DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received 06 July 2026. Claims 1 - 18, 20 and 21 are currently pending.
Specification
The objection to the instant disclosure, due to a non-descriptive title of the invention, is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 06 July 2026.
The objection to the specification, due to failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter, is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 06 July 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 of claim 18 recites, in part, “the visible image data sent from the image processing device;” which appears to contain inconsistent claim terminology and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --the visible image data output from the image processing device;-- or --the visible image data output from the circuitry;-- in order to maintain consistency with lines 1 - 2 of claim 5 and to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The objection to claim 14, due to a minor informality, is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 06 July 2026.
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 device 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.
The rejections to claims 2, 10 - 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 06 July 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11 - 12 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that Kimura et al. do “not describe or reasonably suggest to ‘control a degree of the color correction in accordance with density information of the invisible image data,’ as claimed.” The Applicant’s Representative argues that Kimura et al. do not describe or reasonably suggest the aforementioned disputed claim limitation at least because, in Kimura et al., “the intensity of the pixel of the color image is replaced with the intensity of the corresponding pixel of the infrared image, the intensity of the corresponding pixel of the infrared image being the replacement value itself, and the replacement is performed in the same manner for every pixel for which the intensity Ic is lower than the intensity Ir.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Kimura et al. do “not control a degree of color correction based on density information of invisible image data.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation, see at least figures 3 - 5 and 21, page 2 paragraph 0046 - page 3 paragraph 0048, page 3 paragraph 0062 - page 4 paragraph 0068, page 4 paragraphs 0075 - 0077 and page 14 paragraphs 0219 - 0225 of Kimura et al. wherein it is disclosed that “replacement unit 18h replaces the intensity of the pixel which is included in the color image created by the creation unit 18g and which has intensity lower than the intensity of the corresponding pixel of the infrared image with the intensity of the corresponding pixel of the infrared image” [0048], that the “image data of the pixel of the color image set as the target pixel at step 116 is transformed from the RGB space to the HSV, so that the color information (saturation and hue) and the intensity information (value (brightness, intensity)) of the pixel of the color image set as the target pixel at step 116 is extracted at step 118” [0063], that “a determination is made at step 120 whether the intensity Ic is lower than the intensity Ir” [0064], that when “the determination is made at step 120 that the intensity Ic is lower than the intensity Ir, the sequence goes to step 122” [0065], that a “determination is made at step 124 whether the process at each step (steps 116, 118, 120, and 122 when determined as positive at 122) is completed for all the pixels” [0067] and that in “the process at steps 116, 118, 120, 124 and 124, the intensity Ic of the pixel which is included in the color image and which has intensity lower than the intensity Ir of the corresponding pixel of the infrared image is replaced by the intensity Ir of the corresponding pixel.” [0068]
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, Kimura et al. disclose that the intensity, brightness, of pixels in a color visible image are replaced with the intensity of corresponding pixels in an infrared, invisible, image when the intensity of the pixels in the color visible image are lower than the intensity of their respective corresponding pixels in the infrared image. The Examiner asserts that the aforementioned process disclosed by Kimura et al. controls a degree of color correction based on density information of invisible image data at least because replacing the intensity of a pixel in the color visible image with the intensity of a corresponding pixel in the infrared image changes the intensity of the pixel in the color visible image based on the intensity of the corresponding pixel in the infrared image, i.e., the amount or degree to which intensity of the pixel in the color visible image is changed depends on the intensity of the corresponding pixel in the infrared image. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that the aforementioned process disclosed by Kimura et al. controls a degree of color correction based on density information of invisible image data at least because only pixels in the color visible image with an intensity lower than the intensity of their corresponding pixel in the infrared image are replaced, corrected, i.e., the extent, degree, to which the color correction is performed on the color visible image is dependent on the intensity, density, information of the infrared, invisible, image. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation.
On pages 12 - 13 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that Ohmiya et al. and Oyama et al. “do not describe or reasonably suggest each and every feature recited in the claims.” In particular, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Ohmiya et al. and Oyama et al. do not describe or suggest “control[ling] a degree of the color correction in accordance with density information of the invisible image data.” The Applicant’s Representative argues that Ohmiya et al. do not describe or suggest the aforementioned disputed claim limitation at least because Ohmiya et al. do “not describe or suggest controlling a degree of any correction performed to the visible image in accordance with density information of the invisible image.” Furthermore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Oyama et al. do not describe or suggest the aforementioned disputed claim limitation at least because the “removal and restoration described by Oyama are likewise performed without controlling a degree of a correction in accordance with density information of invisible image data.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that Ohmiya et al. and Oyama et al. do not describe or suggest the aforementioned disputed claim limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner asserts that, at least, Ohmiya et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation, see at least figures 10A - 11D and 14A - 14F, page 4 paragraph 0096, page 5 paragraphs 0109 - 0116, page 5 paragraph 0118 - page 6 paragraph 0124, page 6 paragraph 0143 - page 7 paragraph 0150 and page 7 paragraphs 0160 - 0164 of Ohmiya et al. wherein it is disclosed that “the image generator 21 has a function of generating an image by removing, from a visible RGB image, one of a common portion and a non-common portion of the visible RGB image and an invisible IR image, and outputting the image (i.e., image data) thus generated” [0096], that “FIG. 10C is a diagram illustrating a non-common image of the visible image of FIG. 10A and the invisible image of FIG. 10B. FIG. 10D is a diagram illustrating an AND image of FIG. 10B and FIG. 10C. FIG. 10E is a diagram illustrating a removal image. FIG. 10F is a diagram illustrating an image generated by removing the removal image of FIG. 10E from the visible image of FIG. 10A” [0110], that in “FIGS. 10A to 10F, a text portion is an image printed with black toner, whereas 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” [0111], that “the image generator 21 first generates the AND image of the invisible image and the non-common image as illustrated in FIG. 10D” [0114], that “the image generator 21 removes the AND image of FIG. 10D from the ruled line to be removed, that is, the non-common image of FIG. 10C, to generate an image of FIG. 10E as a removal image” [0115] and that “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.” [0116]
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, Ohmiya et al. disclose a process of correcting a visible RGB, color, image by removing one of a common portion or a non-common portion between the visible image and an invisible image from the visible image, i.e., a color image is corrected based on density information of an invisible image. The Examiner asserts that, for example, the process of removing a non-common portion between a visible RGB image and an invisible image from the visible image disclosed by Ohmiya et al. controls a degree of color correction based on density information of invisible image data at least because the areas of the visible RGB image that are corrected are dependent on the image data, density information, of the invisible image, i.e., the extent, degree, to which color correction is performed on the color image is dependent on the density information of the invisible image. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that, at least, Ohmiya et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8, 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 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) and control a degree of the color correction in accordance with 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 ¶ 0068, Pg. 4 ¶ 0075 - 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0225)
- With regards to claim 2, 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 the 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”])
- 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 of the visible 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 a 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 device (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 5; ([The Examiner asserts that Kimura et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 5, see analysis of claim 5 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 21, 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: determine a target position of the color correction 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 ¶ 0068, Pg. 4 ¶ 0075 - 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0225) and perform the color correction to the visible image data at the target position. (Kimura et al., Figs. 3 - 5 & 21, Pg. 2 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0048, Pg. 3 ¶ 0062 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0068, Pg. 4 ¶ 0075 - 0077, Pg. 14 ¶ 0219 - 0225)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 - 3, 15, 16, 20 and 21 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 - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, 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 - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150) and control a degree of the color correction in accordance with density information of the invisible image data. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150 [“the image generator 21 has a function of generating an image by removing, from a visible RGB image, one of a common portion and a non-common portion of the visible RGB image and an invisible IR image, and outputting the image (i.e., image data) thus generated.” The Examiner asserts that, for example, the process of removing one of a common portion or a non-common portion between visible and invisible images from the visible image controls a degree of the color correction in accordance with density information of the invisible image data.]) 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, 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 the 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)
- 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 - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, 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)
- With regards to claim 21, Ohmiya et al. in view of Oyama et al. disclose the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry (Ohmiya et al., Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0004 - 0005, Pg. 3 ¶ 0069, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0097, Pg. 8 ¶ 0167 - 0172) is further configured to: determine a target position of the color correction based on the density information of the invisible image data; (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150 [“the image generator 21 has a function of generating an image by removing, from a visible RGB image, one of a common portion and a non-common portion of the visible RGB image and an invisible IR image, and outputting the image (i.e., image data) thus generated”, “FIG. 10C is a diagram illustrating a non-common image of the visible image of FIG. 10A and the invisible image of FIG. 10B. FIG. 10D is a diagram illustrating an AND image of FIG. 10B and FIG. 10C. FIG. 10E is a diagram illustrating a removal image. FIG. 10F is a diagram illustrating an image generated by removing the removal image of FIG. 10E from the visible image of FIG. 10A”, “the image generator 21 removes the AND image of FIG. 10D from the ruled line to be removed, that is, the non-common image of FIG. 10C, to generate an image of FIG. 10E as a removal image” 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”]) and perform the color correction to the visible image data at the target position. (Ohmiya et al., Figs. 10A - 11D & 14A - 14F, Pg. 4 ¶ 0096, Pg. 5 ¶ 0109 - 0116, Pg. 5 ¶ 0118 - Pg. 6 ¶ 0124, Pg. 6 ¶ 0143 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0150)
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 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 is further configured to receive 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 is further configured to receive 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) wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive 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 to 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 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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