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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Submission dated 07/09/2026 amends claims 1-15. Claims 1-15 are pending.
In view of the claim amendments that introduced additional limitations integrating the judicial exception to a practical application of optical character recognition, the previously set forth 101 rejection had been withdrawn.
While the limitations that had previously invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are no longer present in the claims, the current claim amendments introduce a new limitation in claim 8 that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See the claim interpretation below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the cited 102 reference Nomi have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Nomi for the newly introduced limitations.
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:
notifying unit in claim 8;
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us patent application publication no. 2015/0310270 to Nomi et al. (hereinafter Nomi) in view of us patent application publication no. 2019/0303662 to Madhani et al. (hereinafter Madhani).
For claims 1 and 8, Nomi as applied discloses a character string reading method, comprising:
obtaining, by an image sensor, first image data representing a first image of a read object (see, e.g., pars. 74, 78, 86, and 110 and FIGS. 2, 4 and 13, which teach obtaining an image of a reading target by an imaging unit);
obtaining one or more formats of a character string to be read from the first image and to be output (see, e.g., pars. 87-89 and 93-101 and FIG. 4-6, which teach searching for first and second reading formats that match with the character string);
recognizing a first character string in the first image data through character recognition performed on the obtained first image data (see, e.g., pars. 80, 87-93, 112-113, and 117-120 and FIGS. 3, 4 and 13, which teach recognizing a character string based on the captured image);
obtaining, for output, a second character string at a portion matching a first format, the first format being one of the obtained one or more formats, among the first character string (see, e.g., pars. 94-101, 117-120 and 131-138 and FIGS. 4 and 14-16, which teach obtaining a portion of the recognized character string that matches with the second reading format).
While Nomi as applied teaches notifying a possibility of misreading in a case when the string has less characters than the threshold (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16, which teach notifying a possibility of digit drop in a case where the matching portion has less characters than the digit size of the second reading format), it does not explicitly teach “obtaining a number of characters included in the second character string; obtaining a notification threshold number, the notification threshold number being a number of characters; determining whether the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters; and notifying a possibility of misreading in a case where it is determined that the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters."
Madhani in the analogous art explicitly teaches:
obtaining a number of characters included in the second character string (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches obtaining a number of validated characters in the pixel intensity array);
obtaining a notification threshold number, the notification threshold number being a number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches obtaining a predetermined threshold being a number of characters);
determining whether the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches determining whether a number of the character falls below the predetermined threshold);
notifying a possibility of misreading in a case where it is determined that the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches transmitting a notification indicating a problem when the number of validated characters falls below the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nomi to determine a possible problem as taught by Madhani because doing so would yield predictable results of recognizing bad input data early in the process (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)) and ultimately improve the accuracy and speed of handwritten character recognition (see, e.g., pars. 4, 27 and 31 of Madhani).
For claims 2 and 9, Nomi in in view of Madhani teaches :
configuring the notification threshold number of characters based on a maximum number of characters in the character string defined by the obtained one or more formats (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16 of Nomi, which teach that a digit number/size of the second reading format defines the maximum number of characters in the matching portion; the examiner interprets the digit number of the second reading format as the claimed notification threshold number).
For claims 3 and 10, Nomi in in view of Madhani teaches:
configuring the notification threshold number of character to a maximum number of characters in the character string defined by the obtained one or more formats (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16 of Nomi, which teach that a digit number/size of the second reading format defines the maximum number of characters in the matching portion; the examiner interprets the digit number of the second reading format as the claimed notification threshold number).
For claims 7 and 14, Nomi in in view of Madhani teaches that the method is configured to be executed by a character string reading device (see, e.g., pars. 68-73 and FIG. 1 of Nomi, which teach using a hand terminal with a built-in CPU as a portal optical reader), the method further comprising:
setting, as a first character recognition condition, that only a first group of characters including all characters defined by at least one format of the obtained one or more formats are to be identified, among characters which the character string reading device can identify (see, e.g., pars. 87-93, 112-113, 117-120, and 128-130 and FIGS. 4, 13, 14, and 15A-B of Nomi, which teach setting a reading format that matches with the character string as the first reading format, wherein each reading format includes only a subset of characters, such certain number/digit of English letter and/or numerals), and
wherein the recognizing of the first character string is recognizing the first character string in the first image data according to the first character recognition condition (see, e.g., pars. 87-93, 112-113, 117-120, and 128-130 and FIGS. 4, 13, 14, and 15A-B of Nomi, which teach setting a reading format that matches with the character string as the first reading format).
