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
Upon further review and consideration, a new ground of rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-20 are made in view of nonstatutory double patenting rejection and 35 USC 112(b) and 103 rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12548358 in view of Tai et al. USPGPUB 2013/0343655 (hereinafter Tai).
With respect to claim 17, claim 1 patent ‘358 discloses all limitations except the steps of 1) identifying a first number of available processing units at the processor and 2) sending a corresponding number of extracted text blocks to the identified processing units to be processed in parallel for recognition.
Tai, the same field of endeavor of the parallel processing, teaches the method of identifying the total number of elements to be processed, identifying the available number of processing units, if the total number of elements is higher than the available number of processing units: sending a first number of the plurality of elements to the available processing units, the first number of elements being equal to the available number of processing units (paragraph 180).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of ‘358 to implement the parallel processing method of Tai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to effectively utilize all available processing units for processing every element in the queue. This would ensure that no processing unit is unused when there are still elements to be processed.
With respect to claim 18, Tai discloses the step of sending unprocessed/remained tile images in sequential manner (paragraph 180).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11393231 in view of Tai et al. USPGPUB 2013/0343655 (hereinafter Tai).
With respect to claim 19, claim 1 patent ‘231 discloses all limitations except the steps of 1) identifying a first number of available processing units at the processor and 2) sending a corresponding number of extracted text blocks to the identified processing units to be processed in parallel for recognition.
Tai, the same field of endeavor of the parallel processing, teaches the method of identifying the total number of elements to be processed, identifying the available number of processing units, if the total number of elements is higher than the available number of processing units: sending a first number of the plurality of elements to the available processing units, the first number of elements being equal to the available number of processing units (paragraph 180).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of ‘231 to implement the parallel processing method of Tai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to effectively utilize all available processing units for processing every element in the queue. This would ensure that no processing unit is unused when there are still elements to be processed.
With respect to claim 20, Tai discloses the step of sending unprocessed/remained tile images in sequential manner (paragraph 180).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the step of recognizing of the plurality of elements in parallel by calculating a complexity score and sending the elements to the processing units accordingly. However, claim 1 already recites the steps of how the parallel processing is done using the availability of the processing units. It is unclear if the parallel processing is based on the availability of the units, the complexity score or both.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelov et al. USP 10191653 (hereinafter Angelov) in view of Tai.
With respect to claim 1, Angelov teaches a method for recognizing handwriting ( column 18, lines 62- 67) input from handwriting strokes ( fig 2 and 6) of digital ink ( abstract, column 10, lines 43 - 51), on a computing device, the computing device comprising a processor ( column 12, lines 29- 30) with at least two processing units configured to process data in parallel (column 32, lines 15- 38, 40- 67), a memory ( column 18, line 59) and at least one non-transitory computer ( column 3, lines 24- 39) readable medium for recognizing input under control of the processor ( column 12, lines 29-30 ), the method, comprising:
receiving the handwriting ( column 18, lines 62-67) strokes of digital ink (column 10, lines 25- 26);
performing element extraction from said strokes ( see fig 4A,4B) to extract a plurality of elements ( column 13, lines 17- 32, 60 -68, column 14, lines 1-17);
recognizing the plurality of elements ( column 13, lines 10-32, column 16, lines 32 -46, 47-67, column 33, lines 29- 47) in parallel ( note, parallel processing are done see fig 9, generating stroke data first and second thread processing, see fig 75, 84, 85 ,90 B shows parallel processing ) by ( column 10, lines 43- 54 column, 32, lines 15- 19, 20 -38 ):
sending ( column 24, lines 20-25) at least two elements (note, first element processing ink data processing section (100) collecting pen event data, column 11, lines 56-67, column 12, lines 1-5, 24- 30, column 37, lines 35-29 ) second processing element slicing or segmentation of stroke column 11, lines 19- 24, column 18, lines 47- 68) of the extracted plurality of elements to at least two processing units ( note, parallel processing are done see fig 9, generating stroke data first and second thread processing, see fig 75, 84, 85 ,90 B shows parallel processing , column 3, lines 13-23, 24-39, column 41, lines 7- 32) , respectively;
sending (column 24, lines 20-25) successively the remaining elements of the extracted plurality of elements ( fig 17 A,B,C ) to the processing units ( column 12, lines 24-30 as the processing units become available ( note available corresponds to update or sharing with other computer or executes the processing function column 41, lines 28-32 );
compiling ( fig 19) the plurality of recognized elements to generate ( note, generating stroke data , fig 14) the recognized handwriting input ( fig 23 ) , generating stroke data fig 14, see fig 9, generating stroke data first and second thread processing, see fig 75, 84, 85 ,90 B shows the output ).
Angelov, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the sending of the at least two elements of the plurality of elements comprises: identifying the total number of elements, identifying the available number of processing units, if the total number of elements is higher than the available number of processing units: sending a first number of the plurality of elements to the available processing units, the first number of elements being equal to the available number of processing units.
Tai, the same field of endeavor of the parallel processing, teaches the method of identifying the total number of elements to be processed, identifying the available number of processing units, if the total number of elements is higher than the available number of processing units: sending a first number of the plurality of elements to the available processing units, the first number of elements being equal to the available number of processing units (paragraph 180).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Angelov to implement the parallel processing method of Tai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to effectively utilize all available processing units for processing every element in the queue. This would ensure that no processing unit is unused when there are still elements to be processed.
With respect to claim 2, Angelov the elements are text or non-text elements (fig 43) .
With respect to claim 15, Tai teaches if the total number of elements is lower than, or equal to, the number of available processing units: sending the plurality of elements to the available processing units simultaneously (paragraph 180).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Angelov and Tai as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Melinand et al. USPGPUB 2017/0109032 (hereinafter Melinand).
With respect to claim 3, Angelov directed to methods and systems for generating, rendering, manipulating and communicating ink data that reproduces a path of hand-drawn (freehand) stroke data and renders the path with style. Angelov is silent about wherein the text elements are words, lines, paragraphs , or mathematical expressions.
Melinand disclose system and method of guiding handwriting diagram input. The system comprises: wherein the text elements are words, lines, paragraphs ( see para 26), or mathematical expressions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to have modified Angelov by the teaching of Melinand in order to provide users with recognition feedback which informs them that the handwritten text has been detected, and the content of the text has been recognized (as suggested by Melinand see para 80 ).
With respect to claim 4, Melinand disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the non-text elements are shapes ( see para 76), drawings ( see para 87) or image data including characters, strings or symbols ( see para 93) used in non-text contexts ( see para 66).
With respect to claim 5, Melinand disclose the method of claim 1, wherein sending elements to the processing units comprises sending semantic ( see para 75, 76) groups of elements to the processing units.
Claims 5-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Angelov and Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noble et al. USPGPUB 2018/0330000 (hereinafter Noble).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Angelov and Tai does not disclose sending elements to the processing units comprises sending semantic groups of elements to the processing units.
Noble, the same field of endeavor of character recognition processing (fig. 47B of Angelov), teaches the method of sending elements to the processing units comprises sending semantic groups of elements to the processing units (paragraph 241).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Angelov to implement the semantic grouping as taught by Noble. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that automatically merges the two words/elements based on the context of the input.
With respect to claim 6, Noble further teaches grouping the plurality of elements to generate the semantic groups of elements according to semantic predefined rules, wherein the grouping of the plurality of elements comprises: merging at least two elements according to merging predefined rules to update the plurality of elements (paragraph 241); and/or splitting at least one element according to splitting predefined rules to update the plurality of elements.
Please note that for the purpose of examination, the examiner addresses one of the two conditions claimed (e.g., merging at least two elements).
With respect to claim 7, Noble further teaches applying one merging predefined rule, to at least two consecutive elements of a sequence of text lines, comprises:
detecting one text line of the sequence of text lines including a junction pattern of the one text line; generating a merged text line comprising the detected text line merged with a subsequent text line of the sequence of text lines (paragraph 241).
With respect to claim 8, Noble further teaches the junction pattern is a merging punctuation mark as the last symbol of the one text lines such as a hyphen (paragraph 241).
With respect to claims 11-13, limitations in these claims are met by the condition addressed in claim 6.
Claims 5, 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Angelov and Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Resendez Rodriguez et al. USP 10679048 (hereinafter Resendez).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Angelov and Tai does not disclose sending elements to the processing units comprises sending semantic groups of elements to the processing units.
Resendez, the same field of endeavor of character recognition processing (fig. 47B of Angelov), teaches the method of sending elements to the processing units comprises sending semantic groups of elements to the processing units (col. 3, lines 23-34 & figs. 3B and 3C).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Angelov to implement the semantic grouping as taught by Resendez. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a system that automatically merges the two words/elements based on the similar style of the input.
With respect to claim 6, Resendez further teaches grouping the plurality of elements to generate the semantic groups of elements according to semantic predefined rules, wherein the grouping of the plurality of elements comprises: merging at least two elements according to merging predefined rules to update the plurality of elements (col. 3, lines 23-34 & figs. 3B and 3C); and/or splitting at least one element according to splitting predefined rules to update the plurality of elements.
Please note that for the purpose of examination, the examiner addresses one of the two conditions claimed (e.g., merging at least two elements).
With respect to claim 9, Resendez further teaches applying one merging predefined rule to at least two elements comprises: detecting a special formatting of a first element; detecting the special formatting of at least a second element in the vicinity of the first element; generating a merged element comprising the first and the at least second elements (col. 3, lines 23-34 & figs. 3B and 3C).
With respect to claim 10, Resendez further teaches the special formatting of the first and at least second elements is bolding, italicizing, underlining, or coloring (col. 3, lines 23-34 & figs. 3B and 3C).
With respect to claims 11-13, limitations in these claims are met by the condition addressed in claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Angelov and Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colombo et al. USP 10550035 (hereinafter Colombo).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Angelov and Tai does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the recognizing of the plurality of elements in parallel comprises: calculating a complexity score for each element of the plurality of elements; ordering each element according to the complexity score; sending the plurality of elements to the processing units using the ordering sequence.
Colombo, the same field of endeavor of parallel processing, teaches the steps of calculating a complexity score for each element of the plurality of elements; ordering each element according to the complexity score; sending the plurality of elements to the processing units using the ordering sequence (col. 3, lines 24-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Angelov and Tai to include the parallel scheduling method as taught by Colombo. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the use of the processing units.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims are allowed. Claims 17-20 are free of the prior art rejection. Final allowability is contingent on overcoming double patenting rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN S PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-7409. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/CHAN S PARK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights