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 .
Detailed Office Action
1. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are independent.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,081,711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5, and 9, all claim limitations in the claim body of each of the claims are found in the claim body of patent claims 1, 6, and 10, respectively.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 differ from patent claims 1, 6, and 10, respectively, in the preamble. Claims 1, 5, and 9, line 1 of each recites “An image processing apparatus”, whereas patent claims 1, 6, and 10, line 1 of each recites “A medium conveying apparatus.” However, the languages of the claim body of each of patent claims 1, 6, and 10, i.e., “a processor to extract edge pixels from the input image, detect two straight lines …… from the edge pixels, determine whether ……” show that the apparatus of patent claims 1, 6, and 10 each is related to image processing, which would have been realized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to provide the apparatuses of the instant claims 1, 5, and 9, respectively, based on the apparatuses of patent claims 1, 6, and 10, respectively.
Regarding claims 2/1, 6/5, and 10/9, all limitations of each claim are found in patent claims 3/1, 8/6, and 13/11, respectively.
Regarding claims 3/1, 7/5, and 11/9, all limitations of each claim are found in patent claims 4/1, 9/6, and 14/11, respectively.
Regarding claims 4/1, 8/5, and 12/9, all limitations of each claim are found in patent claims 5/1,10/6, and 15/11, respectively.
4. Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, all claim limitations correspond to limitations found in patent claim 1. Note that “a predetermined card” in the “determine” limitation of claim 1 is a broader term than the corresponding term “an ID card” of in the “determine” limitation of patent claim 1.
Claim 1 differ from patent claim 1 in the preamble. Claim 1, line 1 recites “An image processing apparatus”, whereas patent claim 1, line 1 recites “A medium conveying apparatus.” However, the languages of the claim body of patent claim 1, i.e., “a processor to extract edge pixels from the input image, detect two straight lines …… from the edge pixels, determine whether ……” show that the apparatus of patent claim 1 is related to image processing, which would have been realized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to provide the apparatuses of the instant claim 1 based on the apparatus of patent claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claim limitations of claim 2 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 4, and the claim limitations of claim 3 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 5. Note that in the last limitation of each of claims 2 and 3, and in the last limitation of each of patent claims 4 and 5, the “determines” and “detects”, respectively, are “based on the degree of change of the inclination.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatuses of claims 2 and 3 based on the apparatuses of patent claims 4 and 5, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation is found in patent claim 1.
Regarding claim 5 (apparatus claims), all claim limitations in the claim body correspond to limitations found in patent method claim 6.
Note that “a shape of a corner of the medium” in the “detect a shape of a corner of the medium” step of claim 5 corresponds to “a degree of roundness at a corner of the medium” in the “detect a degree of roundness at a corner of the medium” step of patent claim 6.
Further, note that “a predetermined card” in the “determine” limitation of claim 5 is a broader term than the corresponding term “an ID card” of in the “determine” limitation of patent claim 6.
Claim 5 differs from patent claim 6 in the preamble. Claim 5, line 1 recites “A image processing apparatus”, whereas patent claim 6, line 1 recites “A method for determining whether a conveyed medium is an ID card.” However, the languages of the claim body of patent claim 6, i.e., “extracting edge pixels from the input image, detect two straight lines …… from the edge pixels, determine whether ……” show that the method of patent claim 6 is related to image processing, which would have been realized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of the instant claim 5 based on the patent claim 6 method.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claim limitations of claim 6 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 9, and the claim limitations of claim 7 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 10. Note that in the last limitation of each of claims 6 and 7, and in the last limitation of each of patent claims 9 and 10, “the shape of the corner” of claims 6 and 7 corresponds and relates to “the degree of roundness” of patent claims 9 and 10, and the “detects” and the “determines” of claims 6 and 7 and the “detected” of both patent claims 9 and 10, respectively, are “based on the second degree” of change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatuses of claims 6 and 7 based on the methods of patent claims 9 and 10, respectively.
Regarding claim 8/5, the claim limitation is found in patent claim 6.
Regarding claim 9 (an apparatus claim), all claim limitations correspond to limitations found in patent method claim 6.
Note that “a shape of a corner of the medium” in the “detect a state of a corner of the medium” of claim 5 corresponds to “a degree of roundness at a corner of the medium” in the “detect a degree of roundness at a corner of the medium” step of patent claim 6.
Further, note that “a predetermined card” in the “determine” step of claim 5 is a broader term than the corresponding term “an ID card” in the “determine” step of patent claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of the instant claim 9 based on the patent claim 6 method.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claim limitations of claim 10 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 9, and the claim limitations of claim 11 correspond to the limitations of patent claim 10. Note that in the last limitation of each of claims 10 and 11, and in the last limitation of each of patent claims 9 and 10, “the state of the corner” of claims 10 and 11 corresponds and relates to “the degree of roundness” of patent claims 9 and 10, and the “detects” of both claims 10 and 11 and the “detected” of both patent claims 9 and 10 are “based on the second degree” of change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatuses of claims 10 and 11 based on the methods of patent claims 9 and 10, respectively.
Regarding claim 12/9, the claim limitation is found in patent claim 6.
Pertinent Prior Art
5. The prior art or art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takita (US 12081710). When a multi-feed of a document is detected, an image reading device acquires a document width from image data generated by a reading unit reading a leading end portion of the document. The document width is a length of the document in a width direction intersecting a transport direction. When based on the document width, the size of the document corresponds to a specific size of a plastic card or an instant film, the image reading device does not execute error processing in response to an occurrence of the multi-feed, and when the size of the document does not correspond to the specific size, the image reading device executes the error processing.
Du et al. (US 2010/0135595 A1) discloses an image processing apparatus including an image photographing unit, and a control unit, wherein the control unit includes a document image acquiring unit that acquires a document image including at least an image of a document, a contour extracting unit that extracts a contour of the document from the document image, the extracting the contour being performed based on luminance, a distortion position detecting unit that detects a contour straight line located at a location where a distance between the contour and a center point of a rectangle having the minimum area surrounding the contour is shortest, the contour straight line being detected as a distortion position in the document, the contour straight line being located on the contour, and a corrected image generating unit that performs a geometric correction on the document image to extend the contour to a correction reference line determined from the distortion position, and generates a corrected image having the distortion in the document image corrected.
Eguchi et al. (US 2023/0269337 A1)
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUKFAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 a.m. - 6 p.m.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached at (571)272-7490. 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.
/CHEUKFAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights