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 .
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) 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki (US-6341176-B1) in view of Proux (US-8566694-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Shirasaki teaches An electronic apparatus comprising: a display (Fig.1 a terminal for output and user interaction. It would inherently have a display); a memory configured to store at least one instruction (Fig.1: image data storing unit 120, recognition result storing unit, text data storing unit 180, and index file storing unit 150); and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to (Fig.1: the entire text data converting unit): obtain a documents (fig.1: image inputting unit); recognize, from the documents, an element comprising at least one of a character, an image, or a combination of the character and the image (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-19: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph. Character extracting unit 132 and character recognizing unit 133 extract and recognize characters from the input data. Fig. 36: Graphic data storing unit 838 stores graphic data such as drawings and photographs covering image regions as well); classify a type of the document based on a kind of the recognized element (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-9: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph.); arranging the recognized elements in a row based on the classified type of the documents(Col.26, lines 37-58: Describes the after the system processes and stores each type in a separate storage unit- graphic data, character fonts, region positions, etc. Col.26 lines 1-6 : “the document data converted into text data is displayed in a layout looking like input image data when the document is outputted”. Col.27: lines 27-37: This means the recognize elements are arranged in the output according to their classified region/type mimicking the order/row structure of the original document but based on type) and control the display (Col.27: lines 27-37: the document data is outputted to the display for a user to review and make further edits).
Shirasaki fails to teach to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed. Proux teaches controlling the display to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed ( Claim 21: Proux discloses generating visual content comprising document elements and arranging static and variable content to generate frame images. Proux further discloses “ Generating a plurality of frame-images”. Proux specifies “ the plurality of frame-images including a first frame-image and a second frame -image” explicitly disclosing multiple image frames. Proux also states “repeatedly and in sequence, displaying the first and second frame images on a same display. This explicitly teaches sequential display of multiple frame-images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shirasaki’s system of displaying arranged document elements to utilize the frame-image generation and sequential display technique taught by Proux in order to present document content across multiple image frames, thereby providing improved presentation flexibility and controlled sequential rendering of virtual content. The combination applies a known display technique to a known document processing system to yield predictable results.) .
Regarding claim 2, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: classify the document as a first type based on the recognized elements including the characters (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: Region dividing unit divides input into character regions, graphic regions, photograph regions. The text data converting unit, together with the character extracting and recognizing unit classifies regions as ‘character ‘ type), identify an order in which the character is arranged based on the first type (Shirasaki , Col.13, lines 47-67: describes the system extracts characters one by one and supplies their position information), and arranging the recognize element in a row according to the identified order (Shirasaki , Col.27: lines 27-37: the text data outputting unit 860 outputs the recognized text and ‘ arranges the graphic data and the document data on the basis of the obtained information” the arrangement is in a row according to the identified order because the system preserves the sequential order of the recognized character data as extracted).
Regarding claim 3, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches The electronic apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: obtain a calibration character by calibrating the character (Shirasaki , Col.13,lines 5-19 and lines 56-67: describe performing character recognition and correction/ post processing to calibrate the character before it is outputted), and arrange the calibrated character in a row according to the identified order (Shirasaki , Col.27: lines 27-37: the text data outputting unit 860 outputs the recognized text and ‘ arranges the graphic data and the document data on the basis of the obtained information” the arrangement is in a row according to the identified order because the system preserves the sequential order of the recognized character data as extracted).
Regarding claim 6, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: classify the document as a second type based on the recognized element including the character and the image (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: Region dividing unit divides input into character regions, graphic regions, photograph regions.), identify an order in which the character and the image are arranged based on the second type (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: the region dividing unit and position storing units keep track of both the type and spatial order of text and image regions. In output these elements are arranged in the same or logical order), and arrange the character and the image in a row according to the identified order ( Shirasaki , Col.27. lines 27-37: The system can output the calibration document that includes both images and characters arranged in sequence order according to the input).
Regarding claim 7, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: obtain calibration character by calibrating the characters(Shirasaki , Col.13,lines 5-19 and lines 56-67: describe performing character recognition and correction/ post processing to calibrate the character before it is outputted), and arrange the calibration characters and the image in a row according to the identified orders ( Shirasaki , Col.27. lines 27-37: The system can output the calibration document that includes both images and characters arranged in sequence order according to the input).
Regarding claim 8, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: classify the document as a third type based on the recognized elements including a scene including at least one of the character or the image (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: Region dividing unit divides input into character regions, graphic regions, photograph regions.), identify an order in which the scene is arranged based on the third type (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: the region dividing unit and position storing units keep track of both the type and spatial order of text and image regions. In output these elements are arranged in the same or logical order), and arrange the scenes in a row according to the identified order (Shirasaki, Col.27. lines 27-37: The system can output the calibration document that includes both images and characters arranged in sequence order according to the input).
Regarding claim 9, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches The electronic apparatus of claim 8, wherein the scene includes a character scene including the character and a non-character scene not including the character (Shirasaki ,Col.26, lines 37-58: Region dividing unit divides input into character regions, and non-character regions graphic regions, photograph regions. These regions can be considered as scenes), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: recognize the character from the character scene (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58: Character extracting unit extracts characters only from the character region. Character recognizing unit performs recognition on the extracted characters for the character region), and arrange the recognized character to aligned with the character scene corresponding thereto (Shirasaki , Col.26, lines 37-58 and Col.27. lines 27-37: Text data outputting unit arranges and outputs the recognized characters in the same order/position as the original character region.).
Regarding claim 11, Shirasaki teaches an operating method of an electronic apparatus comprising a display, the operating method comprising: obtain a documents (fig.1: image inputting unit); recognize, from the documents, an element comprising at least one of a character, an image, or a combination of the character and the image (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-19: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph. Character extracting unit 132 and character recognizing unit 133 extract and recognize characters from the input data. Fig. 36: Graphic data storing unit 838 stores graphic data such as drawings and photographs covering image regions as well); classify a type of the document based on a kind of the recognized element (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-9: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph.); arranging the recognized elements in a row based on the classified type of the documents (Col.26, lines 37-58: Describes the after the system processes and stores each type in a separate storage unit- graphic data, character fonts, region positions, etc. Col.26 lines 1-6 : “the document data converted into text data is displayed in a layout looking like input image data when the document is outputted”. Col.27: lines 27-37: This means the recognize elements are arranged in the output according to their classified region/type mimicking the order/row structure of the original document but based on type) and control the display(Col.27: lines 27-37: the document data is outputted to the display for a user to review and make further edits).
Shirasaki fails to teach to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed. Proux teaches controlling the display to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed ( Claim 21: Proux discloses generating visual content comprising document elements and arranging static and variable content to generate frame images. Proux further discloses “ Generating a plurality of frame-images”. Proux specifies “ the plurality of frame-images including a first frame-image and a second frame -image” explicitly disclosing multiple image frames. Proux also states “repeatedly and in sequence, displaying the first and second frame images on a same display. This explicitly teaches sequential display of multiple frame-images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shirasaki’s system of displaying arranged document elements to utilize the frame-image generation and sequential display technique taught by Proux in order to present document content across multiple image frames, thereby providing improved presentation flexibility and controlled sequential rendering of virtual content. The combination applies a known display technique to a known document processing system to yield predictable results.) .
Regarding claim 12, It falls under the same rejection as claim 2 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 13, It falls under the same rejection as claim 3 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 15, It falls under the same rejection as claim 6 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 16, It falls under the same rejection as claim 7 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 17, It falls under the same rejection as claim 8 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 18, It falls under the same rejection as claim 9 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 20, Shirasaki teaches A Computer system storage having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to perform an operating method comprising: obtaining input documents (fig.1: image inputting unit); recognize, from the documents, an element comprising at least one of a character, an image, or a combination of the character and the image (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-19: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph. Character extracting unit 132 and character recognizing unit 133 extract and recognize characters from the input data. Fig. 36: Graphic data storing unit 838 stores graphic data such as drawings and photographs covering image regions as well); classify a type of the document based on a kind of the recognized element (Fig.1 and col.13, lines 5-9: Region dividing unit 131 divides image into regions of different attributes such as character graphic and photograph.); arranging the recognized elements in a row based on the classified type of the documents(Col.26, lines 37-58: Describes the after the system processes and stores each type in a separate storage unit- graphic data, character fonts, region positions, etc. Col.26 lines 1-6 : “the document data converted into text data is displayed in a layout looking like input image data when the document is outputted”. Col.27: lines 27-37: This means the recognize elements are arranged in the output according to their classified region/type mimicking the order/row structure of the original document but based on type) and control the display (Col.27: lines 27-37: the document data is outputted to the display for a user to review and make further edits).
Shirasaki fails to teach to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed and further fails to teach the use of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Proux teaches controlling the display to display the arranged element, in a plurality of images frames that are sequentially displayed ( Claim 21: Proux discloses generating visual content comprising document elements and arranging static and variable content to generate frame images. Proux further discloses “ Generating a plurality of frame-images”. Proux specifies “ the plurality of frame-images including a first frame-image and a second frame -image” explicitly disclosing multiple image frames. Proux also states “repeatedly and in sequence, displaying the first and second frame images on a same display. This explicitly teaches sequential display of multiple frame-images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shirasaki’s system of displaying arranged document elements to utilize the frame-image generation and sequential display technique taught by Proux in order to present document content across multiple image frames, thereby providing improved presentation flexibility and controlled sequential rendering of virtual content. The combination applies a known display technique to a known document processing system to yield predictable results.) .
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki in view of Proux and in further view of Hendry (US-20130104029-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to calibrate a size of the calibration character to be larger than a size of the character by magnifying the size of the character.
Hendry teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to calibrate a size of the calibration character to be larger than a size of the character by magnifying the size of the character (Para.38: “an assistive technology magnify the contents of a document, highlight text, modify font sizes and colors, or performs other functions which make a document easier to access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Shirasaki in view of Proux to incorporate the teachings of Hendry by allowing the system to magnify and increase the font size of recognized calibration characters in a document. This combination would enhance document readability and accessibility for users.).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki in view of Proux and in further view of Wonseok (Hwang Wonseok ET AL: "Spatial Dependency Parsing for Semi-Structured Document Information Extraction", 1 July 2021 (2021-07-01), XP093297232, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00642).
Regarding claim 5, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches The electronic apparatus of The electronic apparatus of wherein the recognized elements include the characters, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: but fails to teach classify the type of the input document as a first sub type or a second sub type based on an arrangement of the characters, and obtain the calibration documents by arranging the characters in a row according to identified orders based on a sub type of the first sub type or the second sub type, wherein the first sub type is a type in which the input document includes a first text including a first character, and the second sub type is a type in which the input document includes a second text including a second character, and a third text that includes a third character and is different than the second text.
Wonseok teaches classify the type of the input document as a first sub type or a second sub type based on an arrangement of the characters, and obtain the calibration documents by arranging the characters in a row according to identified orders based on a sub type of the first sub type or the second sub type, wherein the first sub type is a type in which the input document includes a first text including a first character, and the second sub type is a type in which the input document includes a second text including a second character, and a third text that includes a third character and is different than the second text (Fig.1 and the description: describes classification of an input document or field as a first or second sub type or further types based on text block arrangement and content. Fig.3: Describes grouping and arranging text/fields in the output document according to identified orders/subtypes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Shirasaki in view of Proux to incorporate teachings of Wonseok by enabling the system to classify input documents and arrange calibration documents based on the arrangement and content of recognized text fields. This combination would improve the document processing capabilities of Shirasaki by providing more flexible classification and arrangement of output documents.).
Regarding claim 14, It falls under the same rejection as claim 5 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki in view of Proux and in further view of Bayter (US-20230275966-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Shirasaki in view of Proux teaches The electronic apparatus of claim 1, saving of each of the obtained calibration documents (Shirasaki ,Col.24 lines 49-55: Knowledge database is used to store every step of the document being outputted).
Shirasaki in view of Proux fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to control a scrolling and a moving of each of the calibration documents displayed on the display , and a saving of each of the obtained calibration documents.
Bayter teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to control a scrolling and a moving of each of the calibration documents displayed on the display (Para.58: describes the use of Vr goggles and user input to move documents on a display. Para.68: describes detecting the user head position and gaze to scroll the vr display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Shirasaki in view of Proux to incorporate the teachings of Bayter by enabling the processor to control scrolling and moving of displayed calibration documents in response to user inputs such as head, hand or eye position. This combination would provide the user a more efficient way to navigate documents.
Regarding claim 19, It falls under the same rejection as claim 20 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon same references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the objection(s) of claim 2 under Claim Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Shirasaki and Proux as fully explained above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-7761. 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.
/LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613