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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Lines 5 - 7 of Claim 2 recite “perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data at the same position with the position of the visible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data.” (emphasis added) However, the Examiner asserts that in view of the instant specification it is clearly disclosed that the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness is performed on the visible image data, see at least the abstract, page 1 paragraph 0005, page 2 paragraph 0058, page 4 paragraph 0080, page 5 paragraphs 0092 and 0094, page 6 paragraph 0106 and page 13 paragraph 0206 of the corresponding patent application publication of the instant application and lines 6 - 8 of instant claim 1. Thus, the Examiner asserts that color correction is performed on visible image data and not invisible image data. In other words, the instant specification only provides proper support and antecedent basis for performing color correction of at least one of saturation or brightness to visible image data based on density information of invisible image data. In addition, the Examiner asserts that the aforementioned limitation of claim 2 does not appear to make sense at least because limiting performance of the correction to be “at the same position with the position of the visible image data” would be irrelevant and unnecessary when performing a color correction to the invisible image data… based on the density information of the invisible image data. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that there is no proper antecedent basis for “perform[ing] the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data at the same position with the position of the visible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data” (emphasis added) in the instant specification. As such, there is no proper antecedent basis in the instant specification for claim 2.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3 - 5 of claim 14 recite, in part, “determine a saturation adjustment coefficient by a one-dimensional lookup table of a saturation adjustment coefficient and a brightness adjustment coefficient by a one-dimensional lookup table of the brightness with respect to the density information” which appears to contain minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --determine a saturation adjustment coefficient by a one-dimensional lookup table of [[a]] saturation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image forming unit to form” and “an information processing device to link:” in claims 17 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2, 10 - 15 and 18 are 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 2 recites the limitation "the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data" (emphasis added) in lines 5 - 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 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 because claim 2 is inconsistent with the corresponding disclosure. That is, lines 5 - 7 of claim 2 require “perform[ing] the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data at the same position with the position of the visible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data” (emphasis added) however the instant specification, see for example the abstract, page 1 paragraph 0005, page 2 paragraph 0058, page 4 paragraph 0080, page 5 paragraphs 0092 and 0094, page 6 paragraph 0106 and page 13 paragraph 0206 of the corresponding patent application publication of the instant application and lines 6 - 8 of instant claim 1, discloses that the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness is performed on the visible image data. Thus, the Examiner asserts that color correction is performed on visible image data and not invisible image data. In other words, the instant specification only provides proper support and antecedent basis for performing color correction of at least one of saturation or brightness to visible image data based on density information of invisible image data. In addition, the Examiner asserts that the aforementioned limitation of claim 2 does not appear to make sense at least because limiting performance of the correction to be “at the same position with the position of the visible image data” would be irrelevant and unnecessary when performing a color correction to the invisible image data… based on the density information of the invisible image data. Commensurate with MPEP § 2173.03, and given that no claim is read separately and apart from its corresponding specification disclosure, and given the inconsistency between the claimed requirements and the specification, claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear how it should be interpreted. Should claim 2 perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness based on the density information of the invisible image data to the invisible image data or to the visible image data? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat the claim consistent with the specification, i.e., as requiring --perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the visible image data
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the hue-saturation-brightness signal" (emphasis added) in lines 4 - 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hue-saturation-brightness signal at the same position with the position of the invisible image data" (emphasis added) in lines 4 - 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests amending the aforementioned limitation to --the hue-saturation-brightness signal at [[the]] a same position with the position of the invisible image data--.
Claim 13 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 because it is unclear as to which color correction “the color correction” recited on line 7, along with subsequent recitations of “the color correction”, are referencing. Are they referring to the “color correction to correct a color of at least one of saturation or brightness to the visible image data” recited on lines 6 - 7 of claim 1, “the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data” recited on lines 5 - 6 of claim 2, “the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the hue-saturation-brightness signal” recited on lines 4 - 5 of claim 13 or some combination thereof? Clarification and appropriate correction are required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat “the color correction” recited on line 7 of claim 13, along with subsequent recitations of “the color correction”, as referencing “the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the hue-saturation-brightness signal” recited on lines 4 - 5 of claim 13.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the visible image data sent from the image processing device;" (emphasis added) in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 - 12, 14 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn from the rejection if their base claim(s) overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, 13 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0207958 A1.
- With regards to claims 1 and 20, Kimura et al. disclose an image processing device and image processing method (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 8 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 - 0038 and 0041 - 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069) comprising: a first sensor having a sensitivity of a visible wavelength range, to read visible image data of an object; (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 4B & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 - 0037, 0039 and 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0051, Pg. 15 ¶ 0237 - 0240) a second sensor having a sensitivity of an invisible wavelength range to read invisible image data of the object; (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 4B & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036, 0038, 0040 and 0046, Pg. 3 ¶ 0051, Pg. 15 ¶ 0234) and circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) configured to perform a color correction to correct a color of at least one of saturation or brightness to the visible image data based on the invisible image data at a same position with a position of the visible image data to generate image data. (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 5 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0226)
- With regards to claim 2, [As Best Understood by the Examiner] Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to: extract density information, expressing an absorptance of an invisible component at each position, from the invisible image data; (Kimura et al., Figs. 1, 3, 4A & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0038 and 0040 - 0041, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048 and 0051, Pg. 4 ¶ 0064 - 0066 and 0074 - 0075, Pg. 14 ¶ 0221 - 0225 and 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0233 - 0234 [“the second imaging device 14 images to output the infrared image which includes of the plural pixels which each include intensity information based on the light in the near-infrared region” and “When imaging is performed by the second imaging device 14, the infrared light source 16 illuminates light in the near-infrared region (light including near-infrared light) to the front of the vehicle”]) and perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data at the same position with the position of the visible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data. (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 5 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0226)
- With regards to claim 4, Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to output the image data to an external device. (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 4D & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048 - 0050, Pg. 4 ¶ 0064 - 0076, Pg. 14 ¶ 0225 - 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235)
- With regards to claim 5, Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to output the visible image data of the object to the external device. (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 4D & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 3 ¶ 0048 - 0050 and 0058, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 - 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0215 - 0217, 0226 - 0230 and 0232, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235)
- With regards to claim 6, Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to: generate color-removed image data by removing a predetermined color from the image data; (Kimura et al., Fig. 19, Pg. 12 ¶ 0198 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0204, Pg. 13 ¶ 0208 - 0213) generate monochromatized image data by monochromatizing the color-removed image data; (Kimura et al., Fig. 19, Pg. 13 ¶ 0202 - 0204 and 0208 - 0211 [“The case where ‘the determination is made that the color is not at least one of the above-mentioned colors’ means that when the color used for the determination at step 170 is ‘red’, the color is determined as a color other than red” and “The intensity information acquired by the imaging is used for the pixel in the color visible image having the color information representing a color other than the at least one of the above-mentioned colors so as to effect display in grayscale”]) and output the monochromatized image data to the external device. (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 4D & 18 - 20, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 3 ¶ 0049, Pg. 12 ¶ 0198 - Pg. 13 ¶ 0201, Pg. 13 ¶ 0208 - 0213, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235)
- With regards to claim 8, Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to output the monochromatized image data as multi-level image data. (Kimura et al., Fig. 19, Pg. 13 ¶ 0202 - 0204 and 0208 - 0211 [“The case where ‘the determination is made that the color is not at least one of the above-mentioned colors’ means that when the color used for the determination at step 170 is ‘red’, the color is determined as a color other than red” and “The intensity information acquired by the imaging is used for the pixel in the color visible image having the color information representing a color other than the at least one of the above-mentioned colors so as to effect display in grayscale”])
- With regards to claim 13, Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry (Kimura et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 and 0041 - 0045, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235) is further configured to: convert red-green-blue image data into a hue-saturation-brightness signal; (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 & 21, Pg. 3 ¶ 0051 - 0053 and 0063, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 14 ¶ 0220) perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the hue-saturation-brightness signal at the same position with the position of the invisible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data; (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 5 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0069, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0226) and reconvert the hue-saturation-brightness signal after the color correction into the red-green-blue image data. (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 & 21, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059, Pg. 4 ¶ 0068 - 0069, Pg. 14 ¶ 0223 - 0226)
- With regards to claim 17, Kimura et al. disclose an image forming apparatus (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 8 & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0218, Pg. 14 ¶ 0228 - 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0234 - 0238) comprising: the image processing device according to claim 1; ([The Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, see analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) and an image forming unit (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 8 & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0218, Pg. 14 ¶ 0228 - 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0234 - 0238) to form an image based on the image data generated by the image processing device. (Kimura et al., Figs. 1 - 5 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0041 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0077, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235)
- With regards to claim 18, Kimura et al. disclose a data management system (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4D & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036, Pg. 2 ¶ 0041 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 - 0077, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0218, Pg. 14 ¶ 0226 - 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235 - 0236) comprising; the image processing device according to claim 4; ([The Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 4, see analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) and an information processing device (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 4D & 20 - 22, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036, Pg. 2 ¶ 0041 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 4 ¶ 0069 - 0077, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0218, Pg. 14 ¶ 0226 - 0230, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235 - 0236 [Also, see MPEP § 2111.02]) to link: the visible image data sent from the image processing device; (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 4D & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ ¶ 0045 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0216 - 2018, 0226 - 0230 and 0232, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235 - 0238) and the image data generated by the circuitry, to manage the visible image data and the image data. (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 4D & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ ¶ 0045 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0050, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0216 - 2018, 0226 - 0230 and 0232, Pg. 15 ¶ 0235 - 0238)
- With regards to claim 19, Kimura et al. disclose a biological imaging apparatus (Kimura et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3, 6, 8 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0036 - 0047, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 - 0051, Pg. 13 ¶ 0214 - Pg. 14 ¶ 0215, Pg. 14 ¶ 0218, Pg. 15 ¶ 0234 - 0235 [Also, see MPEP § 2111.02]) comprising the image processing device according to claim 1. ([The Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, see analysis of claim 1 included herein 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 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.
Claims 1 - 3, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmiya et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0412904 A1 in view of Oyama et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0400159 A1.
- With regards to claims 1 and 20, Ohmiya et al. disclose an image processing device and image processing method (Ohmiya et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 and 0004 - 0005, Pg. 2 ¶ 0055, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150 [“image processing device”]) comprising: a sensor having a sensitivity of a visible wavelength range, to read visible image data of an object; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100 - 0101, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) the sensor having a sensitivity of an invisible wavelength range to read invisible image data of the object; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0103 - 0104, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) and circuitry (Ohmiya et al., Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 - 0005, Pg. 3 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 - 0172) configured to perform a color correction to correct a color of at least one of saturation or brightness to the visible image data (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 10F & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150 [“a ruled line is an image printed with cyan, magenta, and yellow toners. Since an image printed with the black, cyan, magenta, and yellow toners appears as a visible image, an image in which the text and the ruled line overlap one another is obtained as illustrated in FIG. 10A” and “the image generator 21 removes the removal image of FIG. 10E from the visible image of FIG. 10A, to obtain a visible image with the ruled line removed as illustrated in FIG. 10F.”The Examiner asserts that, for example, the process of removing a colored rule line from a visible image by Ohmiya et al. corrects at least one of saturation or brightness of visible image data.]) based on the invisible image data at a same position with a position of the visible image data to generate image data. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 10F & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly a first sensor; and a second sensor. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose an image processing device and image processing method (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032 - 0033 and 0042, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0053 and 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0118 - 0125, Pg. 7 ¶ 0129 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0133, Pg. 8 ¶ 0147 - 0149) comprising: a first sensor having a sensitivity of a visible wavelength range, to read visible image data of an object; (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056) and a second sensor having a sensitivity of an invisible wavelength range to read invisible image data of the object. (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056) Ohmiya et al. and Oyama et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that acquire and process pairs of visible and invisible images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ohmiya et al. with the teachings of Oyama et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the image sensor of Ohmiya et al. for the first and second image sensors of Oyama et al. The first and second image sensors of Oyama et al. could be substituted in place of the image sensor of Ohmiya et al. using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, the first and second image sensors of Oyama et al. would be utilized to acquire visible and invisible image data, respectively. Also, see MPEP § 2144.04(V). This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the base device of Ohmiya et al. would utilize first and second image sensors to acquire the visible image data and the invisible image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohmiya et al. with Oyama et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1 and 20.
- With regards to claim 2, [As Best Understood by the Examiner] Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: extract density information, expressing an absorptance of an invisible component at each position, from the invisible image data; (Ohmiya et al., Fig. 4, Pg. 3 ¶ 0078, Pg. 5 ¶ 0110 - 0112, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0145) and perform the color correction of at least one of the saturation or the brightness to the invisible image data at the same position with the position of the visible image data based on the density information of the invisible image data. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 10F & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150)
- With regards to claim 3, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform at least one of: lowering the saturation; or lowering the brightness, to the visible image data. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 10F & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150 [“a ruled line is an image printed with cyan, magenta, and yellow toners. Since an image printed with the black, cyan, magenta, and yellow toners appears as a visible image, an image in which the text and the ruled line overlap one another is obtained as illustrated in FIG. 10A” and “the image generator 21 removes the removal image of FIG. 10E from the visible image of FIG. 10A, to obtain a visible image with the ruled line removed as illustrated in FIG. 10F.”The Examiner asserts that, for example, the process of removing a colored rule line from a visible image by Ohmiya et al. at least lowers saturation of the visible image.])
- With regards to claim 15, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to use a carbon content as the density information of the invisible image data. (Ohmiya et al., Pg. 3 ¶ 0078, Pg. 4 ¶ 0081, Pg. 5 ¶ 0110 - 0112, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0145, Pg. 8 claim 13)
- With regards to claim 16, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1 ([The Examiner asserts that Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, see analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) and a reading device (Ohmiya et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 12, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004, Pg. 2 ¶ 0054 - 0057, Pg. 3 ¶ 0063 - 0065 and 0069 - 0071, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165, Pg. 8 ¶ 0169 - 0172) comprising: the image processing device according to claim 1; ([The Examiner asserts that Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, see analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) a visible light source to emit light having a visible wavelength range to the object; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 3, 8 & 9, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066, Pg. 4 ¶ 0095 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100) and an invisible light source to emit light having an invisible wavelength range to the object, (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 3, 8 & 9, Pg. 2 ¶ 0065, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0070, Pg. 4 ¶ 0095 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0103) wherein the sensor: receives reflection light, having visible wavelength, reflected from the object; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 8, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100 - 0101, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) and outputs the visible image data, (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 8, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100 - 0101, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) and the sensor: receives reflection light, having an invisible wavelength, reflected from the object; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 8, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0103 - 0104, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) and outputs the invisible image data. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 8, 9, 12 & 13, Pg. 2 ¶ 0056, Pg. 3 ¶ 0065 - 0066 and 0069 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0093 - 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0103 - 0104, Pg. 8 ¶ 0166) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly a first sensor and a second sensor. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose a reading device (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032 - 0034 and 0042 - 0043, Pg. 3 ¶ 0047 - 0053 and 0057, Pg. 8 ¶ 0146 - 0149) comprising: the image processing device according to claim 1; ([The Examiner asserts that Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, see analysis of claim 1 included herein above.]) a visible light source to emit light having a visible wavelength range to the object; (Oyama et al., Abstract, Fig. 4, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0042 - 0043, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0057) and an invisible light source to emit light having an invisible wavelength range to the object, (Oyama et al., Abstract, Fig. 4, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0042 - 0043, Pg. 3 ¶ 0052 - 0057) wherein the first sensor: receives reflection light, having visible wavelength, reflected from the object; (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056) and outputs the visible image data, (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056) and the second sensor: receives reflection light, having an invisible wavelength, reflected from the object; (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056) and outputs the invisible image data. (Oyama et al., Abstract, Figs. 4, 6, 10 & 17 - 19, Pg. 1 ¶ 0005 - 0006, Pg. 2 ¶ 0034, Pg. 3 ¶ 0050 and 0052 - 0056)
Claims 4 - 7 and 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmiya et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0412904 A1 in view of Oyama et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0400159 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0053229 A1.
- With regards to claim 4, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to output the image data to a device. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 3, 8 & 12, Pg. 3 ¶ 0069 and 0073 - 0075, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0097, Pg. 5 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 - 0172) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose expressly outputting to an external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to output the image data to a device. (Oyama et al., Figs. 6, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0056, Pg. 8 ¶ 0137 - 0149) Oyama et al. fail to disclose expressly outputting to an external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to output the image data to an external device. (Hashimoto et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0059 - 0062, Pg. 2 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0097 - 0101, Pg. 10 ¶ 0227 and 0233 - 0236) Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. and Hashimoto et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that acquire and process pairs of visible and invisible images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with the teachings of Hashimoto et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Hashimoto et al. applied to a similar device. Outputting processed and/or corrected image data to an external device, as taught by Hashimoto et al., would enhance the combined base device by allowing for end-users to easily and conveniently transmit image data to other locations and/or devices for storage, further processing and/or sharing thereby increasing the overall appeal and usefulness of the combined base device to potential end-users. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ohmiya et al. that their teachings may be applied to an apparatus with facsimile functions and that the number and location of constituent elements for performing their teachings are not limited to the number and location of constituent elements described in their disclosed embodiments, see at least page 2 paragraph 0054, page 7 paragraph 0165 and page 8 paragraphs 0167 and 0172 of Ohmiya et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Oyama et al. that their corrected and visible images are “output to the outside” and that their teachings may be applied to an apparatus with facsimile functions, see at least figures 6, 15 and 17 - 19, page 2 paragraph 0032 and page 8 paragraphs 0137 - 0146 of Oyama et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the image data of the combined base device would be output to an external device so as to increase the overall appeal and usefulness of the combined base device to potential end-users by providing them with the ability to easily and conveniently transmit images to other locations and/or devices for storage, further processing and/or sharing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with Hashimoto et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
- With regards to claim 5, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to output the visible image data of the object to the device. (Ohmiya et al., Fig. 12, Pg. 2 ¶ 0054, Pg. 3 ¶ 0069 and 0073 - 0075, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0097, Pg. 5 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 6 ¶ 0127 - 0130, Pg. 7 ¶ 0149 - 0150 and 0165, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 - 0172) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly outputting to the external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to output the visible image data of the object to the device. (Oyama et al., Figs. 18 & 19, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0056, Pg. 8 ¶ 0137 - 0149) Oyama et al. fail to disclose explicitly outputting to the external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose outputting to the external device. (Hashimoto et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0059 - 0062, Pg. 2 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0097 - 0101, Pg. 10 ¶ 0227 and 0233 - 0236)
- With regards to claim 6, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: generate color-removed image data by removing a predetermined color from the image data; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 14A - 14F, Pg. 3 ¶ 0078 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0081, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0149 [“the image generator 21 extracts the imprint, which is an image to be left in the non-common portion, according to attributes such as shape and color information, to generate the residual image illustrated in FIG. 14D. Then, the image generator 21 removes the imprint from the non-common portion, to generate the removal image illustrated in FIG. 14E. The removal image illustrated in FIG. 14E is an image to be removed from the visible image. Therefore, the image generator 21 removes the removal image from the visible image” and “the image generator 21 generates an image with the text and the imprint appearing alone as illustrated in FIG. 14F, thereby satisfying the request from the user to visually recognize the imprint.” Ohmiya et al. disclose, with reference to figures 14A - 14F, that every color except the color of the imprint is removed from the image. Thus, every color except the color of the imprint is a predetermined color.]) generate monochromatized image data by monochromatizing the color-removed image data; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 14A - 14F, Pg. 3 ¶ 0078 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0081, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0149 [“the image generator 21 extracts the imprint, which is an image to be left in the non-common portion, according to attributes such as shape and color information, to generate the residual image illustrated in FIG. 14D. Then, the image generator 21 removes the imprint from the non-common portion, to generate the removal image illustrated in FIG. 14E. The removal image illustrated in FIG. 14E is an image to be removed from the visible image. Therefore, the image generator 21 removes the removal image from the visible image” and “the image generator 21 generates an image with the text and the imprint appearing alone as illustrated in FIG. 14F, thereby satisfying the request from the user to visually recognize the imprint.” Ohmiya et al. disclose, with reference to figures 14A - 14F, that every color except the color of the imprint is removed from the image. Thus, the image with the text and the imprint appearing alone as illustrated in figure 14F is a monochromatized image.]) and output the monochromatized image data to the device. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 3, 8, 12 & 14A - 14F, Pg. 3 ¶ 0069 and 0073 - 0075, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0097, Pg. 5 ¶ 0114 - 0117, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 - 0172) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose expressly outputting to the external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: output the monochromatized image data to the device. (Oyama et al., Figs. 6, 15 & 17 - 19, Pg. 2 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0056, Pg. 7 ¶ 0120 - 0125, Pg. 7 ¶ 0129 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0133, Pg. 8 ¶ 0137 - 0149) Oyama et al. fail to disclose expressly outputting to the external device. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose outputting to the external device. (Hashimoto et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0059 - 0062, Pg. 2 ¶ 0071 - 0072, Pg. 4 ¶ 0097 - 0101, Pg. 10 ¶ 0227 and 0233 - 0236)
- With regards to claim 7, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry receives the predetermined color designated through a user. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 14A - 14F, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0149) Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly an operation panel having a setting screen, and designating through the setting screen of the operation panel. Pertaining to analogous art, Oyama et al. disclose wherein the circuitry receives the predetermined color designated through a user. (Oyama et al., Pg. 7 ¶ 0120 - 0125 and 0129 - 0130, Pg. 8 ¶ 0133) Oyama et al. fail to disclose explicitly an operation panel having a setting screen, and designating through the setting screen of the operation panel. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose an operation panel having a setting screen, (Hashimoto et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0060, Pg. 3 ¶ 0070) and wherein the circuitry receives the predetermined color designated through the setting screen of the operation panel. (Hashimoto et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0060, Pg. 3 ¶ 0070, Pg. 9 ¶ 0213 - 0215, Pg. 10 ¶ 0225) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with additional teachings of Hashimoto et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Hashimoto et al. applied to a similar device. Designating a predetermined color through a setting screen of an operation panel, as taught by Hashimoto et al., would enhance the combined base device by providing end-users with an easy and convenient way to adjust various settings of the combined base device and by facilitating the ability of the combined base device to allow for colors to be designated by users. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ohmiya et al. that a user may request to visually recognize a non-common portion of the visible and invisible image data that is extracted accorded to color, see at least page 6 paragraph 0142 - page 7 paragraph 0149 of Ohmiya et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Oyama et al. that their image processing apparatus may be configured so that a user can freely designate a color, see at least page 7 paragraphs 0120 and 0125 of Oyama et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the predetermined color of the combined base device would be designated through a setting screen of an operation panel so as to facilitate its ability to allow for colors to be designated by users and to provide end-users with an easy and convenient way to adjust various settings of the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with additional teachings of Hashimoto et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
- With regards to claim 10, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 2. Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the circuitry is further configured to: perform N-level conversion processing to the invisible image data to obtain the density information; and output the density information obtained by the N-level conversion processing. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: perform N-level conversion processing to the invisible image data to obtain the density information; (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194) and output the density information obtained by the N-level conversion processing. (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194) Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. and Hashimoto et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that acquire and process pairs of visible and invisible images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with the teachings of Hashimoto et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Hashimoto et al. applied to a similar device. Performing N-level conversion processing to the invisible image data to obtain the density information, as taught by Hashimoto et al., would enhance the combined base device by helping eliminate bleed-through characteristics from appearing when imaging documents, as taught and suggested by Hashimoto et al. see at least page 8 paragraphs 0179, 0185, 0190 and 0193 - 0194 of Hashimoto et al., thereby improving the ability of the combined base device to accurately and reliably extract and recognize desired text from imaged documents. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ohmiya et al. that an optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on the corrected image, see at least page 1 paragraph 0003, page 4 paragraphs 0083 and 0093 and page 7 paragraphs 0146 and 0150 of Ohmiya et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Oyama et al. that an optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on the corrected image, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0003 - 0004, page 3 paragraph 0057, page 4 paragraph 0069, page 7 paragraphs 0116 - 0117 and page 8 paragraph 0132 of Oyama et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that N-level conversion processing would be performed to the invisible image data so as help eliminate bleed-through characteristics from appearing when imaging documents and thereby improve the ability of the combined base device to accurately and reliably extract and recognize desired text from imaged documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. with Hashimoto et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
- With regards to claim 11, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 10. Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine a threshold value based on: a predetermined background level; and a predetermined black level; and perform the N-level conversion processing to the invisible image data based on the threshold value. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine a threshold value (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16D - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0191 - 0194) based on: a predetermined background level; (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16D - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0191 - 0194) and a predetermined black level; (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16D - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0191 - 0194) and perform the N-level conversion processing to the invisible image data based on the threshold value. (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194)
- With regards to claim 12, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 11. Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect a background level of the visible image data of the object; detect a black level of the visible image data of the object; and determine a threshold value corresponding to each region of the visible image data of the object based on the background level and the black level. Pertaining to analogous art, Hashimoto et al. disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to: detect a background level of the visible image data of the object; (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194) detect a black level of the visible image data of the object; (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194) and determine a threshold value corresponding to each region of the visible image data of the object based on the background level and the black level. (Hashimoto et al., Figs. 16A - 16F, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0194)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmiya et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0412904 A1 in view of Oyama et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0400159 A1 in view of Hashimoto et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0053229 A1 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamanaka U.S. Publication No. 2021/0192262 A1.
- With regards to claim 9, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 6.Ohmiya et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the circuitry is further configured to: binarize the monochromatized image data to generate binary image data; and output the binary image data. Pertaining to analogous art, Yamanaka discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: binarize the monochromatized image data to generate binary image data; (Yamanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 4 ¶ 0039 - 0042 and 0044 [The Examiner asserts that, in the proposed combination, the monochromatized image data of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. would undergo binarization.]) and output the binary image data. (Yamanaka, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2 & 10, Pg. 1 ¶ 0019 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0023, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 4 ¶ 0039 - 0042 and 0044, Pg. 5 ¶ 0056 - 0057) Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. and Yamanaka are combinable because they are all directed towards image processing systems that acquire and process visible images and, similar to Ohmiya et al. and Oyama et al., Yamanaka is also directed towards processing visible images to improve performance of an optical character recognition (OCR) process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with the teachings of Yamanaka. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Yamanaka applied to a similar device. Generating and outputting binary image data, as taught by Yamanaka, would enhance the combined base device by maximizing the contrast between the desired text to be recognized and the background in the processed document images so as to increase legibility of the desired text and further improve the ability of the combined base device to accurately and reliably recognize text from imaged documents. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Ohmiya et al. that an optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on the corrected image, see at least page 1 paragraph 0003, page 4 paragraphs 0083 and 0093 and page 7 paragraphs 0146 and 0150 of Ohmiya et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Oyama et al. that an optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on the corrected image, see at least page 1 paragraphs 0003 - 0004, page 3 paragraph 0057, page 4 paragraph 0069, page 7 paragraphs 0116 - 0117 and page 8 paragraph 0132 of Oyama et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would binarize the processed document images from which text is to be recognized so as to maximize contrast and increase legibility of the text and further improve its ability to accurately and reliably recognize text from imaged documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. in view of Hashimoto et al. with Yamanaka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0196530 A1; which is directed towards an image processing device and method for improving tone characteristics of a visible light image, wherein infrared light image data is combined with a luminance component of visible light image data to improve tone characteristics of a visible light image.
Nakazawa et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0410271 A1; which is directed towards an image processing device and method for generating synthesized images, wherein an image pair comprising an image read with visible light and an image read with invisible light are processed to generate a synthesized image wherein content included in the image pair is selectively removed in the generated synthesized image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights