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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the elements are not labeled with the numbers contained within the specification. 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 Objections
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be amended to include the following formatting and syntax:
“1. A digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions comprises:
a sentence collection module (1),
an odd-even classification module (2),
an odd number processing module (3),
an even number processing module (4),
a database module (5), and
a graphical display module (6);
the system first transmits the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) through the sentence collection module (1) for classification;
then, the information is separately sent to the odd number processing module (3) or even number processing module (4) for reorganizing of Pinyin letters;
finally, the corresponding oracle bone inscription image is obtained and displayed through the graphical display module (6).
Dependent claims 2-8 should be amended from “A digital graphical language system…” to
“The [[A]] digital graphical language system…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 recites a system, a machine. However, claim 1 includes no explicit recitation of any hardware component, nor do the claims include any component which must be interpreted solely as hardware. The specification does not define the claimed modules as software or hardware, however it is implied with the claim language that the steps are carried out by computer processing, i.e. software. Consequently, when all of the components of claims 1 are software, applicant’s claims are directed to software per se, which does not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim and therefore similarly rejected.
Step 2:
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, it recites:
A digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions comprises a sentence collection module (1), an odd-even classification module (2), an odd number processing module (3), an even number processing module (4), a database module (5), and a graphical display module (6);
the system first transmits the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) through the sentence collection module (1) for classification;
then, the information is separately sent to the odd number processing module (3) or even number processing module (4) for reorganizing of Pinyin letters;
finally, the corresponding oracle bone inscription image is obtained and displayed through the graphical display module (6).
Step 2A(I):
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, classify sentence information, reorganize the letters and create, using the aid of a pen and paper, a mapping to be displayed.
Step 2A(II):
This judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. The “digital graphical language system” implies the use of a computer, via the word “digital”, to perform to steps recited. The implied computer within the limitations is at a high level of granularity (i.e. computing system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the following is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity:
oracle bone inscription image is obtained (Mere data gathering);
displayed through the graphical display module (Insignificant Application).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Lastly, the last limitations of ‘transmits the collected information’ and ‘separately sent to the odd number processing module’ of claim 1 are interpreted as merely transmitting data over a data network. As per the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) , a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The MPEP discloses transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional (2106.05(d)(II)(i) transmitting data over a network, where sending is interpreted as “transmitting”). Therefore, the claim limitation does not include elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it recites, “the sentence collection module (1) is used to collect Chinese articles and sentences, and transmit the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2); the odd-even classification module (2) analyzes the articles and sentences collected by the sentence collection module (1), and translates the analyzed results into other languages for output; after the odd-even classification module (2) translates the analysis results, the following modules will process the results of the odd number processing module (3) according to user’s feedback.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, analyze and classify sentence information, reorganize the letters and create, using the aid of a pen and paper, a mapping to be displayed.
This judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. The “digital graphical language system” implies the use of a computer, via the word “digital”, to perform to steps recited. The implied computer within the limitations is at a high level of granularity (i.e. computing system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the following is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity:
collect Chinese articles and sentences (Mere data gathering).
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Lastly, the last limitations of ‘transmit the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2)’ of claim 2 are interpreted as merely transmitting data over a data network. As per the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) , a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The MPEP discloses transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional (2106.05(d)(II)(i) transmitting data over a network, where sending is interpreted as “transmitting”). Therefore, the claim limitation does not include elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites, “the odd-even classification module (2) utilizes a unique classification algorithm to categorize all Chinese vocabulary into odd and even classes; this classification process is based on a deep understanding of the intrinsic properties of vocabulary, ensuring accuracy and reliability in the classification; through this module, the system can transmit the vocabulary to the corresponding subsequent processing modules based on their properties, thereby performing targeted processing.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, analyze and categorize/classify sentence information, reorganize the letters and create, using the aid of a pen and paper, a mapping to be displayed.
This judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. The “digital graphical language system” implies the use of a computer, via the word “digital”, to perform to steps recited. The implied computer within the limitations is at a high level of granularity (i.e. computing system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the following is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity:
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Lastly, the last limitations of ‘through this module, the system can transmit the vocabulary to the corresponding subsequent processing modules based on their properties, thereby performing targeted processing’ of claim 3 are interpreted as merely transmitting data over a data network. As per the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) , a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The MPEP discloses transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional (2106.05(d)(II)(i) transmitting data over a network, where sending is interpreted as “transmitting”). Therefore, the claim limitation does not include elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites, “the odd number processing module (3) is used to apply a specific Pinyin reorganizing method to odd class vocabulary to obtain the corresponding oracle bone inscription; the odd number processing module finely decomposes the reverse Pinyin letters with the median as the superposition, and then further splits and reorganizes them, comprising multi-directional dislocation reorganization, cross reorganization, or the reverse positive stacking reorganization, opposition reorganization with the median as the superposition, and then the corresponding oracle bone inscription can be obtained.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, analyze and categorize/classify text information, reorganize the letters and create, using the aid of a pen and paper, a mapping to be displayed.
This judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. The “digital graphical language system” implies the use of a computer, via the word “digital”, to perform to steps recited. The implied computer within the limitations is at a high level of granularity (i.e. computing system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the following is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity:
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites, “the even number processing module (4) processes by decomposing and reorganizing the opposite Pinyin letters in vertical columns, or decomposing and reorganizing the parallel Pinyin letters in horizontal columns; these techniques can fully explore the characteristics of even-numbered vocabulary, ensuring the accuracy and completeness of digital images.”
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computing system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. A user could easily, with the use of pen and paper, analyze and categorize/classify text information, reorganize the letters and create, using the aid of a pen and paper, a mapping to be displayed.
This judicial exceptions as recited are not integrated into a practical application. The “digital graphical language system” implies the use of a computer, via the word “digital”, to perform to steps recited. The implied computer within the limitations is at a high level of granularity (i.e. computing system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the following is interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity:
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites, “the database module (5) is responsible for storing all Chinese vocabulary and their corresponding oracle bone inscription image data, ensuring the integrity and consistency of the data; through supporting real-time query and update functions, the database module improves the efficiency and accuracy of the system, making it convenient for users to query, update and use relevant data.”
The additional limitations of claim 6 are directed to storing and retrieving data. Storing and retrieving data information in memory. As per the Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018) , a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The MPEP discloses this as well-understood, routine, conventional (2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, the claim limitation does not include elements that amount to significantly more. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites, “the graphical display module (6) supports multiple output formats, allowing users to flexibly view and edit oracle bone inscription images; this diversified display method meets the needs of different users and provides a richer and more intuitive visual experience; users can choose different formats for viewing and editing based on their own needs, making the display of oracle bone inscription images more diverse.”
The additional elements of dependent claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because claim 7 is directed to the abstract idea, it does not add significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites, “the system comprises any language system composed of 0s and 1s, which can be restructured in the aforementioned manner to obtain complete and intact oracle bone inscription images; it supports the processing and display of super-complex phenomena and quantum-scale graphical phenomena.”
The additional elements of dependent claim 8 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi): Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Because claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea, it does not add significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the system first transmits the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) through the sentence collection module (1) for classification”. It is unclear whether “the system” is referring to the claimed “digital graphical language system” or a second system. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as referring to “the digital graphical language system”.
Claim 1 recites “the system first transmits the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) through the sentence collection module (1) for classification”. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the collected information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret this as “collected information”.
Claim 1 recites, “then, the information is separately sent to the odd number processing module (3) or even number processing module (4) for reorganizing of Pinyin letters”. It is unclear whether “the information is referring to “the collected information” of the previous step or information that has been classified. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “the collected information”.
Dependent claims 2-8 fail to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim, and are therefore similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites, “the following modules will process the results of the odd number processing module (3) according to user’s feedback.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the following modules” and claim 2 does not further define what comprises “the following modules”. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “subsequent modules will process the results of the odd number processing module (3) according to user’s feedback
Claim 3 recites, “this classification process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “classification process”. It is unclear whether “this classification process is referring to the ‘utilization of the unique classification algorithm’ or a separate ‘classification process’.
