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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0347834 A1).
As per claim 1, Kimura discloses an information processing system (figures 1 and 2), comprising circuitry configured to: acquire a captured image by capturing a document (paragraph [0035]: capturing image data of the first page of the original document); perform an analysis process using the captured image (figure 2: image processing steps S2, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8); based on a result of the analysis process, select, for each of at least one setting item of a plurality of setting items relating to image processing to be performed on the captured image, at least one setting value from among configurable setting values as a candidate for a recommended setting (as shown in figure 2, steps S5, S6 and S7, at least one setting of color, resolution and filter is proposed to be changed); perform image processing repeatedly on the captured image while changing setting values of the plurality of setting items with a setting value of the at least one setting item restricted to the at least one setting value selected as the candidate for the recommended setting (the image processing is repeated on the captured image for different settings in color, resolution and filter); and based on a result of the image processing, determine recommended settings for the plurality of setting items relating to image processing to obtain an image suitable for character recognition (paragraph [0046]: “The OCR processing section 4 then executes OCR processing on the generated image data for character recognition (Step S9)”).
As per claim 2, Kimura discloses wherein the circuitry selects the candidate for the recommended setting by performing image analysis on the captured image as the analysis process (Kimura in figure 2 teaches the changed settings are the claimed “candidate for the recommended setting”).
As per claim 10, Kimura discloses wherein the circuitry performs image processing on the captured image using the configurable setting values, and based on a character recognition result for an image obtained by performing the image processing, selects the setting value being the candidate for the recommended setting (see step S1 for OCR and S5, S6 and S7 for setting changes).
As per claim 12, Kimura discloses wherein the circuitry determines the recommended settings for the plurality of setting items based on character recognition results for a plurality of images obtained by repeatedly performing the image processing on the captured image while change each of the setting values for the plurality of setting items (the document in Kimura contains a plurality of pages, and as shown in figure 2 a plurality of pages may be processed and a multiple of settings may be changed to achieve a desired OCR setting).
As per claim 13, Kimura discloses wherein the circuitry determines, as the recommended settings for the plurality of setting items, a combination of the setting values relating to the plurality of setting items with which an image with a best character recognition result is obtained (as explained above, the settings of color, resolution and filter are changed for best OCR result).
As per claim 14, Kimura discloses a memory that stores the determined recommended settings for the plurality of setting items in association with identification information of the document (Kimura’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a memory for storing setting values).
As per claim 15, Kimura teaches the plurality of setting items includes an image processing setting item relating to at least one of background pattern removal, specific character extraction, a dropout color, a binarization sensitivity or noise removal (the color and filter settings are corresponding to the claimed “dropout color” and “noise removal”).
As per claim 16, Kimura teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to present the recommended settings for the plurality of setting items to a user (Kimura teaches a display section 5 for viewing the setting changes and the user has the ability to manually change the settings if they are not desired).
As per claim 18, Kimura teaches wherein the document is a plurality of documents (as explained above, Kimura teaches the document is a document of a plurality of pages).
As per claim 19, see explanation in claim 1.
As per claim 20, see explanation in claim 1, the examiner notes Kimura’s system is a computer-like system, which inherently includes a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 11 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights