.).
As per claim 4, Watanabe teaches the claimed:
4. The apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters as claimed in wherein the destination device is a computer. (Watanabe col. 1 lines 23-27: “ With an advanced type of digital camera, it is possible to read image data out of a recording medium and feed them to a television (TV) receiver, personal computer or similar output terminal so as to reproduce and display an image represented by the image data” The feeding of the image data to a personal computer corresponds to the destination device.).
As per claim 5, Watanabe teaches the claimed:
5. The apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters as claimed in wherein the apparatus comprises a network based device for collection or
transmission of the digitized data files to a destination device at a remote location at a prescribed interval. (Watanabe claim 10: ”said second transmitting circuit comprising a first receiving circuit for guaranteeing an amount of data to be transmitted during a preselected period of time and receiving, on said communication channel, said first image signal serially transmitted in said isochronous mode at the guaranteed data rate, and a second receiving circuit for receiving said second image signal serially transmitted in said asynchronous mode on said communication channel.” Remote location: Watanabe col. 15 lines 50-55: “The image data on the output 146 may be sent to a remote apparatus via the digital network or similar public network. Of course, the image data may be compressed and packetized before the transmission to the remote apparatus.” The isochronous mode for data transmission during a preselected period of time is the regular interval and can be sent to a remote device.).
As per claim 9, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 5, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (Pub No. US 6529236 B1) in view of Cluff (Pub No. US 7756617 B1) and further in view of Tzou (Pub No. US 20070035633 A1).
As per claim 2, Watanabe alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Watanabe in combination with Tzou teaches the claimed:
2. The apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters as claimed in wherein the apparatus comprises a signal splitter device attached between an output of the source machine and the graphic signal receiver unit, wherein the signal splitter device is configured to split the graphic signal of the source machine to at least two signals and supplying one of the signal to the graphic signal receiver unit. ( Tzou [0009]: “To achieve the foregoing objectives, an apparatus for simulating the scenes of image signals is connected to a display device and the apparatus for simulating the scenes of image signals comprises: a signal splitter for receiving an image signal and sending the image signal separately to the display device and another end; a chip set coupled to the signal splitter for receiving the image signal sent to the other end and processing the image signal;” The display device is the graphic signal receiver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the signal splitter as taught by Tzou with the system of Watanabe in order to control the flow of and image signal and send it to multiple devices within the system.
As per claim 8, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 2, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (Pub No. US 6529236 B1) in view of Cluff (Pub No. US 7756617 B1) and further in view of Perdices-Gonzalez (Pub No. US 20170310956 A1)
As per claim 6, Watanabe alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Watanabe in combination with Perdices-Gonzalez teaches the claimed:
6. The apparatus for image data acquisition and processing of numeric characters as claimed in claim 5, wherein the network based device is a communicator selected from at least one of a local intranet server, a cloud resource and a mobile device. (Perdices-Gonzalez describes processing image data received from another system. Perdices-Gonzalez [0199]: “Processor 3912 is capable of processing image data received from a source such as signal splitter 3710, computer system 3708, and/or projector 3704 and controlling operation of display controller 3910. In particular embodiments, processor 3912 is capable of executing instructions stored in memory 3914. In one or more embodiments, processor 3912 is capable of executing program code stored in memory 3914 that causes projection device 3702 to operate as a master as described herein to control operation of projector 3704.” The system transmit information through either mobile devices or cloud components. Perdices-Gonzalez [00159]: “As example and not by way of limitation, computer system 3200 may be an embedded computer system, a system-on-chip (SOC), a single-board computer system (SBC) (such as, for example, a computer-on-module (COM) or system-on-module (SOM)), a desktop computer system, a laptop or notebook computer system, an interactive kiosk, a mainframe, a mesh of computer systems, a mobile telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a server, a tablet computer system, or a combination of two or more of these. Where appropriate, computer system 3200 may include one or more computer systems 3200; be unitary or distributed; span multiple locations; span multiple machines; span multiple data centers; or reside in a cloud, which may include one or more cloud components in one or more networks.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cloud components and mobile device networks as taught by Perdices-Gonzalez with the system of Watanabe in order to use more diverse, wireless network types to transmit the image data to other devices.
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 THOMAS JOHN FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)272-5053. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Fri 8:30-6. Tues-Thurs 7:30-5.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/THOMAS JOHN FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616