For claim 15, Nomi in in view of Madhani teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing program instructions executable by a computer, and when executed, causing one computer or a plurality of computers in cooperation to execute a character string reading method (see, e.g., pars. 24 and 74-76 and FIG. 2 of Nomi), the character string reading method comprising:
obtaining, by an image sensor, first image data representing a first image of a read object (see, e.g., pars. 74, 78, 86, and 110 and FIGS. 2, 4 and 13, which teach obtaining an image of a reading target by an imaging unit);
obtaining one or more formats of a character string to be read from the first image and to be output (see, e.g., pars. 87-89 and 93-101 and FIG. 4-6, which teach searching for first and second reading formats that match with the character string);
recognizing a first character string in the first image data through character recognition performed on the obtained first image data (see, e.g., pars. 80, 87-93, 112-113, and 117-120 and FIGS. 3, 4 and 13, which teach recognizing a character string based on the captured image);
obtaining, for output, a second character string at a portion matching a first format, the first format being one of the obtained one or more formats, among the first character string (see, e.g., pars. 94-101, 117-120 and 131-138 and FIGS. 4 and 14-16, which teach obtaining a portion of the recognized character string that matches with the second reading format);
While Nomi as applied teaches notifying a possibility of misreading in a case when the string has less characters than the threshold (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16, which teach notifying a possibility of digit drop in a case where the matching portion has less characters than the digit size of the second reading format), it does not explicitly teach “obtaining a number of characters included in the second character string; obtaining a notification threshold number, the notification threshold number being a number of characters; determining whether the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters; and notifying a possibility of misreading in a case where it is determined that the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters."
Madhani in the analogous art explicitly teaches:
obtaining a number of characters included in the second character string (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches obtaining a number of validated characters in the pixel intensity array);
obtaining a notification threshold number, the notification threshold number being a number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches obtaining a predetermined threshold being a number of characters);
determining whether the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches determining whether a number of the character falls below the predetermined threshold);
notifying a possibility of misreading in a case where it is determined that the number of characters included in the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters (see, e.g., par. 11 of Madhani, which teaches transmitting a notification indicating a problem when the number of validated characters falls below the predetermined threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nomi to determine a possible problem as taught by Madhani because doing so would yield predictable results of recognizing bad input data early in the process (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)) and ultimately improve the accuracy and speed of handwritten character recognition (see, e.g., pars. 4, 27 and 31 of Madhani).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomi in view of Madhani and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2015/0146220 to Oki.
For claims 4 and 11, Nomi in view of Madhani teaches that the notification threshold number of characters is configured for each of the plurality of sections (see, e.g., pars. 94-101, 117-120, and 131-138 and FIGS. 4, 14-16, which teach determining a matching second reading format for each character string), and
the notifying of the possibility of misreading is performed such that the possibility of misreading is notified in a case where it is determined that the number of characters included in a first section among the plurality of sections of the second character string is less than the notification threshold number of characters for the first section (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16 of Nomi, which teach notifying a possibility of digit drop in a case where the matching portion has less characters than the digit size of the second reading format).
While Nomi in view of Madhani as applied teaches processing each character string repeatedly (see, e.g., pars. 115, 122 and 125 and FIG. 13 of Nomi), it does not teach that each character string being processed is one of multiple strings partitioned from a same character string. In other words, it does not explicitly teach “at least one of the obtained one or more formats defines a character string partitioned into a plurality of sections.”
Oki in the analogous art teaches splitting a character string into a plurality of short character strings in accordance with a predefined format rule for processing (see, e.g., pars. 65 and 84-96 and FIGS. 6A-C and 7 of Oki). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nomi in view of Madhani to split a character string into substring/sections before processing as taught by Oki because doing so would prevent a large error in position adjustment (see par. 10 of Oki).
For claims 5 and 12, Nomi in view of Madhani and Oki teaches configuring the notification threshold number of characters for each respective section of the plurality of sections based on a maximum number of characters in the respective section of the character string defined by the obtained one or more formats (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16 of Nomi, which teach that a digit number/size of the second reading format defines the maximum number of characters in the matching portion; the examiner interprets the digit number of the second reading format as the claimed notification threshold number).
For claims 6 and 13, Nomi in view of Madhani and Oki teaches configuring the notification threshold number of characters for each respective section of the plurality of sections to a maximum number of characters in the respective section of the character string defined by the obtained one or more formats (see, e.g., pars. 94, 97-106, 118-120, 123-124, and 131-140 and FIGS. 4 and 13-16 of Nomi, which teach that a digit number/size of the second reading format defines the maximum number of characters in the matching portion; the examiner interprets the digit number of the second reading format as the claimed notification threshold number).
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 WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights