Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/478,979

DIGITAL STAMP LOCALIZATION AND OVERLAPPING TEXT REMOVAL METHOD AND APPARATUS

Final Rejection §101
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
CHEN, HUO LONG
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Konica Minolta Business Solutions U S A Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
314 granted / 590 resolved
-8.8% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+30.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
627
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§103
64.3%
+24.3% vs TC avg
§102
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.1%
-31.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 590 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims as presented are not directed to an abstract idea because the independent claims 1 and 11 are “directed to the training of a deep learning system, and not to any abstract idea. Training the deep learning system improves the overall document processing operation by expanding the number of examples of possible stamp locations and types, making it easier for the deep learning system to recognize stamp locations and types and perform appropriate processing, whether color filtering or line masking, to identify stamps for removal from a digital document, remove the stamps, and use the results to train the deep learning model.” Examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument because the original specification has not provided features that reflect argued improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification that Examiner can find support for argued improvement, if Applicant believes otherwise. The steps in the claims using the “deep learning system” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “performing” steps, with the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step and “removing” steps being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and a method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step, “removing” steps and “performing” steps. In addition, the step “training” the deep learning system explicitly recites performing mathematical calculations, the limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection for claims 1-3, 8-13 and 18-20 is maintained. Response to Amendment The amendment to the claims received on December 26, 2025 has been entered. The amendment of claims 1, 3 and 11 is acknowledged. The cancelation of claims 4-7 and 14-17 are acknowledged. 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 1-3, 8- 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception in the form of an Abstract Idea, without significantly more: Beginning with independent claim 1, a process claim, which recites: A method comprising: a) responsive to input of a digital document, determining whether there is any color in the digital document; b) using a deep learning system, responsive to a determination that there is color in the digital document, locating one or more first stamps on the digital document, and identifying a region for each of the one or more first stamps; c) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the digital document does not contain color, locating one or more second stamps on the digital document, and identifying a region for each of the one or more second stamps; d) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that one of the one or more first and second stamps overlaps underlying text in the digital document, determining whether a color of the one of the one or more first and second stamps is sufficiently similar to a color of the underlying text in the digital document; and e) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the color of the one of the one or more first and second stamps is sufficiently similar to the color of the underlying text in the digital document, performing line masking to identify pixels of the one of the one or more first and second stamps in the digital document for removal; f) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that a color of the each of the one or more first stamps is different from a color of the underlying text in the digital document, performing color filtering within the region of the one of the one or more first stamps; g) using the deep learning system, responsive to f), digitally removing the one of the one or more first stamps from the digital document; h) using the deep learning system, responsive to identification of pixels of the one of the one or more second stamps in the digital document, digitally removing the one of the one or more second stamps from the digital document; i) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the one of the one or more first and second stamps does not overlap the underlying text in the digital document, digitally removing the one of the one or more first and second stamps from the digital document; j) repeating a) through i) for all of the first and second stamps; and k) using an output of j) to train the deep learning system. The claim recites abstract ideas: “Using a deep learning system” in the steps amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “performing” steps, with the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step and “removing” steps being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step, “removing” steps and “performing” steps. The step “training” the deep learning system explicitly recites performing mathematical calculations, the limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106: PNG media_image1.png 468 1527 media_image1.png Greyscale This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106: PNG media_image2.png 453 1451 media_image2.png Greyscale The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea. The independent claim 11, an apparatus claim, which recites: An apparatus comprising: a machine system; and at least one processor and a non-transitory memory that contains instructions that, when executed, enable the machine learning system to perform a method comprising: a) responsive to input of a digital document, determining whether there is any color in the digital document; b) using a deep learning system, responsive to a determination that there is color in the digital document, locating one or more first stamps on the digital document, and identifying a region for each of the one or more first stamps; c) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the digital document does not contain color, locating one or more second stamps on the digital document, and identifying a region for each of the one or more second stamps; d) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that one of the one or more first and second stamps overlaps underlying text in the digital document, determining whether a color of the one of the one or more first and second stamps is sufficiently similar to a color of the underlying text in the digital document; and e) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the color of the one of the one or more first and second stamps is sufficiently similar to the color of the underlying text in the digital document, performing line masking to identify pixels of the one of the one or more first and second stamps in the digital document for removal; f) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that a color of the each of the one or more first stamps is different from a color of the underlying text in the digital document, performing color filtering within the region of the one of the one or more first stamps; g) using the deep learning system, responsive to f), digitally removing the one of the one or more first stamps from the digital document; h) using the deep learning system, responsive to identification of pixels of the one of the one or more second stamps in the digital document, digitally removing the one of the one or more second stamps from the digital document; i) using the deep learning system, responsive to a determination that the one of the one or more first and second stamps does not overlap the underlying text in the digital document, digitally removing the one of the one or more first and second stamps from the digital document; j) repeating a) through i) for all of the first and second stamps; and k) using an output of j) to train the deep learning system. The claim recites abstract ideas: “An apparatus, comprising: at least one a processor, a non-transitory memory, and a computer program that is stored in the memory and capable of being executed the processor to perform the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step, “removing” steps and “performing” steps. Therefore, If the apparatus, processor and memory are removed from the claim, the method can be easily performed by a human being without the need of any of a computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “performing” steps, with the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step and “removing” steps being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “locating” step, “identifying”, “determining” steps, “detecting” step, “removing” steps and “performing” steps. The step “training” the deep learning system explicitly recites performing mathematical calculations, the limitation falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106: PNG media_image1.png 468 1527 media_image1.png Greyscale This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106: PNG media_image2.png 453 1451 media_image2.png Greyscale The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 11 are merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106: PNG media_image3.png 249 1434 media_image3.png Greyscale Likewise, the following dependent claims have been analyzed and do not recite elements that recite a practical application or significantly more and remain rejected under 35 USC 101: Claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12, 13 and 18-20. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. 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. /HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Dec 26, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603178
APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SUPPORTING MEDICAL DECISIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597162
SYSTEM CALIBRATION USING REMOTE SENSOR DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592095
METHOD AND SYSTEM OF DETERMINING SHAPE OF A TABLE IN A DOCUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586398
Detecting a Homoglyph in a String of Characters
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567271
PICTURE RECOGNITION METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+30.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 590 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month