Claim 3 recites, “through this module”. It is unclear which module “this module” is referring to. For examination purposes, “this module” will be interpreted as “the odd-even classification module”.
Claim 3 recites, “the system”. It is unclear whether “the system” is referring to the claimed “digital graphical language system” or a second system. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as referring to “the digital graphical language system”.
Claim 3 recites, “the system can transmit the vocabulary to the corresponding subsequent processing modules”. It is unclear what the corresponding subsequent processing modules are. For examination purposes, “the corresponding subsequent processing modules” will be interpreted as “
Claim 4 recites, “the corresponding oracle bone inscription”. It is unclear whether “the corresponding oracle bone inscription” is the same as “the corresponding oracle bone inscription image” of claim 1. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “the corresponding oracle bone inscription image”.
Claim 4 recites, “the reverse Pinyin letters”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for “the reverse Pinyin letters”. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “
Claim 5 recites, “the opposite Pinyin letters in vertical columns”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for “the opposite Pinyin letters in vertical columns”. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “
Claim 5 recites, “the parallel Pinyin letters”. There is insufficient antecedent bases for “the parallel Pinyin letters”. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as “
Claim 6 recites, “the system”. It is unclear whether “the system” is referring to the claimed “digital graphical language system” or a second system. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as referring to “the digital graphical language system”.
The term “convenient” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “convenient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What might be convenient for one user, may be inconvenient for another user.
The term “needs of different users” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “needs” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Needs are relative to a specific user and can’t be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by “which can be restructured in the aforementioned manner to obtain complete and intact oracle bone inscription images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “the system”. It is unclear whether “the system” is referring to the claimed “digital graphical language system” or a second system. For examination purposes this will be interpreted as referring to “the digital graphical language system”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsumi United States Patent Application Publication US 2013/0108162 in view of Wang Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 102087742A.
Regarding claim 1, Kutsumi discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions comprises:
a sentence collection module (1) (Kutsumi, para [0049], image reading device 31),
an odd-even classification module (2) (Kutsumi, para [0056], within control unit 11, submodule character recognition unit 43; Kutsumi, para [0059], recognizing text represents a text classification),
a database module (5) (Kutsumi, para [0048], storage unit 14), and
a graphical display module (6) (Kutsumi, para [0052], display unit 16);
the system first transmits the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) through the sentence collection module (1) for classification (Kutsumi, para [0049], I/F of device transmits input data to control unit 11; Kutsumi, para [0059], recognizing text represents a text classification);
a corresponding image is obtained and displayed through the graphical display module (6) (Kutsumi, para [0114], outputs a translation-attached document image).
Kutsumi does not disclose:
an odd-even classification module (2)
an odd number processing module (3),
an even number processing module (4),
then, the information is separately sent to the odd number processing module (3) or even number processing module (4) for reorganizing of Pinyin letters;
finally, the corresponding oracle bone inscription image is obtained and displayed through the graphical display module
Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions (Wang, abstract, oracle bone conjugating) comprises:
an odd-even classification module (2) (Wang, para [0017-18], determines boundaries and determines odd and even areas),
an odd number processing module (3) (Wang, para [0017-18], conjugation for odd numbers after areas determined),
an even number processing module (4) (Wang, para [0017-18], conjugation for even numbers after areas determined),
then, the information is separately sent to the odd number processing module (3) or even number processing module (4) for reorganizing of Pinyin letters (Wang, para [0017-18], word classification based on character stroke group within boundary areas. Boundaries create even areas and odd areas).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the classification of text in an image to be specific to oracle bone inscriptions based on the teachings of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly and accurately find the oracle bone fragment information (Wang, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Kutsumi additionally discloses the sentence collection module (1) is used to collect Chinese articles and sentences (Kutsumi, with regards to fig. 3, element S11 acquires original text image), and transmit the collected information to the odd-even classification module (2) (Kutsumi, with regards to fig. 3, Character areas are extracted S12. Following, characters are recognized S13); the odd-even classification module (2) analyzes the articles and sentences collected by the sentence collection module (1), and translates the analyzed results into other languages for output (Kutsumi, with regards to fig. 3, generates a translation S16); after the odd-even classification module (2) translates the analysis results, the following modules will process the results of the odd number processing module (3) according to user’s feedback (Kutsumi, with regards to fig. 3, element S11 acquires original text image. Character areas are extracted S12; Kutsumi, para [0118-119], provides user feedback on adjustment of recognition).
Regarding claim 3, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Wang additionally discloses the odd-even classification module (2) utilizes a unique classification algorithm to categorize all Chinese vocabulary into odd and even classes; this classification process is based on a deep understanding of the intrinsic properties of vocabulary, ensuring accuracy and reliability in the classification; through this module, the system can transmit the vocabulary to the corresponding subsequent processing modules based on their properties, thereby performing targeted processing (Wang, para [0017-18], word classification based on character stroke group within boundary areas. Boundaries create even areas and odd areas).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the classification of text in an image to be specific to oracle bone inscriptions based on the teachings of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly and accurately find the oracle bone fragment information (Wang, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Wang additionally discloses the odd number processing module (3) is used to apply a specific Pinyin reorganizing method to odd class vocabulary to obtain the corresponding oracle bone inscription; the odd number processing module finely decomposes the reverse Pinyin letters with the median as the superposition, and then further splits and reorganizes them, comprising multi-directional dislocation reorganization, cross reorganization, or the reverse positive stacking reorganization, opposition reorganization with the median as the superposition, and then the corresponding oracle bone inscription can be obtained (Wang, para [0019, 44], conjugation of words for odd number areas after areas determined. Words organized in matrix, representing columns and rows with a middle).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the classification of text in an image to be specific to oracle bone inscriptions based on the teachings of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly and accurately find the oracle bone fragment information (Wang, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Wang additionally discloses the even number processing module (4) processes by decomposing and reorganizing the opposite Pinyin letters in vertical columns, or decomposing and reorganizing the parallel Pinyin letters in horizontal columns; these techniques can fully explore the characteristics of even-numbered vocabulary, ensuring the accuracy and completeness of digital images (Wang, para [0019, 44], conjugation of words for even areas after areas determined. Words organized in matrix, representing columns and rows).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the classification of text in an image to be specific to oracle bone inscriptions based on the teachings of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly and accurately find the oracle bone fragment information (Wang, para [0006]).
Regarding claim 6, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Kutsumi additionally discloses the database module (5) is responsible for storing all Chinese vocabulary and their corresponding oracle bone inscription image data, ensuring the integrity and consistency of the data; through supporting real-time query and update functions, the database module improves the efficiency and accuracy of the system, making it convenient for users to query, update and use relevant data (Kutsumi, para [0048], stores character recognition dictionary 141, complementary information dictionary 142, and special character table 143. Kutsumi, para [0048,72], searches complementary dictionary 142 upon processor request initiated by user).
Regarding claim 7, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Kutsumi additionally discloses the graphical display module (6) supports multiple output formats, allowing users to flexibly view and edit oracle bone inscription images; this diversified display method meets the needs of different users and provides a richer and more intuitive visual experience; users can choose different formats for viewing and editing based on their own needs, making the display of oracle bone inscription images more diverse (Kutsumi, para [0132], multiple output languages provided as complementary information).
Regarding claim 8, Kutsumi in view of Wang discloses a digital graphical language system for oracle bone inscriptions of Claim 1. Kutsumi additionally discloses the system comprises any language system composed of 0s and 1s, which can be restructured in the aforementioned manner to obtain complete and intact oracle bone inscription images; it supports the processing and display of super-complex phenomena and quantum-scale graphical phenomena (Wang, para [0019], ASCII code represents a language system composed of 0’s and 1’s).
Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the classification of text in an image to be specific to oracle bone inscriptions based on the teachings of Wang. The motivation for doing so would have been to quickly and accurately find the oracle bone fragment information (Wang, para [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE C SHEFFIELD whose telephone number is (303)297-4265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00pm PT.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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.
/HOPE C SHEFFIELD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141