DETAILED ACTION
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/08/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application 035571 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The file indicates the retrieval request was unsuccessful on receipt date 10/14/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024, 12/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by examiner.
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 limitations with associated structure and function are:
Claim 11:
“section” identified as the VCD processor 11, Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0030] and function described in prose within the specification in at least Fig 7 and specification ¶ [0162]-[0168].
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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-4 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.
Claims 2-4 each recite the limitation for “a transformation operation” while claim 1, in which each of claims 2-4 depends, claims “a transformation operation”. It is therefore unclear if the “transformation operation” of each of claims 2-4 are the same operation or a different operation from that recited in claim 1. Thus, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
No claims are dependent on claims 2-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazoe et al (US 2013/0108160) in view of Tanaka (US 2009/0324105, as identified in IDS 09/05/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazoe et al teach a recognition apparatus (character recognition device 1; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0066]-[0068]) comprising:
an image interface (input device 14; Fig 1 and ¶ [0067]-[0070]) that acquires a character string image including a character string from an input apparatus (the input device 14 receives and reads image data from a device, such as a camera, with the image containing characters to be recognized; Fig 1 and ¶ [0067]);
an input interface (communication module 16; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0067]) that inputs an operation signal to the input apparatus (communication module 16 transmits data to/from an external device; Fig 2 and ¶ [0067]); and
a processor (CPU 11 of computer system (character recognition device 1) used to perform method for character recognition; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0067]-[0068]) that
extracts a region of the character string from the character string image (the character region detection unit 103 detects a character region with characters to be recognized in the input image, S5; Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0074]),
acquires a size of the region (the image input region peripheral rectangular size and aspect ratio are obtained when detecting the character region by the character region detection unit 103, S5; Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0074]),
inputs a transformation operation of transforming the character string image based on the size to the input apparatus through the input interface (the character region separation unit 104 performs horizontal and vertical shear and rotation correction (transformation operation) of the characters in the image (image before correction A1, and image after character distortion correction A2), including consideration of region size of detected character line, S6; Fig 1, 3, 4 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]),
acquires the transformed character string image through the image interface (the character region separation unit 104 acquires the character string correction image A2 after correction, S6; Fig 1, 3, 4 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]),
performs character recognition processing on the transformed character string image (the character recognition unit 105 performs character recognition on each of the characters present in the separated regions of the correction image A2, S7; Fig 1, 3, 4 and ¶ [0081]), and
Yamazoe et al does not explicitly teach inputs the character string to the input apparatus through the input interface based on a result of the character recognition processing.
Tanaka is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches to inputs the character string to the input apparatus through the input interface based on a result of the character recognition processing (the OCR system 3 has a control 31 and is connected to the video coding system (VCS) 2 distribution 21 and the character string output from the OCR system 3 can be transmitted to the VCS 2; Fig 1 and ¶ [0026], [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al with Tanaka including to inputs the character string to the input apparatus through the input interface based on a result of the character recognition processing. By sending the character recognized image output from the OCR module to the video coding system, the video coding system may further perform coding processing with more accurate character recognition results, thereby improving efficiency of identifying an operator’s key entry accuracy, as recognized by Tanaka (¶ [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor acquires an orientation of the region, inputs, to the input apparatus, a transformation operation of rotating the character string image such that the orientation of the region is correct (Yamazoe et al, the angle of the character region is detected and based on the angle of the character line, the characters undergo a rotation correction by the character region separation unit 104 to correct the rotation distortion; Fig 1, 3, 4 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor acquires a position of the region, and inputs, to the input apparatus, a transformation operation of moving the character string image such that the region is in the character string image in a case where the region is out of view (Yamazoe et al, the position of the character region is detected and can include determining a plurality of overlapping segmented positions of the character string (region is out of view) and adjust the character string with shear deformation to create a space region between characters with the character region separation unit 104 so the characters may be clearly recognized by the OCR engine; Fig 1, 3, 4 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the character string image is an image for which character recognition processing has failed in another apparatus (Tanaka, the online OCR unit 11 of the sorting machine 1 attempts to perform OCR prior to the offline OCR machine 3 receiving the paper sheet image data to perform the character recognition processing; Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0031], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al with Tanaka including wherein the character string image is an image for which character recognition processing has failed in another apparatus. By incorporating an online and an offline OCR model, the sorting system has a quick method to perform sorting information recognition and a more detailed system to allow for advanced verification and identification, thereby improving the accuracy of performing character recognition for most situations, as recognized by Tanaka (¶ [0012], [0046]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the input interface connects to an emulator that emulates an operation terminal (Tanaka, the video coding system (VCS) 2 distribution 21 connects to video coding disks 22 (emulator, with sorting information input by an operator from a keyboard); Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0025], [0041]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al with Tanaka including wherein the input interface connects to an emulator that emulates an operation terminal. By using video coding disks, the operator’s key entry of information may be input , which may then be sorted for key entry and analyzed for accuracy and context verification, thereby improving efficiency of identifying an operator’s key entry accuracy, as recognized by Tanaka (¶ [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the character string is a destination (Tanaka, the on-line OCR 11 detects a destination from the characters (sorting mail with name and address; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0030]), and the region is a region of a form in which the destination is described (the destination region is identified as the sorting information as identified by the on-line OCR 11 detector; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al with Tanaka including wherein the character string is a destination, and the region is a region of a form in which the destination is described. By using a destination for the character data identified by OCR, sorting information may be identified and matched, thereby resulting in higher accuracy of the sorting destination by identification and verification using OCR, as recognized by Tanaka (¶ [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the image interface acquires an input screen including the character string image and an input field to which an operator inputs the character string (Tanaka, the distribution device 21 in VCS 2 obtains the image with characters, sent from the online OCR 11 and data from the VCD 22 representing the operator key entry information from the keyboard; Fig 1, 3 and ¶ [0077]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al with Tanaka including wherein the image interface acquires an input screen including the character string image and an input field to which an operator inputs the character string. By comparing the key entry information with the image character data, a verification process can be performed to confirm if the character data is correct, thereby improving accuracy of the characters used for the sorting information and resulting in improved accuracy and efficiency in the correct sorting, as recognized by Tanaka (¶ [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above), further comprising:
an operation interface connected to an operation unit (Tanaka, keyboard and mouse of VCD 22 are connected to the distribution device 21 of the VCS 2; Fig 1 and ¶ [0025], [0042]); and
a display interface connected to a display unit (Tanaka, the display (not numbered) is contained in the VCD and connected to distribution device 21; Fig 1 and ¶ [0025], [0042]),
wherein in a case where the character recognition processing has failed, the processor displays the character string image on the display unit through the display interface, and inputs, to the input apparatus, an operation signal indicating an operation input to the operation unit through the input interface (Tanaka, when the on-line OCR 11 failure occurs, a signal is sent from the sorting machine 1 to the distribution device 21 and along to the display of the VCD 22 to receive operator inputs by key entry regarding the coding processing which is then sent to the distribution device 21, thereafter distributed to the off-line OCR 3; Fig 1 and ¶ [0067]-[0068], [0076]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamazoe et al teach a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer (computer system (character recognition device 1) includes main storage device (RAM 12, ROM 13) for storing software instructions executed by CPU 11 to perform method for character recognition; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0067]-[0068]) to execute: steps according to claim 1 (as described above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazoe et al (US 2013/0108160) in view of Tanaka (US 2009/0324105, as identified in IDS 09/05/2024) and Takabayashi (US 2019/0279016).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka teach the recognition apparatus according to claim 1 (as described above).
Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein in a case where the size is smaller than a predetermined size, the processor inputs, to the input apparatus through the input interface, a transformation operation of enlarging the character string image such that the size of the region is the predetermined size.
Takabayashi is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches wherein in a case where the size is smaller than a predetermined size, the processor inputs, to the input apparatus through the input interface, a transformation operation of enlarging the character string image such that the size of the region is the predetermined size (the OCR engine 35 performs character recognition processing including character size, compared to a predetermined basic size, and the characters identified as smaller than the basic size undergo an enlargement processing, S150; Fig 1, 3, 5B and ¶ [0044],[0060], [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Yamazoe et al in view of Tanaka with Takabayashi including wherein in a case where the size is smaller than a predetermined size, the processor inputs, to the input apparatus through the input interface, a transformation operation of enlarging the character string image such that the size of the region is the predetermined size. By adjusting the size of a character to a size equivalent to a standardized size, character recognition may be more easily performed to correctly identify the given characters, thereby resulting in higher OCR processing accuracy, as recognized by Takabayashi (¶ [0003]-[0004], [0068]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed because of the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and a determination that the entirety of the applicant’s claimed invention of claim 11 is not taught by the prior art when considering the claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawabe (US 2020/0364449) teach an information processing apparatus including with an OCR processor used for character recognition and performing checking/correcting of character results.
Kimura et al (US 2021/0124970) teach an information processing apparatus including an OCR to recognize a text string including a probability of the recognition result and a single character probability analysis.
Suzuki (US 2012/0048925) teaches a code reading apparatus including a means to convert codes into a standardized size for accurate search and identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights