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 Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0302277 A1 to Suzuki.
With regards to claim 1, Suzuki discloses:
1. A client terminal (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 1, and an image reading device 100, para. 0026) configured to:
acquire image data acquired from a document (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 2, and illustrates a configuration of functions relevant to reading an image and setting management information with respect to the image, provided in the image reading device 100, para. 0035);
perform character recognition processing on the image data (see, detailed description, including, the OCR processing unit 150 has a function of performing a character recognition method of performing an OCR process on the area specified by the integrated control unit 120, para. 0049); and
control display of at least a partial area of the image data specified based on an instruction issued by a user and display of a list of character strings acquired by the character recognition processing (see, detailed description, including, is a character recognition for acquiring information of a character string in the specified area, and outputting the acquired information of the character string as text data, according to an instruction from the integrated control unit 120, para. 0049),
wherein, as at least the partial area to be displayed is changed, the list of character strings is changed so that character strings recognized in at least the partial area are displayed (see, detailed description, including, the management information setting unit 161 may attach an appropriate extension to the character string passed from the integrated control unit 120. The management information may be other arbitrary data used for managing the image data in association with the image data, such as a name of the directory in which the image data is to be stored, a value of an item in the property of the image data, a value of an appropriate item associated with the image data when storing the image data in a database, etc., para. 0052).
With regards to claim 2, Suzuki discloses:
2. The client terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the instruction issued by the user is at least any one of an instruction for enlarging display of at least the partial area and an instruction for reducing display of at least the partial area (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 10, and An area 231 indicated by a solid line is the area specified by the user, and an area 232 indicated by a dashed line is an area generated by enlarging the area 231 by a predetermined variation range, para. 0111-0113) and
wherein at least the partial area specified and displayed based on the instruction is changed (see, as above, and Fig. 10 illustrates an example in which the size of the area is changed, para. 0112-0113).
With regards to claim 3, Suzuki discloses:
3. The client terminal according to claim 1,
wherein the list is displayed in a scrollable form (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 9, and The user may select which one of these character strings are to be used, from a character string selection screen 220 as illustrated in FIG. 9. Para. 0111), and
wherein the list is scrolled to a predetermined position and displayed so that the character strings recognized in the partial area are displayed (see, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, and detailed description, including, The buttons 221 through 223 respectively correspond to the character strings obtained from the areas 211 through 213, respectively, the various button selection is interpreted to include scrollable function for selection, para. 0111).
With regards to claim 4, Suzuki discloses:
4. The client terminal according to claim 1, wherein only character strings included in the partial area are included in the list so that the character strings recognized in the partial area are displayed (see, Fig. 10, detailed description, including and therefore the user may select a character string to be used for setting the management information only from an area from which a character string has been obtained. In the example of FIG. 10, there is only one option, and therefore the character string obtained from the area 232 can be used without making any selection, para. 0114).
With regards to claim 13, Suzuki discloses:
13. The client terminal according to claim 1, comprising a scanner, wherein the image data is acquired by scanning a document with a scanner (see, Fig.1, and detailed description, including, a scanner engine 109 is connected, para. 0026).
With regards to claim 14, Suzuki discloses:
14. The client terminal according to claim 1, comprising a storage server, wherein the image data is acquired from the storage server (see, Fig. 3, and detailed description, including, the storage destination of storing the image data by the image storage unit 162 may be an arbitrary external storage, other than the HDD 104, such as a storage provided in a cloud environment, para. 0053).
With regards to claim 15, Suzuki discloses:
15. The client terminal according to claim 1, comprising a touch panel, wherein the image data and the list are displayed on the touch panel (see, Fig. 3, and detailed description, including, the image display area 201 is a part where an image to be the target of receiving a specification of an area is displayed, by the function of the image display unit 142. For example, when the area specification receiving screen 200 is displayed on a display in which a touch panel is superposed, para. 0057).
16. With regard to claim 16, claim 16 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a device claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
17. With regard to claim 17, claim 17 (a non-transitory computer-readable claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a device claim) and (with the addition of a computer-readable medium storing a computer program, see, Fig. 3, and detailed description, including, the storage destination of storing the image data by the image storage unit 162 may be an arbitrary external storage, other than the HDD 104, such as a storage provided in a cloud environment, para. 0053) is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220019322 A1 to Takahashi.
With regards claim 7, Suzuki fails to disclose:
7. The client terminal according to claim 1,
wherein a combination of a character string as a key and a character string as a value corresponding to the key is further recognized by the character recognition processing, and
wherein, out of the character strings recognized in the partial area, the character string as a key is arranged at a lower position of the list.
With regards to claim 7, Takahashi discloses:
wherein a combination of a character string as a key and a character string as a value corresponding to the key is further recognized by the character recognition processing (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 1, and When the check-and-correction processor 100 presents the list in the list-presentation section 220 in a manner that allows scrolling, the certainty-factor discriminator 102 makes the determination described above and adds to the data of each combination on the list the result of the determination, which is a value that indicates whether the certainty factor of the combination is equal to or higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold. Data of the list to which the results of the determination have been added is delivered to the scrolling-speed controller 104, paras. 0038), and
wherein, out of the character strings recognized in the partial area, the character string as a key is arranged at a lower position of the list (see, Fig. 7A-7C, and detailed description, including, a combination having the “low certainty factor” 704 that has been neither confirmed nor corrected remains at either the upper end or the lower end of the display region 710, whichever corresponds to the trailing end of the display region 710 in the moving direction with respect to the list 700, para. 0070, a low certainty factor is interpreted to include partial or incomplete data from the partial area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Suzuki and Takahashi before her, to be motivated to employ the features from Takahashi with Suzuki, including, wherein a combination of a character string as a key and a character string as a value corresponding to the key is further recognized by the character recognition processing (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 1, and When the check-and-correction processor 100 presents the list in the list-presentation section 220 in a manner that allows scrolling, the certainty-factor discriminator 102 makes the determination described above and adds to the data of each combination on the list the result of the determination, which is a value that indicates whether the certainty factor of the combination is equal to or higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold. Data of the list to which the results of the determination have been added is delivered to the scrolling-speed controller 104, paras. 0038), and
wherein, out of the character strings recognized in the partial area, the character string as a key is arranged at a lower position of the list (see, Fig. 7A-7C, and detailed description, including, a combination having the “low certainty factor” 704 that has been neither confirmed nor corrected remains at either the upper end or the lower end of the display region 710, whichever corresponds to the trailing end of the display region 710 in the moving direction with respect to the list 700, para. 0070, a low certainty factor is interpreted to include partial or incomplete data from the partial area).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art1.
With regards to claim 8, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose:
8. The client terminal according to claim 1, further configured to:
accept selection of a displayed character string included in the list; and
set information about the image data to the image.
With regards to claim 8, Takahashi discloses:
The client terminal according to claim 1, further configured to:
accept selection of a displayed character string included in the list (see, detailed description, including, for example, holding down the down-arrow key causes the information processing apparatus to move the position of the focus downward at a fixed speed in the same way as consecutively pressing the key at regular intervals. If the position of the focus further keeps moving downward after the position of the focus reaches the lowermost combination 226 presented in the list-presentation section 220, para. 0033); and
set information about the image data to the image data (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is formed of combinations in each of which a character or a character string obtained as a character-recognition result has a specific value, para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Suzuki and Takahashi before her, to be motivated to employ the features from Takahashi with Suzuki, including, accept selection of a displayed character string included in the list (see, detailed description, including, for example, holding down the down-arrow key causes the information processing apparatus to move the position of the focus downward at a fixed speed in the same way as consecutively pressing the key at regular intervals. If the position of the focus further keeps moving downward after the position of the focus reaches the lowermost combination 226 presented in the list-presentation section 220, para. 0033); and
set information about the image data to the image data (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is formed of combinations in each of which a character or a character string obtained as a character-recognition result has a specific value, para. 0034).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art2.
With regards to claim 9, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose:
9. The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the selected character string is extracted from the list and displayed.
With regards to claim 9, Takahashi discloses:
The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the selected character string is extracted from the list and displayed (see, as above claim 8, and detailed description, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is formed of combinations in each of which a character or a character string obtained as a character-recognition result has a specific value, para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Suzuki and Takahashi before her, to be motivated to employ the features from Takahashi with Suzuki, including, The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the selected character string is extracted from the list and displayed (see, as above claim 8, and detailed description, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is formed of combinations in each of which a character or a character string obtained as a character-recognition result has a specific value, para. 0034).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art3.
With regards to claim 10, Suzuki fails to explicitly disclose:
10. The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the information is set by using the selected character string.
With regards to claim 10, Takahashi discloses:
The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the information is set by using the selected character string (see, detailed description, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is scrolled, and the combination 226 just below the lowermost combination 226 is presented. In this way, if the arrow key continues to be held down, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is continuously scrolled. The presentation mode in which the list is continuously scrolled in this way is referred to as continuous scrolling presentation, para. 0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Suzuki and Takahashi before her, to be motivated to employ the features from Takahashi with Suzuki, including, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is scrolled, and the combination 226 just below the lowermost combination 226 is presented. In this way, if the arrow key continues to be held down, the list presented in the list-presentation section 220 is continuously scrolled. The presentation mode in which the list is continuously scrolled in this way is referred to as continuous scrolling presentation, para. 0033).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art4.
With regard to claim 11, Suzuki discloses:
11. The client terminal according to claim 8, wherein the information is at least any one of a file which includes the image data, a name of a folder in which the file is to be stored, and metadata set to the file (see, Fig. 2, and detailed description, including, the area specification receiving unit 141 has a function of acquiring, from the integrated control unit 120, the image data obtained by the image reading unit 130 by a scanning process; and receiving, from a user by a touch panel included in the operation unit 112, a specification of an area in the image indicated by the image data, para. 0041).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Takahashi, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0269405 A1 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu).
Neither Suzuki nor Takahashi either alone or in combination explicitly disclose:
12. The client terminal according to claim 1, comprising a camera,
wherein the image data is acquired by capturing an image of a document with the camera.
Wu discloses:
a camera, (see, detailed description, including, the GPIO interface may be configured to connect the processor 110 to the camera 193, para. 0093),
wherein the image data is acquired by capturing an image of a document with the camera (see, detailed description, including, the wireless communications module 160, the audio module 170, the sensor module 180, or the like. The GPIO interface may alternatively be configured as an I2C interface, an I2S interface, a UART interface, an MIPI interface, or the like, para. 0093, or the like is interpreted to include a document).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed, and having the teachings of Suzuki and Takahashi and Wu before her, to be motivated to employ the features from Wu, with Suzuki, and Takahashi including, a camera, (see, detailed description, including, the GPIO interface may be configured to connect the processor 110 to the camera 193, para. 0093),
wherein the image data is acquired by capturing an image of a document with the camera (see, detailed description, including, the wireless communications module 160, the audio module 170, the sensor module 180, or the like. The GPIO interface may alternatively be configured as an I2C interface, an I2S interface, a UART interface, an MIPI interface, or the like, para. 0093, or the like is interpreted to include a document).
Therefore, a rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For convenience claims 5 and 6 are presented below:
5. The client terminal according to claim 1, wherein, out of the character strings recognized in the partial area, a character string only a part of which is included in the partial area is arranged at a lower position of the list.
6. The client terminal according to claim 1, wherein, out of the character strings recognized in the partial area, a character string only a part of which is included in the partial area is not included in the list.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220269382 A1 to Yuasa et al. that discusses: A command display method includes a method of displaying a plurality of commands in a computer including a graphical user interface (GUI) for displaying the plurality of commands in a window on a display screen, the plurality of commands having a plurality of layers. The display method includes detecting the vertical or horizontal size of the window; determining the form of a display of each of the plurality of layers in response to the detected size; and controlling a display of the commands in each of the plurality of layers in response to the determined form and an instruction from an operator. At least one of the plurality of layers is controlled to be displayed as a detailed display in an area inside the window. The detailed display is a display of a layer that is at a lower level than the layer whose display form changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 1-14-2026
1 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
2 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
3 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
4 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).
5 1 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2007).