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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method, and computer-readable storage medium configured to detect a focus of attention. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories? YES. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a method, a system and a computer readable medium, i.e. a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims recite steps that fall into the abstract idea category of mental processes.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1, and systems in claims 8 and 15 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 1: A method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, a data stream from a camera of a client device (insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering);
identifying an object in the data stream (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind or a generic computer program or components configured to perform the method; identifying an object..);
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind or a generic computer program or components configured to perform the method; performing operations to crop…); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object (insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image and determine a fill level, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claimed functions –receiving data, identifying and performing operations to crop and presenting – could be performed conceptually by a human using pen and paper, and thus fall under abstract mental steps.
Conclusions: Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
There is no indication that the method improves the functioning of a computer, the machine learning model, or classification itself.
Conclusion: Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims are functionally generic with no details about architecture, training, dataset specifics, or a novel arrangement of components.
Conclusion: The claims does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Final Determination: INELIGIBLE under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Claims 1, 8 and 15 are: directed toward an abstract idea (mental process and data manipulation) using conventional tools (processor) in a generic way, without integration into a practical application or an inventive concept.
Regarding Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 - 20: the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The claims are functionally generic with no details about architecture, training, dataset specifics, or a novel arrangement of components. Since the claims are directed toward an abstract idea (mental process and data manipulation) using conventional tools in a generic way, without integration into a practical application or an inventive concept, they are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13 and 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloter et al. (US 20130201307 A1; hereafter referred to as Schloter) in view of Cheng et al. (See Machine Translation for CN 114723768 A; hereafter referred to as Cheng).
Regarding Claim 1, Schloter teaches:
A method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, a data stream from a camera of a client device (Schloter, [0014] “A computing device (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet computer, etc.) may include an image capture device (e.g., a digital camera) that captures images of expense receipts ….the image capture device may constantly obtain and/or capture images of the expense receipt (e.g., may obtain and/or capture image data)”);
identifying an object in the data stream (Schloter, [0061] “the receipt processing module 415 may identify the amount, business name, the item purchased, the service rendered, the city, the state, and/or the country of the expense buy analyzing the text of the receipt (e.g., may identify the receipt information in the receipt)”);
performing one or more operations to crop the object (Schloter, [0033] “the image filter may be implemented as a software algorithm, function, and/or operation that processes the image”; [0037] “the image module 213 may use one or more additional image filters that apply a threshold color to remove backgrounds, perform noise filtering on an image or a filtered image, crop and image”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device (Schloter, [0034] The image module 213 may display one or more filtered images (e.g., filtered image data) in the preview portion of the GUI (as illustrated in FIG. 1B)).
However, Schloter teaches cropping the object and filtering the background and displaying the filtered image on GUI, it does to explicitly teach:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream; and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream (Cheng, page 7, para 4, “the background of the image to be cropped is a colored background, the electronic device can first identify the background color of the image to be cropped, and then find out pixels of other colors that are different from the background color, which will be different from the background color. Pixels of other colors of the background color are determined as colored pixels of the image to be cropped”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object (Cheng, Abstract, “ finally displaying the cutting image, by identifying the boundary position of each image content in the image, determining the cutting area of the image, so as to accurately and quickly cut the blank area around the image, increasing the display area of the core content of the image in the display interface”; Cheng, page 2, summary, para 5, “based on the border position of each trimming border, each image border of the to-be-cropped image is trimmed to obtain a trimmed image; the trimmed image is displayed”).
Schloter and Cheng are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schloter with the invention of Cheng to perform one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream and display the cropped/trimmed object on a user display; doing so can efficiently crop the images to remove background and improve users reading ability (Cheng, page 2, background, para 2); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 2, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing one or more operations to change an orientation of the cropped version of the object (Schloter, [0038] “the image module 213 may also determine the orientation of the expense receipt… the image module 213 may determine that the image of the expense receipt should be rotated clockwise in order for the text to appear upright when the image of the expense receipt is viewed in the GUI”; Schloter, [0048] “The filter module 305 may also apply additional filters (e.g., filters to sharpen the edges of text, to perform color correction, to crop the image, etc.) on the images received from the image capture device 211).
Regarding Claim 3, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying an overlay on the cropped version of the object, wherein the overlay comprises data identified based on the object (Schloter, [0054] “The GUI module 315 may present multiple previews in the GUI or may overlay a filtered image over another image in the preview”; Cheng, page 9, para 3, “the center recognition of the to-be-cropped image is performed by first obtaining the minimum circumscribed rectangle of each image content in the to-be-cropped image, then overlapping and aligning multiple image pages of the to-be-cropped image, and then aligning the plurality of minimum circumscribed rectangles”).
Regarding Claim 4, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object comprises one or more of a receipt, an invoice, or a document (Schloter, [0014] ‘ An expense receipt (or a receipt) may be one or more of an invoice, form, bill, a certificate, a declaration, a letter, a notice, a proof of purchase, a sales slip, a stub, a voucher and/or any other document that includes information about a product and/or a service that has been purchased, bought, and/or paid for by a user”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cropped version of the object is presented in real time or near real time (Schloter, [0028] “the preview 155 allows users to see how an image may look when the image filter is applied to the image (e.g., when the image data is processed using the image filter) in real time or near real time. This allows users to more quickly see the preview of the filtered image and determine whether they should capture the filtered image or repositioned the receipt and/or the image capture device for a better viewpoint of the expense receipt”).
Regarding Claim 6, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing a shape-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream (Cheng, page 14, para 4, “After the electronic device displays the cropped image 301, the user can perform the cropping operation on the cropped image as needed. Paging operation, click the paging operation control 206, the electronic device can display the cross-shaped dividing line 601 on the cropped image in response to the paging operation on the cropped image, and then, the user can drag the cross-shaped dividing line 601 as required”).
Regarding Claim 8, Schloter teaches:
A system, comprising:
a memory device (Schloter, [0045] “The data store 350 may be a memory (e.g., random access memory), a cache, a drive (e.g., a hard drive), a flash drive, flash memory, a database system, and/or another type of component or device capable of storing data”); and
a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory device (Schloter, [0079] “The image module 726 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 704 and/or within the processing device 702 during execution thereof by the computing device 700, the main memory 704 and the processing device 702 also constituting computer-readable media”), to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, a data stream from a camera of a client device (Schloter, [0014] “A computing device (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet computer, etc.) may include an image capture device (e.g., a digital camera) that captures images of expense receipts ….the image capture device may constantly obtain and/or capture images of the expense receipt (e.g., may obtain and/or capture image data)”);
identifying an object in the data stream (Schloter, [0061] “the receipt processing module 415 may identify the amount, business name, the item purchased, the service rendered, the city, the state, and/or the country of the expense buy analyzing the text of the receipt (e.g., may identify the receipt information in the receipt)”);
performing one or more operations to crop the object (Schloter, [0033] “the image filter may be implemented as a software algorithm, function, and/or operation that processes the image”; [0037] “the image module 213 may use one or more additional image filters that apply a threshold color to remove backgrounds, perform noise filtering on an image or a filtered image, crop and image”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device (Schloter, [0034] The image module 213 may display one or more filtered images (e.g., filtered image data) in the preview portion of the GUI (as illustrated in FIG. 1B)).
However, Schloter teaches cropping the object and filtering the background and displaying the filtered image on GUI, it does to explicitly teach:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream; and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream (Cheng, page 7, para 4, “the background of the image to be cropped is a colored background, the electronic device can first identify the background color of the image to be cropped, and then find out pixels of other colors that are different from the background color, which will be different from the background color. Pixels of other colors of the background color are determined as colored pixels of the image to be cropped”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object (Cheng, Abstract, “ finally displaying the cutting image, by identifying the boundary position of each image content in the image, determining the cutting area of the image, so as to accurately and quickly cut the blank area around the image, increasing the display area of the core content of the image in the display interface”; Cheng, page 2, summary, para 5, “based on the border position of each trimming border, each image border of the to-be-cropped image is trimmed to obtain a trimmed image; the trimmed image is displayed”).
Schloter and Cheng are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schloter with the invention of Cheng to perform one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream and display the cropped/trimmed object on a user display; doing so can efficiently crop the images to remove background and improve users reading ability (Cheng, page 2, background, para 2); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 9, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising:
performing one or more operations to change an orientation of the cropped version of the object (Schloter, [0038] “the image module 213 may also determine the orientation of the expense receipt… the image module 213 may determine that the image of the expense receipt should be rotated clockwise in order for the text to appear upright when the image of the expense receipt is viewed in the GUI”; Schloter, [0048] “The filter module 305 may also apply additional filters (e.g., filters to sharpen the edges of text, to perform color correction, to crop the image, etc.) on the images received from the image capture device 211).
Regarding Claim 10, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising:
displaying an overlay on the cropped version of the object, wherein the overlay comprises data identified based on the object (Schloter, [0054] “The GUI module 315 may present multiple previews in the GUI or may overlay a filtered image over another image in the preview”; Cheng, page 9, para 3, “the center recognition of the to-be-cropped image is performed by first obtaining the minimum circumscribed rectangle of each image content in the to-be-cropped image, then overlapping and aligning multiple image pages of the to-be-cropped image, and then aligning the plurality of minimum circumscribed rectangles”).
Regarding Claim 11, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the object comprises one or more of a receipt, an invoice, or a document (Schloter, [0014] ‘ An expense receipt (or a receipt) may be one or more of an invoice, form, bill, a certificate, a declaration, a letter, a notice, a proof of purchase, a sales slip, a stub, a voucher and/or any other document that includes information about a product and/or a service that has been purchased, bought, and/or paid for by a user”).
Regarding Claim 12, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the cropped version of the object is presented in real time or near real time (Schloter, [0028] “the preview 155 allows users to see how an image may look when the image filter is applied to the image (e.g., when the image data is processed using the image filter) in real time or near real time. This allows users to more quickly see the preview of the filtered image and determine whether they should capture the filtered image or repositioned the receipt and/or the image capture device for a better viewpoint of the expense receipt”).
Regarding Claim 13, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising:
performing a shape-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream (Cheng, page 14, para 4, “After the electronic device displays the cropped image 301, the user can perform the cropping operation on the cropped image as needed. Paging operation, click the paging operation control 206, the electronic device can display the cross-shaped dividing line 601 on the cropped image in response to the paging operation on the cropped image, and then, the user can drag the cross-shaped dividing line 601 as required”).
Regarding Claim 15, Schloter teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions for a server that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising (Schloter, [0084] “a computer program may be stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”):
obtaining, by a processor, a data stream from a camera of a client device (Schloter, [0014] “A computing device (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet computer, etc.) may include an image capture device (e.g., a digital camera) that captures images of expense receipts ….the image capture device may constantly obtain and/or capture images of the expense receipt (e.g., may obtain and/or capture image data)”);
identifying an object in the data stream (Schloter, [0061] “the receipt processing module 415 may identify the amount, business name, the item purchased, the service rendered, the city, the state, and/or the country of the expense buy analyzing the text of the receipt (e.g., may identify the receipt information in the receipt)”);
performing one or more operations to crop the object (Schloter, [0033] “the image filter may be implemented as a software algorithm, function, and/or operation that processes the image”; Schloter, [0037] “the image module 213 may use one or more additional image filters that apply a threshold color to remove backgrounds, perform noise filtering on an image or a filtered image, crop and image”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device (Schloter, [0034] The image module 213 may display one or more filtered images (e.g., filtered image data) in the preview portion of the GUI (as illustrated in FIG. 1B)).
However, Schloter teaches cropping the object and filtering the background and displaying the filtered image on GUI, it does to explicitly teach:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream; and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Cheng teaches:
performing one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream (Cheng, page 7, para 4, “the background of the image to be cropped is a colored background, the electronic device can first identify the background color of the image to be cropped, and then find out pixels of other colors that are different from the background color, which will be different from the background color. Pixels of other colors of the background color are determined as colored pixels of the image to be cropped”); and
presenting, on a user interface of the client device, a cropped version of the object (Cheng, Abstract, “ finally displaying the cutting image, by identifying the boundary position of each image content in the image, determining the cutting area of the image, so as to accurately and quickly cut the blank area around the image, increasing the display area of the core content of the image in the display interface”; Cheng, page 2, summary, para 5, “based on the border position of each trimming border, each image border of the to-be-cropped image is trimmed to obtain a trimmed image; the trimmed image is displayed”).
Schloter and Cheng are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schloter with the invention of Cheng to perform one or more operations to crop the object from background data of the data stream and display the cropped/trimmed object on a user display; doing so can efficiently crop the images to remove background and improve users reading ability (Cheng, page 2, background, para 2); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 16, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising:
performing one or more operations to change an orientation of the cropped version of the object (Schloter, [0038] “the image module 213 may also determine the orientation of the expense receipt… the image module 213 may determine that the image of the expense receipt should be rotated clockwise in order for the text to appear upright when the image of the expense receipt is viewed in the GUI”; Schloter, [0048] “The filter module 305 may also apply additional filters (e.g., filters to sharpen the edges of text, to perform color correction, to crop the image, etc.) on the images received from the image capture device 211).
Regarding Claim 17, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising:
displaying an overlay on the cropped version of the object, wherein the overlay comprises data identified based on the object (Schloter, [0054] “The GUI module 315 may present multiple previews in the GUI or may overlay a filtered image over another image in the preview”; Cheng, page 9, para 3, “the center recognition of the to-be-cropped image is performed by first obtaining the minimum circumscribed rectangle of each image content in the to-be-cropped image, then overlapping and aligning multiple image pages of the to-be-cropped image, and then aligning the plurality of minimum circumscribed rectangles”).
Regarding Claim 18, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the object comprises one or more of a receipt, an invoice, or a document (Schloter, [0014] ‘ An expense receipt (or a receipt) may be one or more of an invoice, form, bill, a certificate, a declaration, a letter, a notice, a proof of purchase, a sales slip, a stub, a voucher and/or any other document that includes information about a product and/or a service that has been purchased, bought, and/or paid for by a user”).
Regarding Claim 19, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the cropped version of the object is presented in real time or near real time (Schloter, [0028] “the preview 155 allows users to see how an image may look when the image filter is applied to the image (e.g., when the image data is processed using the image filter) in real time or near real time. This allows users to more quickly see the preview of the filtered image and determine whether they should capture the filtered image or repositioned the receipt and/or the image capture device for a better viewpoint of the expense receipt”).
Regarding Claim 20, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing at least one of a shape-based cropping technique or a depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream (Cheng, page 14, para 4, “After the electronic device displays the cropped image 301, the user can perform the cropping operation on the cropped image as needed. Paging operation, click the paging operation control 206, the electronic device can display the cross-shaped dividing line 601 on the cropped image in response to the paging operation on the cropped image, and then, the user can drag the cross-shaped dividing line 601 as required”: Examiners Note: since the claim recites performing a shape-based cropping or depth-based copping techniques to crop the image, the Examiner in mapping the shape-based cropping as taught by Cheng to read on the limitation).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloter et al. (US 20130201307 A1; hereafter referred to as Schloter) in view of Cheng et al. (See Machine Translation for CN 114723768 A; hereafter referred to as Cheng) further in view of Li et al. (See Machine Translation for WO 2015141009 A1; hereafter referred to as Li).
Regarding Claim 7, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach:
performing a depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream;
In the same field on endeavor, Li teaches:
performing a depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream (Li, page 6, para 4, “the crop processing unit 102 c determines the document area based on the color and the depth, and performs a cropping process on the document area”).
Schloter, Cheng and Li are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schloter in view Cheng with the invention of Li to perform depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream; doing so can efficiently crop and accurately correct document distortions (Li, Summary, para 1 - 2); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 14, Schloter in view of Cheng teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach:
performing a depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream;
In the same field on endeavor, Li teaches:
performing a depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream (Li, page 6, para 4, “the crop processing unit 102 c determines the document area based on the color and the depth, and performs a cropping process on the document area”).
Schloter, Cheng and Li are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Schloter in view Cheng with the invention of Li to perform depth-based cropping technique to crop the object in the data stream; doing so can efficiently crop and accurately correct document distortions (Li, Summary, para 1 - 2); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190034456 Systems and methods for mobile image capture and processing
US 20250316004 A1 METHOD AND APPARATUS PROCESSING VISUAL MEDIA
US 20250329042 A1 AUTOMATICALLY CROPPING OF LANDSCAPE VIDEOS
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU whose telephone number is (571)270-0273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
VAISALI RAO. KOPPOLU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664