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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2024 and October 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Masayuki fails to disclose independent claim 1, features of the claimed operation b) and does not teach varying the shortened run length as a function of position along the up-and-down direction of the run group. However, Examiner disagrees and cites Masayuki (page 4 [Object of the Invention] the color of the line image area to be processed is designated. Further, for each processing line arranged in parallel in a predetermined direction on the original image, a run length of each area of the original image on the processing line is obtained; the line image area is erased by performing addition and shortening or deleting the run length with respect to the other to make the width of the changed line image area substantially zero. The run length of the line image region in the present invention is compared with a predetermined reference value and when the run length is smaller than the predetermined reference value, lengthening, adding or shortening, deleting is performed, so the width of the line image region is changed.) as effective in capturing the essence of the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation of shortening the run length. The key point is that tapering maintains the overall length but changes the cross-sectional dimensions, often to enhance proportion, fit, or performance. Shortening, on the other hand, is a linear reduction in length. Tapering is not used in the claimed language, and this term would change the scope of independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Figure 9, the specific run group is a linear region composed of target runs stacked in the up-and-down direction, where each target run extends in the left-and-right direction and is run length is the width of the linear region at that height. This produces a linear region that retains substantially its original width at each end and tapers to the set width toward the center. ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant fails to address the claim objections with regards to the 35 U.S.C 112(f) claim interpretation of claim 7 due to the use of “part” in the claim language.
Since no amendments have been made to the original claims, Examiner maintains the same rejection as the previous non-final rejection in this office action.
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: "part" in claim 7.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masayuki et. al. (Japanese Patent JP H0831130 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Masayuki et. al. discloses a thinning method for thinning a run-length encoded binary image (Masayuki et. al. abstract “To improve a speed for processing by executing extension, addition, shortening or deletion when the run length of a linear picture area is smaller than a prescribed reference value and changing the width of the linear picture area.”, comprising: a) detecting a target run group as a specific run group in said binary image in which a run representing a pattern which is a target to be thinned is designated as a target run, said target run group representing a linear region crossing a left-and-right direction corresponding to a run length and including target runs sequentially connected to one another in an up-and-down direction perpendicular to said left-and-right direction; (Masayuki et. al. page 4 [Object of the Invention] the color of the line image area to be processed is designated. Further, for each processing line arranged in parallel in a predetermined direction on the original image, a run length of each area of the original image on the processing line is obtained.) b) acquiring a run-length encoded partially-thinned image by shortening a run length of said specific run group so that a run length of each target run included in both end portions in said up-and-down direction becomes shorter as said each target run gets positioned nearer to a center side and a run length of each target run positioned between said both end portions becomes a set width in said specific run group; (Masayuki et. al. page 4 [Object of the Invention] the line image area is erased by performing addition and shortening or deleting the run length with respect to the other to make the width of the changed line image area substantially zero. The run length of the line image region in the present invention is compared with a predetermined reference value and when the run length is smaller than the predetermined reference value, lengthening, adding or shortening, deleting is performed, so the width of the line image region is changed.) and c) acquiring a thinned image by performing a predetermined thinning process on said partially-thinned image. (Masayuki et. al. page 4 [Object of the Invention] a thinning process or a thickening process of the line image area is performed so that the value becomes a value)
PNG
media_image1.png
792
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which recites an apparatus for carrying out the method steps of claim 1 when implemented. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated herein. Furthermore, Masayuki et. al. discloses a thinning apparatus for thinning a run-length encoded binary image (Masayuki et. al. page 3 [Field of Industrial Use]; Fig. 2 shown below depicts the apparatus).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
900
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, which is a computer readable medium claim storing program instructions that when executed by the computer performs the steps of method claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is fully incorporated herein. Furthermore, Masayuki et. al. discloses a non-transitory recording medium recording therein a computer-readable program to cause a computer to perform thinning of a run-length encoded binary image, said program being executed by a computer to cause said computer to perform (Masayuki et. al. page 3 [Field of Industrial Use]; Fig. 2 above e.g., storage memory 30; also Fig. 5A outlining the program algorithm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki et. al. (Japanese Patent JP H0831130 B2) in view of Hiroshi et. al. (Japanese Patent JP H11232382 A).
Regarding claim 2, Masayuki et. al. discloses the thinning method according to claim 1. However, Masayuki fails to disclose wherein said target run group in which each target run is connected only to not more than one target run on each of upper and lower sides is detected as said specific run group in said operation a).
Hiroshi et. al. teaches wherein said target run group in which each target run is connected only to not more than one target run on each of upper and lower sides is detected as said specific run group in said operation a). (Hiroshi et. al. [0030], Figure 3, which is situated in the same technical context (see abstract)). Here, the target run is connected which is important to the claimed invention for object detection and feature extraction. Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features taught by Masayuki et. al. and the teachings of Hiroshi et. al. so that these features are reflected in the solution to the problem.
PNG
media_image3.png
686
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Masayuki et. al. discloses the thinning method according to claim 1. However, Masayuki et. al. fails to disclose wherein said target run group in which in each combination of two target runs connected to each other in said up-and-down direction, a distance between respective left ends thereof in said left-and-right direction and a distance between respective right ends thereof in said left-and-right direction are each not larger than the predetermined number of pixels is detected as said specific run group in said operation a).
Hiroshi et. al. teaches wherein said target run group in which in each combination of two target runs connected to each other in said up-and-down direction, a distance between respective left ends thereof in said left-and-right direction and a distance between respective right ends thereof in said left-and-right direction are each not larger than the predetermined number of pixels is detected as said specific run group in said operation a). (Hiroshi et. al. [0032], Figure 4 “the determination is performed using the height H and the width W of the circumscribed rectangle 401 of the connected component generated from the run length data of the ruled line 400”). This distance used for a specific run group is important to the claimed invention so that there is a quantified region of interest. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these features of Masayuki et. al. and Hiroshi et. al. so that these quantified distances are known.
PNG
media_image4.png
224
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Masayuki et. al. discloses the thinning method according to claim 1. However, Masayuki et. al. fails to disclose wherein said operation a) includes: a1) detecting a target run group in which target runs are sequentially connected to one another in said up-and-down direction while satisfying predetermined conditions in said binary image, as a specific run group candidate; and a2) determining whether said specific run group candidate is said specific run group or not by comparing a length of a region indicated by said specific run group candidate along said up-and-down direction with a thickness thereof along said left-and-right direction.
Hiroshi et. al. teaches wherein said operation a) includes: a1) detecting a target run group in which target runs are sequentially connected to one another in said up-and-down direction while satisfying predetermined conditions in said binary image, as a specific run group candidate; and a2) determining whether said specific run group candidate is said specific run group or not by comparing a length of a region indicated by said specific run group candidate along said up-and-down direction with a thickness thereof along said left-and-right direction. (Hiroshi et. al. [0029] “run length data longer than a predetermined threshold-value (thA) are selected, when the space interval of run length data longer than thA is shorter than a predetermined threshold-value (thB), it determines with it being a blur and two run length data are connected.”) It is important to the claimed invention that a length of a region is compared. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Masayuki et. al. and Hiroshi et. al. so that the data for the desired outcome and candidate is compared to satisfy the predetermined conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Masayuki et. al. discloses the thinning method according to claim 1. However, Masayuki et. al. fails to disclose wherein a run length of at least one of two adjacent target runs in said up-and-down direction is extended in a case where said two target runs are separated from each other in said left-and-right direction by shortening a run length of said specific run group in said operation b).
Hiroshi et. al. teaches wherein a run length of at least one of two adjacent target runs in said up-and-down direction is extended in a case where said two target runs are separated from each other in said left-and-right direction by shortening a run length of said specific run group in said operation b). (Hiroshi et. al. [0029] “run length data longer than a predetermined threshold-value (thA) are selected, when the space interval of run length data longer than thA is shorter than a predetermined threshold-value (thB), it determines with it being a blur and two run length data are connected.”) It is important to the claimed invention that a length of a region is compared. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Masayuki et. al. and Hiroshi et. al. so that the data for the desired outcome and candidate is compared to satisfy the predetermined conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, Masayuki et. al. discloses the thinning method according to claim 1. However, Masayuki et. al. fails to disclose wherein said target run group in which a moving direction of a barycenter of a target run from an upper end toward a lower end is constant is detected as said specific run group in said operation a). None of the prior art of record or searched teaches this limitation of a moving direction of a barycenter of a target run is constant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 June 26, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights