DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 08/06/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines the first pixels as being representative of a visible-light image of the document and the first complementary pixels as being representative of a remaining visiblelight image other than the document. Claim 1 similarly defines the second pixels as being representative of a transmitting light image of the document and the second complementary pixels as being representative of a remaining transmitting light image other than the document.
Consistent with these definitions, the Specification explains with respect to Fig. 4 that an original pixel determined to represent a physical portion of the document is classified into the combination of first pixel P1 and second pixel P2, whereas an original pixel determined to represent a non-physical portion of the document or a portion other than the document is classified into the combination of first complementary pixel P1′ and second complementary pixel P2′. The Specification further explains that P2 may be assigned 0% transmittance for a physical portion of the document, whereas P2′ may retain or be assigned 100% transmittance for a non-physical portion or a portion other than the document.
Claim 3, however, recites that the positions of the first pixels P1 are completely the same as the positions of the second complementary pixels P2′, while the positions of the second pixels P2 are completely the same as the positions of the first complementary pixels P1′. The claim thus appears to cross correlate pixels defined as representing the physical document with pixels defined as representing image information other than the document.
Although the Specification subsequently repeats this cross-positional relationship in connection with the embodiment in which the shadow image has been removed, the Specification does not clearly reconcile this relationship with its preceding Fig. 4 classification of physical document pixels as P1/P2 and non-document pixels as P1′/P2′. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 3 requires merely complete spatial registration of corresponding information in the visible-light and transmitting-light arrays, or instead literally requires the visible light document pixel positions to coincide with transmitting-light complementary/non-document-pixel positions and vice versa.
The uncertainty is further carried into claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 3 and respectively require the second pixels P2 to have 0% transmittance and the second complementary pixels P2′ to have greater than 0%, ultimately 100%, transmittance.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claims 3–5 are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2022/0124219 A1) in view of Peterson et al. (US 2018/0332239 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen discloses a scanner (Chen: ‘multi-mode scanning device 100’ ¶ [0022]),
Chen discloses a scanner including a scanning module for scanning a document. In particular, Chen discloses multi-mode scanning device 100 for scanning an original D, including non-transparent element 10, first light source 20, second light source 30 and optical module 40. Chen states that the architecture is applicable to sheet-fed and flatbed scanning and that, in the flatbed embodiment, non-transparent element 10 is a background sheet. Chen ¶[0022]. Chen further identifies the combination of first light source 20 and optical module 40 as scanning module 60. Chen ¶[0028], Figs. 1A–1D.
comprising:
a scanning module scanning a document to generate a first signal and a second signal, wherein the first signal is representative of a composite visible light image of the document and a background element, and the second signal is representative of a transmitting light image transmitting through the document;
Chen further teaches generating visible-light information representative of the original and background. First light source 20 outputs visible light VL to irradiate both the physical portion of non-transparent/background element 10 and original D, producing first and second reflected-light components received by optical module 40. The optical module generates sensing information including visible-light information representative of original D. Chen ¶¶[0022]–[0023], [0027].
Chen additionally teaches generating transmitting/invisible-light information. Second light source 30 and optical module 40 are disposed on opposite sides of non-transparent element 10 such that invisible light IVL penetrates the non-transparent element and either the hole/open portion or physical portion of original D. The physical document further decreases the intensity of the transmitted invisible light, whereas a fully transparent hole does not block the invisible light. Chen ¶[0028]. Thus, Chen obtains transmitting/invisible-light information distinguishing a physical portion of the document from a complementary/open portion.
Chen further teaches obtaining visible-light and invisible-light signals during scanning. The visible and invisible light sources may be concurrently turned on such that corresponding visible-light and invisible-light receiving units obtain visible-light and invisible-light signals. Chen ¶[0025].
a processor, which is electrically connected to the scanning module,
Chen further provides processor 50 for processing the acquired sensing information, including determining the contour of the document, and teaches that image processing may alternatively be carried out by a computer, peripheral, or server connected to the scanner. Chen ¶[0026].
generates a first final image file having first pixels and first complementary pixels according to the first signal, and generates a second final image file having second pixels and second complementary pixels according to the second signal, wherein the first pixels and the first complementary pixels are arranged in a rectangular array, the second pixels and the second complementary pixels are arranged in the rectangular array, the first pixels are representative of a visible light image of the document, the first complementary pixels are representative of a remaining visible light image other than the document, the second pixels are representative of the transmitting light image of the document, and the second complementary pixels are representative of a remaining transmitting light image other than the document; and an output port, which is electrically connected to the processor, and outputs the first final image file and the second final image file to an external device.
Chen further discloses pixel-level visible and transmitting/invisible-light information. In ¶[0030], Chen describes red, green and infrared sensing pixels indexed across the image sensor and determines the document contour from the sharp change in infrared intensity at the boundary from a portion with the original to a portion without the original. Chen further expressly provides separate visible-light and invisible-light scanned images in Figs. 5 and 6. Chen ¶¶[0030]–[0032].
Chen does not expressly disclose generating the visible-light information and transmitting/invisible light information as respective first and second final image files having the claimed document and complementary pixels arranged in corresponding rectangular arrays and outputting the two image files through an output port to an external device.
Peterson teaches receiving image information and generating two separate image files: an infrared image file and a visible-light image file. Peterson ¶[0115], Fig. 14. Peterson further teaches that the infrared image file contains pixel values at individual pixel locations and distinguishes a foreground/subject region from a background region, including identifying pixels as background, subject, or boundary pixels. Peterson ¶¶[0116]–[0117].
Peterson further teaches a two-dimensional pixel organization. Layer masks generated from the infrared image have a width and height, and each pixel includes location information such as (x,y) coordinates. Peterson ¶¶[0124], [0127]–[0128]. Peterson additionally teaches that the mask has the same width and height dimensions in pixels as the visible-light image and has a 1-to-1 positional correspondence with the visible image. Peterson ¶[0140]. Thus, Peterson teaches spatially corresponding rectangular image/pixel structures suitable for distinguishing subject/document information from complementary/background information.
Peterson also teaches a data interface 218 for transferring captured digital images from memory to another device, including controller 140 or computer 160, and identifies USB as an exemplary data interface. Peterson ¶[0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen such that the separately acquired visible-light and transmitting/invisible-light image information is maintained as respective visible-light and infrared image files having spatially corresponding document/subject and complementary/background pixel regions and is output to an external computing device, as taught by Peterson. Chen already acquires visible-light and transmitting/invisible-light information from the same document for distinguishing the document from surrounding or non-physical regions and expressly contemplates further image and contour processing in a connected computer, peripheral, or server. Peterson teaches a known technique for maintaining corresponding visible and infrared information as separate image files, organizing the image information by pixel location, classifying corresponding pixels into foreground/subject and complementary/background regions, and transferring digital image data to an external computing device.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to preserve the independently useful visible-light and transmitting/invisible-light information for subsequent pixel-based contour and background processing and to facilitate transfer of the corresponding image information to an external processing device.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1, wherein in the rectangular array, positions of the first pixels are not completely the same as positions of the second complementary pixels, and positions of the second pixels are not completely the same as positions of the first complementary pixels.
Peterson teaches that the visible-light image and infrared-derived mask are spatially registered, while separately identifying respective pixels as foreground/subject pixels and complementary/background pixels. Peterson ¶¶[0134]–[0135], [0140]. Thus, the locations occupied by subject/document pixels are not completely the same as locations occupied by complementary/background pixels in the corresponding image representations.
Chen additionally teaches that visible-light and infrared contour information need not produce identical boundary responses. Chen explains that differences in configuration location and angle between the infrared and RGB sensing pixels can produce differences at the left and right sides of the scanned document. Chen ¶[0030]. Chen further teaches that visible-light contour detection may be affected by document shadows, whereas invisible-light contour detection is easier because document/background contrast is higher. Chen ¶[0032], Figs. 5–6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen such that when Chen's visible-light and transmitting/invisible-light information is represented using Peterson's corresponding subject/document and complementary/background pixel organization.
The suggestion/motivation for doing is so the positions of the visible-light document pixels are not completely the same as the positions of the transmitting-light complementary/background pixels, and the positions of the transmitting-light document pixels are not completely the same as the positions of the visible-light complementary/background pixels.
Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1, wherein in the rectangular array, positions of the first pixels are completely the same as positions of the second complementary pixels, and positions of the second pixels are completely the same as positions of the first complementary pixels.
Peterson expressly teaches the claimed positional relationship. Peterson teaches that the infrared-derived mask has a 1-to-1 correspondence in position with the subject in the visible-light image and has the same width and height dimensions in pixels as the visible-light image, such that corresponding pixels may be aligned with one another. Peterson ¶[0140]. Each pixel further includes location information such as (x,y) coordinates. Peterson ¶[0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spatially register Chen's visible-light and transmitting/invisible-light information in the one-to-one corresponding pixel arrangement taught by Peterson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow the transmitting/invisible-light information identifying the document/background contour to be applied directly to the corresponding visible-light pixel locations, thereby facilitating contour determination, background removal and subsequent image processing.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 3, wherein the second complementary pixels has a transmittance greater than 0%, and the second pixels has a transmittance equal to 0%.
Chen discloses that invisible light passing through a hole/open portion of the document is not blocked by the hole, whereas invisible light passing through the physical document is further attenuated by the document. Chen ¶[0028]. Thus, Chen teaches transmitted-light intensity as a basis for distinguishing physical-document pixels from complementary/open or background pixels.
Peterson further teaches representing infrared image information by pixel values extending from a minimum value of 0, representing a completely dark pixel in which no infrared light was detected, to a maximum value of 255, representing a completely bright pixel in which the maximum detectable infrared light was detected. Peterson expressly teaches that background pixels are represented by bright infrared values while subject pixels are represented by dark values. Peterson ¶[0117].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to normalize Chen's transmitted-light pixel information using Peterson's known minimum/maximum endpoint representation such that pixels classified as physical-document pixels are assigned the minimum transmitting-light value, i.e., 0 or 0%, while complementary/open pixels through which transmitted light is detected are assigned a value greater than 0.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been would to simplify document/background classification and subsequent image processing while preserving the underlying information as to whether transmitted light is blocked by the physical document or passes through a complementary region.
Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 4, wherein the second complementary pixels has a transmittance equal to 100%.
Peterson discloses that a completely bright infrared pixel may be represented by the maximum value 255, and further teaches adjusting pixels identified as background pixels to the maximum value of 255 to provide uniform background values. Peterson ¶¶[0117], [0125].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to express the normalized maximum endpoint value as 100%, since 100% is the conventional percentage representation of the maximum normalized transmitting-light value. Thus, complementary/background pixels corresponding to locations of maximum transmission would be represented as having 100% transmittance, while the physical-document pixels remain represented at the opposite minimum endpoint..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a predictable selection of a conventional numerical scale for information already used by Chen and Peterson to distinguish physical/subject portions from complementary/background portions.
Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1, wherein the scanning module performs one-time scanning on the document to generate the first signal and the second signal.
Chen teaches that the visible-light source and invisible-light source may be concurrently turned on such that corresponding visible and invisible receiving units obtain visible-light and invisible-light signals during scanning. Chen ¶[0025].
Peterson even more expressly teaches a single image capture using an image-sensor array having both visible-light and infrared-light sensors, with the subject and background simultaneously illuminated with visible and infrared light. Peterson ¶[0112]. Peterson then generates the respective visible and infrared image files from that acquisition. Peterson ¶[0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Chen's dual-spectrum acquisition during one scanning pass as taught by Peterson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce acquisition time and maintain spatial registration between the visible and transmitting-light information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Peterson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1, wherein the first signal is representative of the composite visible light image of the document, the background element and a shadow of the document.
Chen expressly teaches that the scanned visible-light image includes shadows associated with the document. Specifically, Chen explains that visible-light contour detection may encounter problems because the document/background contrast is relatively low and because the upper portion of the original tends to have shadows, as shown in Fig. 5. Chen ¶[0032]. Thus, Chen expressly teaches a visible-light signal/image including the document, background and a shadow of the document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Peterson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
15. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torres (US 2020/0250415 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1,
Chen specifically teaches obtaining the document contour from the transmitting/invisible-light information and explains that invisible-light contour detection is advantageous because the contrast between the original and background is higher than in the visible-light image. Chen ¶¶[0030]–[0032].
Chen in view of Peterson do not expressly disclose wherein the processor further performs skew corrections on the visible light image according to one or multiple right-angle contour portions of the transmitting light image represented by the second signal.
Torres teaches identifying four corners of a paper document and determining whether lines connecting those corners intersect at angles falling within a tolerance around a ninety-degree right angle. When the corner angles meet the criterion, the identified corners define a quadrilateral and projective plane from which an inverse transformation is performed to de-skew the document image. Torres ¶¶[0027], [0033], Figs. 3A–4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known right-angle document-corner skew-correction technique of Torres to the high-contrast transmitting/invisible-light document contour obtained by Chen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to derive the right-angle document contour from Chen's higher-contrast transmitting-light information and use that contour to correct skew in the corresponding visible-light image to improve the reliability of document alignment and geometric correction.
Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson and further in view of Torres.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the processor further performs automatic cropping on the visible light image according to one or multiple right-angle contour portions of the transmitting light image represented by the second signal.
Torres discloses wherein the processor further performs automatic cropping on the visible light image according to one or multiple right-angle contour portions of the transmitting light image represented by the second signal.
Torres additionally teaches that, once the document corners/right-angle boundary have been determined, the portion of the image outside the identified rectangle or quadrilateral may be cropped to remove the background. Torres ¶¶[0027], [0033]; see also claim 5.
Chen, Peterson, & Torres are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the document corner/right-angle information from Chen's higher-contrast transmitting-light contour and apply Torres' known cropping operation to the corresponding visible-light image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reliably remove portions outside the physical document using the more accurately detected transmitting-light document boundary, thereby reducing background content and producing a cropped document image.
Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson and further in view of Torres.
16. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Peterson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 2016/0247256 A1).
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Chen in view of Peterson further discloses the scanner according to claim 1 (including corresponding visible-light and infrared/transmitting-light image files and output of image information to an external computing device, for the reasons discussed above),
Chen in view of Peterson does not expressly disclose wherein the processor further processes the first final image file and the second final image file into a multi-layer image file, and the output port further outputs the multi-layer image file to the external device.
Gupta discloses wherein the processor further processes the first final image file and the second final image file into a multi-layer image file, and the output port further outputs the multi-layer image file to the external device.
Gupta teaches separately maintaining first and second image portions in respective first and second image files and thereafter combining the first and second portions by positioning them in different layers of a multi-layer image. Gupta ¶[0029].
Gupta further teaches combining a first image and second image into a multi-layer image by obtaining pixels for a first layer from the first image and pixels for a second layer from the second image. Gupta accesses digital image files for the respective images and generates a new image file defining area coordinates and a layer coordinate for each pixel. Gupta ¶[0057].
Gupta further expressly teaches, by a processing device, creating a first layer of a multi-layer image from a first image and a second layer from a second image. Gupta ¶[0078]. Gupta thereafter teaches exporting the resulting multi-layer image file, including transmitting the multi-layer image file to another computing device. Gupta ¶[0081].
Chen, Peterson & Gupta are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the scanner of Chen in view of Peterson such that the separately generated visible-light image file and transmitting/invisible-light image file are processed into respective layers of a multi-layer image file, as taught by Gupta, and to output the resulting multi-layer image file to an external device..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to consolidate the related visible-light and transmitting-light image information into a single transferable file while retaining the respective image data in separate layers for independent or subsequent processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen and Peterson with Gupta to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amirsolaimani (US 2023/0043439) discloses a wearable display device including a light source, a beam scanner, a pupil-replicating lightguide, and a detector. The light source is configured to emit an image beam and a ranging beam. The beam scanner co-scans both beams. The image beam is used to form an image in angular domain for displaying to a user of the wearable display device, and a ranging beam is used to scan outside environment at the same time. Light reflected from objects in the outside environment is detected by the detector, and a 3D map of the outside environment is built using time-of-flight measurements of the reflected signal and/or triangulation. For triangulation measurements, the detector may include a digital camera.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights