DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3
Conclusion 14
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 9/12/23. Claims 1-12 are currently pending.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Regarding claims 1 and 7, the claims recite a judicial exception and is considered to be a mental process. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8-12 also recite an abstract idea that does not integrate into a practical application and do not add an inventive concept.
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 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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) in view of King et al (US 9,405,740 B2). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 1, King teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: an image interface configured to acquire a display image including an image to be processed that an external apparatus causes a display apparatus to display (see col. 9, lines 35-67; As an example of one use of scanner 302, a reader may scan some text from a newspaper article with scanner 302. The text is scanned as a bit-mapped image via the scanning head 308. Logic 326 causes the bit-mapped image to be stored in memory 330 with an associated time-stamp read from the clock unit 328. Logic 326 may also perform optical character recognition (OCR) or other post-scan processing on the bit-mapped image to convert it to text. Logic 326 may optionally extract a signature from the image, for example by performing a convolution-like process to locate repeating occurrences of characters, symbols or objects, and determine the distance or number of other characters, symbols, or objects between these repeated elements. The reader may then upload the bit-mapped image (or text or other signature, if post-scan processing has been performed by logic 326) to an associated computer via interface 316); an input interface configured to provide the external apparatus with a signal indicating input information for the display image (see col. 9, lines 35-67; The reader may then upload the bit-mapped image (or text or other signature, if post-scan processing has been performed by logic 326) to an associated computer via interface 316.); a recognition unit configured to recognize a character string in the image to be processed included in the display image acquired by the image interface (see col. 9, lines 20-67; Logic 326 may also perform optical character recognition (OCR) or other post-scan processing on the bit-mapped image to convert it to text.); and a processor configured to, in a case where additional information is necessary for first input information recognized from the image to be processed by the recognition unit, request the input terminal to input the first input information and input the additional information based on the image to be processed, and provide the external apparatus through the input interface with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the input terminal (see col. 10, lines 1-45; there may be end-to-end feedback in the system so that the document corpus can be used to enhance the recognition process. End-to-end feedback can be applied by performing an approximation of the recognition or interpretation; identifying a set of one or more candidate matching documents). King does not teach expressly an image interface configured to acquire a display image including an image to be processed that an external apparatus causes a display apparatus to display; an input terminal interface configured to be connected to an input terminal including a display device and an input device.
King 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an input terminal interface configured to be connected to an input terminal including a display device and an input device (see col. 58, lines 1-60; The located enhancement file(s) are returned 745 to the computer 212, where they are depicted 750 (displayed, played or otherwise presented). Each subsequent media scan in the same document 495 does not require a new context scan.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by King. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide computationally efficient recognition (see col. 4, lines 15-20). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King, while the teaching of King 2 continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, King teaches an information input system comprising a recognition apparatus, a display device and an operation device, wherein the recognition apparatus comprises: an image interface configured to acquire a display image including an image to be processed that an external apparatus causes a display apparatus to display (see col. 9, lines 35-67; As an example of one use of scanner 302, a reader may scan some text from a newspaper article with scanner 302. The text is scanned as a bit-mapped image via the scanning head 308. Logic 326 causes the bit-mapped image to be stored in memory 330 with an associated time-stamp read from the clock unit 328. Logic 326 may also perform optical character recognition (OCR) or other post-scan processing on the bit-mapped image to convert it to text. Logic 326 may optionally extract a signature from the image, for example by performing a convolution-like process to locate repeating occurrences of characters, symbols or objects, and determine the distance or number of other characters, symbols, or objects between these repeated elements. The reader may then upload the bit-mapped image (or text or other signature, if post-scan processing has been performed by logic 326) to an associated computer via interface 316); an input interface configured to provide the external apparatus with a signal indicating input information for the display image; an operation device interface configured to communicate with the operation device (see col. 9, lines 35-67; The reader may then upload the bit-mapped image (or text or other signature, if post-scan processing has been performed by logic 326) to an associated computer via interface 316.); a recognition unit configured to recognize a character string in the image to be processed included in the display image acquired by the image interface (see col. 9, lines 20-67; Logic 326 may also perform optical character recognition (OCR) or other post-scan processing on the bit-mapped image to convert it to text.); and a processor configured to, in a case where additional information is necessary for first input information recognized from the image to be processed by the recognition unit, cause the display device to display a screen requesting an input of the first input information and an input of the additional information in the image to be processed, and provide the external apparatus through the input interface with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the operation device (see col. 10, lines 1-45; there may be end-to-end feedback in the system so that the document corpus can be used to enhance the recognition process. End-to-end feedback can be applied by performing an approximation of the recognition or interpretation; identifying a set of one or more candidate matching documents). King does not teach expressly a display device interface configured to be connected to the display device.
King 2, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a display device interface configured to be connected to the display device (see col. 58, lines 1-60; The located enhancement file(s) are returned 745 to the computer 212, where they are depicted 750 (displayed, played or otherwise presented). Each subsequent media scan in the same document 495 does not require a new context scan.).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by King 2. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide computationally efficient recognition (see col. 4, lines 15-20). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King, while the teaching of King 2 continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) with King et al (US 9,405,740 B2), and further in view of Candelore (US 2008/0098357 A1). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 2, King with King 2 teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. King with King 2 does not teach expressly a capture board interface connected to a capture board that captures a display image including an image to be processed that the external apparatus causes a display apparatus to display.
Candelore, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a capture board interface connected to a capture board that captures a display image including an image to be processed that the external apparatus causes a display apparatus to display (see 0041, 0050).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King with King 2 to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Candelore. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the recognition by processing in real time (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King with King 2, while the teaching of Candelore continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is analyzed as a input system that implements the limitations of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) with King et al (US 9,405,740 B2), and further in view of Enokizono (US 4,710,869). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 3, King with King 2 teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. King with King 2 does not teach expressly an emulator interface that is connected to an emulator that emulates a signal indicating input information for the display image as a signal input to an input apparatus and provides the external apparatus with the signal.
Enokizono, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an emulator interface that is connected to an emulator that emulates a signal indicating input information for the display image as a signal input to an input apparatus and provides the external apparatus with the signal (see col. 1, lines 33-67, col. 2, lines 30-67, abstract, col. 3, lines 1-30.
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King with King 2 to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Enokizono. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to simplify and reduce the cost of the system (see col. 1, lines 30-45). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King with King 2, while the teaching of Enokizono continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is analyzed as a input system that implements the limitations of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3).
Claims 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) with King et al (US 9,405,740 B2), and further in view of Hwang et al (US 9,082,035 B2). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 3, King with King 2 teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. King with King 2 does not teach expressly an address in destination information, the additional information is a recipient name in destination information, the processor determines that a recipient name as additional information is necessary in a case where a person who moved out exists in an address recognized by the recognition unit from the image to be processed, requests the input terminal to input an address and a recipient name based on the image to be processed, and provides the external apparatus with an address and a recipient name input by the input terminal.
Hwang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an address in destination information, the additional information is a recipient name in destination information, the processor determines that a recipient name as additional information is necessary in a case where a person who moved out exists in an address recognized by the recognition unit from the image to be processed, requests the input terminal to input an address and a recipient name based on the image to be processed, and provides the external apparatus with an address and a recipient name input by the input terminal (see col. 1, lines 45-67, col. 2, lines 1-50).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King with King 2 to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Hwang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the OCR (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King with King 2, while the teaching of Hwang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is analyzed as a input system that implements the limitations of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4).
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) with King et al (US 9,405,740 B2), and further in view of Alexander et al (US 11,170,214 B2). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 5, King with King 2 teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. King with King 2 does not teach expressly additional information is requested from the external apparatus after providing the external device with a result of recognizing first input information from the image to be processed by the recognition unit, the processor requests the input terminal to input the first input information and input the additional information based on the image to be processed, and provides the external device with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the input terminal.
Alexander, in the same field of endeavor, teaches additional information is requested from the external apparatus after providing the external device with a result of recognizing first input information from the image to be processed by the recognition unit, the processor requests the input terminal to input the first input information and input the additional information based on the image to be processed, and provides the external device with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the input terminal (see col. 5, lines 40-67, col. 6, lines 1-20, col. 7, lines 15-50.
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King with King 2 to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Alexander. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable further efficiency and improve productivity (see col. 2, lines 9-25). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King with King 2, while the teaching of Alexander continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is analyzed as a input system that implements the limitations of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al (US 7,706,611 B2) with King et al (US 9,405,740 B2), and further in view of Jacobs et al (US 7,499,588 B2). King et al (US 9,405,740 B2) will be referred to from hereon as King 2.
Regarding claim 6, King with King 2 teaches all elements as mentioned above in claim 1. King with King 2 does not teach expressly cause the recognition unit to recognize the additional information in the image to be processed if the additional information is necessary; if the recognition unit can recognize additional information, provide the external apparatus with the additional information based on a recognition result of the additional information; and if the recognition unit cannot recognize additional information, request the input terminal to input the first input information and input the additional information based on the image to be processed, and provide the external apparatus with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the input terminal.
Jacobs, in the same field of endeavor, teaches cause the recognition unit to recognize the additional information in the image to be processed if the additional information is necessary; if the recognition unit can recognize additional information, provide the external apparatus with the additional information based on a recognition result of the additional information; and if the recognition unit cannot recognize additional information, request the input terminal to input the first input information and input the additional information based on the image to be processed, and provide the external apparatus with information indicating the first input information and the additional information input by the input terminal (see col. 3, lines 40-67, col. 2, lines 39-67, col. 21, lines 35-67, col. 3, lines 50-67).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify King with King 2 to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Jacobs. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable high recognition rates (see abstract). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of King with King 2, while the teaching of Jacobs continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is analyzed as a input system that implements the limitations of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666