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 1-18 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 mathematically performing data conversion). 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 claim1-18 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 using paper/pencil, mathematically performing caulations, comparing/matching data 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, are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
Regarding independent claims 1, 17 and 18
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES.
Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 are directed to an image processing system, image processing method and non-transitory computer readable storge storing a program , i.e. system process and manufacture.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES.
The claims are directed toward a mental process and solving mathematical problem (i.e. abstract idea).
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).
claims 1, 17 and 18 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and solving mathematical problem (or generic computers or components configured to perform the process) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 1, 18 and 19 (representative claim 1):
An image processing system comprising:
at least one processor configured to (conventional and generic computer component):
detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string ( mental process of using person evaluation and judgment to detect character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string of collected image of document);
apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region (mental process of using person evaluation and judgment on paper pencil calculate mathematical formulation based on person intelligence); and
determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character (mental process of making judgement to determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character).
The above 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 intelligence and solving mathematical problem. Furthermore limitations, “at least one processor configured to (conventional and generic computer component): detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string ( mental process of using person evaluation and judgment to detect character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string of collected image of document); apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region (mental process of using person evaluation and judgment on paper pencil calculate mathematical formulation based on person intelligence); and determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character (mental process of making judgement to determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character)” are insignificant.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(A) (2) (III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking, human intelligence) that can be performed in the mind/intelligence using a paper and pencil 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 ("‘[Mental 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).
Furthermore the Examiner also notes that even if you combined the math with the mental process, a combination of abstract ideas don't make a claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2): Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
(Step 2A, prong 1 Test Abstract idea = Yes).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
[YES/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.
Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 recite(s) the limitations of:
An image processing system (representative claim 1) comprising:
at least one processor configured to (conventional and generic computer component):
detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string ( mental process of using person evaluation and judgment to detect character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string of collected image of document);
apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region (mental process of using person evaluation and judgment on paper pencil calculate mathematical formulation based on person intelligence); and
determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character (mental process of making judgement to determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or calculation being taken based on the results of the acquiring steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity without further detail. Furthermore, claims 1, 17 and 18 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. 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.
Other than generic and well-known computer components recited in the independent claims 1 , 17 and 18 i.e. processor and non-transitory computer recording medium i.e. generic and disclosed in the specification, nothing in the claims 1, 17 and 18 elements preclude the processing from being performed as mental process, or merely based on the observations, evaluation, judgement, thought process and solving mathematical problem solving. Apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region and determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character recited in independent claims 1, 17 and 18 is a mere idea of a solution without details per MPEP 2106.05( f ) or the idea of a technological environment without detail per MPEP 2106.05 ( h ). The generic computing hardware is recited as just to automate the mental process of mathematical problem solving (Step 2A, prong 2 Test Abstract idea = Yes).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
NO.
The claims 1, 17 and 18 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.
Other than generic and well-known computer components recited in the independent claims 1 , 17 and 18 i.e. processor and non-transitory computer recording medium i.e. generic and disclosed in the specification, nothing in the claims 1, 17 and 18 elements preclude the processing from being performed as mental process, or merely based on the observations, evaluation, judgement, thought process and solving mathematical problem solving. Apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region and determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character recited in independent claims 1, 17 and 18 is a mere idea of a solution without details per MPEP 2106.05( f ) or the idea of a technological environment without detail per MPEP 2106.05 ( h ). The generic computing hardware is recited as just to automate the mental process of mathematical problem solving
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101 (Step 2B, Test Abstract idea = Yes).
Regarding dependent claims 2-16 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea of mathematical data conversion and mental process. Claims 2-16 further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The limitations of these dependent claims fall under (mental process including observation and evaluation, and judgement and mathematical problem solving which can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating/gathering data, performing mathematical calculation) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the process), Apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region and determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character is a mere idea of a solution without details per MPEP 2106.05( f ) or the idea of a technological environment without detail per MPEP 2106.05 ( h ). The generic computing hardware is recited as just to automate the mental process of mathematical problem solving
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Benkriera et al. (20210174060)
Regarding 1, 17 and 18 Benkriera disclose image processing system and a method (Benkriera, Figs. 1-2, 7-8 & paragraphs 0016 and 0020-0021 )
at least one processor and non-transitory computer readable storage (Kato Figs. Benkriera, Figs. 1-2, 7-8 & paragraph 0016)
detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string ( Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 paragraph 0048 disclose the system may identify, by parsing the recognized characters and/or analyzing the data objects, a type of the identity document. For example, the system may determine that the identity document is a US passport based on the presence, form, and/or location of a hologram and watermark detected in the identity document. In some implementations, the parsed characters and detected data objects are compared to known identity document formats or configurations, such as predetermined character strings, data objects, and security features that are known to be present e.g., at specific locations, in specific types of identity documents (e.g., driver's licenses or ID cards issued by certain states or jurisdictions and paragraph 0067 disclose the system may recognize data objects in the identity document. In the example of FIG. 4, 403 may include performing OCR and computer vision tasks. In some implementations, such character recognition may be performed by the character recognition module 106. In an implementation, 403 comprises recognizing, detecting, or identifying data objects such as character strings (e.g., words and phrases) and graphical images present in the identity document. At 403, the system recognizes data objects in order to detect information-bearing objects and security features present in the identity document. In some implementations, the recognized data objects include one or more of: a watermark; a hologram; a bar code; a serial number; a thumbnail version of the photograph; a negative image of the photograph; and a QR code. In certain implementations, such object recognition may be performed by the image identification module 107. Depending on the type of identity document used, not all data objects recognized in 403 will be security features. For example, a bar code, a serial number, and a QR code may have non-security functions. For instance, a bar code may simply indicate the user's name and address in a format that is scannable by a bar code reader. This obviously corresponds to detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string i.e. dependent on the type of identification document);
apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID . In the system of Benkriera it is obvious that the character recognition of character string is based on score for each character because recognition of document and document validity is based on all parsed characters and it would be obvious to determine validity score of each parsed characters similarly base on comparing each parsed characters); and
determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character (Benkriera, Figs 2, 4, blocks 205, 405, paragraph 0068 the system may identify or determine, based on the recognized data objects, a type of the identity document. In various implementations, this may be determined based on the presence, form, and/or location of one or more data objects on the identity document—i.e., whether or not the identity document has or conforms with the expected data object(s), format or configuration of a specific type of document. For example, the system may determine that the identity document is a student ID based on the presence of a university seal watermark and a printed university logo detected on the identity document. In some implementations, the recognized characters and data objects are compared to character strings and paragraph 0069 the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID, that match the security features known to be present in UCLA student IDs. This obviously corresponds determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character). Furthermore in the system of Benkriera it is obvious that the character recognition of character string is based on score for each character because recognition of document and document validity is based on all parsed characters and it would be obvious to determine validity score of each parsed characters similarly base on comparing each parsed characters ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention was filed to detect a character string region including any character string from a target object image relating to a target object including a standard character string, apply character recognition to the character string region to calculate a score relating to a result of the character recognition for each character included in the character string region and determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character as shown by Benkreira because such a system/process provides automated system for identity verification.
Regarding claim 2 Benkreira disclose recognizing plurality of characters, for the each character, the score of each of the plurality of recognizable characters identify, for the each character, a recognizable character having a relatively high store as a high-score character from the plurality of recognizable characters; and determine whether the standard character string exists in a combination of the high-score characters, to thereby determine whether the character string region is the standard region (Benkriera, Figs 2, 4, blocks 205, 405, paragraph 0068 the system may identify or determine, based on the recognized data objects, a type of the identity document. In various implementations, this may be determined based on the presence, form, and/or location of one or more data objects on the identity document—i.e., whether or not the identity document has or conforms with the expected data object(s), format or configuration of a specific type of document. For example, the system may determine that the identity document is a student ID based on the presence of a university seal watermark and a printed university logo detected on the identity document. In some implementations, the recognized characters and data objects are compared to character strings and paragraph 0069 the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID, that match the security features known to be present in UCLA student IDs. The system of Benkreira obviously include recognizing plurality of characters, for the each character, the score of each of the plurality of recognizable characters identify, for the each character, a recognizable character having a relatively high store as a high-score character from the plurality of recognizable characters; and determine whether the standard character string exists in a combination of the high-score characters, to thereby determine whether the character string region is the standard region based on the ID).
Regarding claims 3-4 Benkreira disclose identify, for the each character, as the high-score character, a recognizable character having an order of the score equal to or higher than a reference order in the each character (Benkriera, Figs 2, 4, blocks 205, 405, paragraph 0068 the system may identify or determine, based on the recognized data objects, a type of the identity document. In various implementations, this may be determined based on the presence, form, and/or location of one or more data objects on the identity document—i.e., whether or not the identity document has or conforms with the expected data object(s), format or configuration of a specific type of document. For example, the system may determine that the identity document is a student ID based on the presence of a university seal watermark and a printed university logo detected on the identity document. In some implementations, the recognized characters and data objects are compared to character strings and paragraph 0069 the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID, that match the security features known to be present in UCLA student IDs. Furthermore in the system of Benkriera it is obvious that the character recognition of character string is based on score for each character because recognition of document and document validity is based on all parsed characters and it would be obvious to determine validity score of each parsed characters similarly base on comparing each parsed characters and compare validity of each character with certain threshold to verify documents only with higher validity).
Regarding claim 5 Benkreira disclose determine based on the standard character string, an applicable criteria the recognizable character is required to satisfy as the high-score character, and identify the high-score character based on the applicable criterion (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkreira it is obvious that the system include determine based on the standard character string, an applicable criteria the recognizable character is required to satisfy as the high-score character, and identify the high-score character based on the applicable criterion which is document validity score criteria).
Regarding claim 6 Benkreira disclose determine that character string is the stand region when even when standard character is absent from the combination exist, the number of standard character string existing in the combination is equal to larger than threshold (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkeria there parsed character other data item such image and other symbol which are not standard character of the ID and number of standard character string existing in the combination should be equal l to the characters existing in the user profile).
Regarding claim 7 Benkreira disclose determine the reference number based on the standard character string and determine whether the character string region is standard region based on the reference number (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkreira it is obvious that the number of reference of character string or parsed characters should be number of character string or parsed characters in the user profile of database of UCLA they should be matching).
Regarding claim 8 apply, to the character string region, the character recognition relating to each of a plurality of standard characters included in the standard character string to calculate the score for the each of the plurality of standard characters, and determine whether a sum of the scores of the plurality of standard characters is equal to or larger than a reference sum, to thereby determine whether the character string region is the standard region (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID . In the system of Benkreira it would be obviously to apply validity score for each standard character based on matching of user profile characters stored in the UCLA database and sum the each character score and compare and match with reference to validate document).
Regarding claims 9 Berkreira disclose determine whether the character string region is the standard region based on the reference sum corresponding to a shape of each of the plurality of standard characters (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkreira it is obvious that reference sum corresponding to a shape of each of the plurality of standard characters because the number of characters should match the number of characters shape in the use profile of the user in the UCLA database).
Regarding claim 10 Berkreira disclose determine whether the character string region is the standard region based on the reference sum corresponding to sum of each of the plurality of standard characters (reference sum corresponding to a shape of each of the plurality of standard characters (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkreira it is obvious that reference sum corresponding to of each of the plurality of standard characters because the number of characters should match the number of characters shape in the use profile of the user in the UCLA database).
Regarding claim 11 Benkreira disclose recognize a plurality of recognizable characters, wherein the plurality of recognizable characters include a plurality of standard characters included in the standard character string, apply to the character string region, the character recognition relating to each of the plurality of standard characters to calculate the score for the each of the plurality of standard characters and the standard region determination module is configured to determine whether the character string region is the standard region based on the score calculated for the each of the plurality of standard characters (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkreira it would be to obtain validity score for each characters based matching and comparison of characters of user profile in UCLA database).
Regarding claim 12 Benkreira disclose detect the character string region having the same number of characters as the number of characters of the standard character string, and405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkriera it would be obvious to match number of character within the user profile based on matching and comparison).
Regarding claim 13 Benkreira disclose detect the character string region having a size corresponding to the standard character string, and determine whether the character string region having the size corresponding to the standard character string is the standard region (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID. In the system of Benkriera it would be obvious to match the size of the character with the size of the characters in the user profile in the database of UCLA to validate the doument).
Regarding claim 14 Benkreira disclose detect a plurality of character string regions each of which is the character string region, select any one of the plurality of character string regions to determine whether the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is the standard region; finish processing without selecting a next character string region when the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is determined as the standard region; and select, when the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is not determined as the standard region, a next character string region to determine whether the selected next character string region is the standard region (Benkriera, Figs 1, 2, 4, 8 blocks 203-205 & 403-405 870, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. In the system of Benkriera it would be obvious to detect a plurality of character string regions each of which is the character string region, select any one of the plurality of character string regions to determine whether the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is the standard region and as shown in Figs. 2, 4 and the system Benkreira is programable system and it would be obvious to program the system to finish processing without selecting a next character string region when the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is determined as the standard region; and select, when the selected one of the plurality of character string regions is not determined as the standard region, a next character string region to determine whether the selected next character string region is the standard region).
Regarding claim 15 Benkreira disclose the target object includes a plurality of standard character strings each of which is the standard character string, detect a plurality of character string regions each of which is the character string region, determine, for each standard character string, whether the character string region is the standard region including the each standard character string and determine that the target object is not included in the target object image when the standard character string having an unidentified standard region exists in the plurality of standard character strings (Benkriera, Figs 2 & 4 blocks 203-205 & 403-405, Benkriera discloses paragraph 0021 the system also identifies, by parsing the recognized characters, secondary characteristics of the user and then calculates a document validity score by comparing the secondary characteristics to user profile data for the user retrieved from a data store and paragraph 0069 disclose the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. In the system of Bekriera includes a plurality of standard character strings each of which is the standard character string, detect a plurality of character string regions each of which is the character string region, determine, for each standard character string, whether the character string region is the standard region including the each standard character string based on the comparing with user profile with UCLA and determine that the target object is not included in the target object image when the standard character string having an unidentified standard region exists in the plurality of standard character strings which is also based on the user profile with UCLA and not validating the document if the document is not matching)
Regarding claim 16 Benkreira disclose the target object is an identity verification document, wherein the standard character string is a character string relating to information required for identity verification, and wherein the target object image is an image generated by photographing the identity verification document (Benkreira Figs 1, 2-4 paragraph 0068-0068 paragraph 0068 the system may identify or determine, based on the recognized data objects, a type of the identity document. In various implementations, this may be determined based on the presence, form, and/or location of one or more data objects on the identity document—i.e., whether or not the identity document has or conforms with the expected data object(s), format or configuration of a specific type of document. For example, the system may determine that the identity document is a student ID based on the presence of a university seal watermark and a printed university logo detected on the identity document. In some implementations, the recognized characters and data objects are compared to character strings and paragraph 0069 the system may calculate a document validity score by comparing the recognized data objects to security features that are known to be present in the identified type of the identity document in order to generate or determine a percentage or degree of matching between the recognized data objects and the known security features. For instance, 405 may comprise calculating the document validity score as a percentage of data objects from the identity document, which has been determined to be a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) student ID, that match the security features known to be present in UCLA student IDs. This obviously corresponds determine whether the character string region is a standard region including the standard character string based on the score calculated for each character. Furthermore in the system of Benkriera it is obvious that the character recognition of character string is based on score for each character because recognition of document and document validity is based on all parsed characters and it would be obvious to determine validity score of each parsed characters similarly base on comparing each parsed characters).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT I SHERALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM -5:00 PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
ISHRAT I. SHERALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2667
/ISHRAT I SHERALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights