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
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2023-181868 dated 10/23/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/08/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/08/2026. Additionally, the claim interpretations set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/08/2026 are withdrawn, in light of the claim amendments. Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, the new ground of rejection is based on newly introduced reference Welinder et al., which is more similar to the interpretation of the claims argued in the Remarks filed 09/08/2026 than the teachings of Miyashita. However, the Examiner notes that Miyashita still teaches the argued elements (see section C on pg. 11-14 of the Remarks) within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Under MPEP 2111, claims are interpreted based on “their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Applicant argues the following on pg. 11 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
111
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation “set an area” is broadly claimed and lacks detail that excludes the document cutting/segmentation operation taught by Miyashita. Miyashita’s image processing method processes an image containing a document. By identifying where the document region is, performed in para 99 of Miyashita, a document region is set, and at the same time, an area outside that region is also “set” by not being part of the document region. Further details regarding what image processing steps constitute the “set an area” step are absent from the current claims.
Applicant also argues the following on pg. 12 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
173
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In a similar way to the previous argument, this step lacks requirements that distinguish the claims from a general segmentation of a region from an image. Cutting a specific region from an input image includes removing all features outside that specific region – that is what the cutting step does; otherwise, the region of interest would not be separated from the surrounding regions/features. At the very least, if targeted features, such as dust or other noise, aren’t detected within the surrounding document area, features of the background and border of the image is removed.
Applicant also argues the following on pg. 13 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image3.png
405
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., underlined portions in the screenshot above) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
In conclusion, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued claim limitations includes the image processing taught by Miyashita and similar generic document segmentation methods, the Examiner introduces a reference more similar to Applicant’s interpretation set forth in the Remarks filed 09/08/2026.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 4, Shustorovich is still relied upon to teach some of the elements argued in the Remarks (see pg. 14-15 of the Remarks filed 09/08/2026). Applicant argues the following on pg. 15 of the Remarks:
PNG
media_image4.png
332
893
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adding features points; a set of expanded feature points) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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).
Claim 4 only requires that feature points corresponding to the sides of the document include feature points between the side of the document and a virtual line, with no further detail distinguishing this feature from the cited prior art. In the examples provided by Shustorovich, feature points residing between side and virtual lines are considered as potential document side/edge points. The claim does not require that points residing on the document side itself cannot be included in this set of feature points, and thus, the claim does not require “adding to the feature points corresponding to the two sides.” In view of the foregoing, the teachings of Shustorovich in the claim 4 rejection are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0120236 A1), hereinafter Miyashita, in view of Welinder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2018/0024974 A1), hereinafter Welinder.
Regarding claim 1, Miyashita teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
an image input device that reads a document and generates an image (Miyashita, image reading apparatus, para 27: “The image reading apparatus 100 is implemented as, e.g., a scanner…transports a document and captures an image of the document”); and
one or more controllers (Miyashita, para 47: “information processing apparatus 200”; see also processing device in para 41), wherein the image input device includes:
a line image sensor including a plurality of imaging elements that is arranged along a first straight line (Miyashita, para 30: “The imaging device 102 includes a reduction optical system image sensor including image sensing elements implemented as CCDs (Charge Coupled Devices) linearly arrayed in the main scanning direction”),
a light source element group including a plurality of light source elements that is arranged along a second straight line which is orthogonal to the first straight line (Miyashita, para 92: “the light source 103 emits light as tilted with respect to a direction perpendicular to the transported document”), and
a background portion that is white (Miyashita, para 93: “The document backing 105 facing the imaging device 102 is black or white”) and that serves as a background of the document when the image input device captures the image of the document (Miyashita, para 93: “document backing 105 is a color reference board, and is used as a backing member of the document and a background reflective surface”; the document backing is in the input image, para 40: “The second CPU 220 extracts edge pixels corresponding to the boundary between a document and a document backing from the input image using a threshold and detects a document region from the edge pixels”), wherein the one or more controllers:
obtain the image generated by the image input device (Miyashita, para 38: “input image received from the image reading apparatus 100”);
extract a plurality of feature points from the image (Miyashita, edge pixels, para 40: “The second CPU 220 extracts edge pixels corresponding to the boundary between a document and a document backing from the input image”);
identify, among the plurality of feature points, first feature points, that are arranged in a direction substantially parallel to the first straight line, as feature points that correspond to two sides of the document, the two sides being substantially parallel to the first straight line and forming a part of an edge defining a document range (Miyashita, 1003-1006 – pixels arranged in a vertical direction that correspond to the left and right edges of the document, para 89: “the document region detector 228 extracts a left end 1003 and a right end 1004 from the straight line 1001 corresponding to the upper side of the document and extracts a left end 1005 and a right end 1006 from the straight line 1002 corresponding to the lower side of the document”; see also para 68).
PNG
media_image5.png
559
439
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While Miyashita teaches image processing steps for setting document and non-document areas to extract the document region in the image (see para 99-101 of Miyashita and the Response to Arguments section above), Miyashita fails to explicitly teach the following amended portions of claim 1: set an area outside the document range based on the first feature points that correspond to the two sides; and remove, among the plurality of feature points, feature points that are located in the area outside the document range; and detect the document range based on feature points, among the plurality of feature points, that remain after the feature points located in the area outside the document range are removed.
However, Welinder similarly teaches an image processing method detecting a document range (Welinder, para 29: “For example, the document enhancement system receives an image frame in response to a user of a mobile device selecting a shutter button associated with a live image feed from a camera on the mobile device. In at least one embodiment, the document enhancement system identifies a displayed document portrayed in the image frame, or in other words, the digital document enhancement system detects a digital representation of a real-word physical document within the image frame”). Within this method, Welinder teaches the following steps:
set an area outside the document range based on the first feature points that correspond to the two sides (Welinder, para 30: “Furthermore, in at least one embodiment, the document enhancement system crops an image frame with respect to a displayed document within the image frame. For example, the document enhancement system crops the image frame by determining a boundary (e.g., perimeter) of the displayed document, and removing portions of the image frame located outside the boundary”); and
remove, among the plurality of feature points, feature points that are located in the area outside the document range (Welinder, “removing” step in para 30 above); and
detect the document range based on feature points, among the plurality of feature points, that remain after the feature points located in the area outside the document range are removed (Welinder, cropping of the document within the image frame in para 30 above; example result shown in FIG. 5C, attached below).
PNG
media_image6.png
495
345
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Miyashita discloses a base method for extracting a document region from an image, but does not explicitly specify the specific steps for detecting the document in the portions of amended claim 1 described above. However, Welinder teaches the known technique of detecting a document in an image by removing portions of the image outside a document region. A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, could have applied the known technique, as taught by Welinder, in the same way to the method of Miyashita and achieved predictable results of detecting and extracting a document region in an image.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Miyashita in view of Welinder teaches wherein the one or more controllers: calculate coordinates of the plurality of feature points extracted from the image, and extract the feature points that correspond to a part of the edge defining the document range based on the coordinates (Miyashita, the position/coordinates of the extracted pixels are utilized to localize edge pixels, visualized in FIG. 7, and required to cut out the document in step S215; see also pixel extraction based on position in para 66-67).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Miyashita in view of Welinder teaches wherein the one or more controllers: identify pixels of the plurality of feature points extracted from the image, and extract the feature points that correspond to a part of the edge defining the document range based on the pixels (Miyashita, extracted edge pixels, para 40: “The second CPU 220 extracts edge pixels corresponding to the boundary between a document and a document backing from the input image using a threshold and detects a document region from the edge pixels”).
Regarding claim 9, all claim limitations are met and rendered obvious by Miyashita in view of Welinder because the method steps of claim 9 are the same as the steps performed in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Welinder, in further view of Shustorovich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0125613 A1), hereinafter Shustorovich.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), Miyashita in view of Welinder teaches wherein:
the two sides of the document that are substantially parallel to the first straight line are a first side and a second side (Miyashita, see para 89, cited in claim 1),
in the image, straight lines that are separated from the feature points corresponding to the first side and the second side include a first virtual straight line and a second virtual straight line (Miyashita, horizontal and vertical lines that are a predetermined distance from determined sides of the document, para 74: “the second document region detector 224 determines whether or not there is an edge pixel in each vertical line in a region 805 within the predetermined distance from a side 803 near the corner 801”; further explained in para 75), and
the feature points that correspond to the two sides further include:
feature points between a straight line, obtained by extending the first side, and the first virtual straight line, and feature points between a straight line, obtained by extending the second side, and the second virtual straight line (Miyashita, edge pixels in the region between the side and virtual line are detected, see para 74-75 and FIG. 8; because each horizontal and vertical line is examined, all feature points in the area when a straight line is extended beyond the regions shown in FIG. 8 are determined).
Miyashita fails to explicitly teach wherein the first virtual straight line and the second virtual straight line are parallel to the first side and the second side. However, Shustorovich similarly teaches a method for detecting the edges of a document (Shustorovich, abstract) and in the image, straight lines that are separated from the feature points corresponding to the first side and the second side and that are parallel to the first side and the second side include a first virtual straight line and a second virtual straight line (Shustorovich, 502-604 in FIGs. 5-6 and 802 and 804 in FIG. 8 include virtual straight lines along the edge of the document that are separated from first and second sides and are parallel to the sides; para 108: “Corresponding right and left bounds may be defined for side regions 302, 304, 502 and 504 and searches for respective left and right document edges may be performed in the corresponding portions of the image frame”). Since the entire region of interest is searched for feature points, feature points between the sides and respective virtual straight lines are identified to determine the range of the document and areas outside that range.
PNG
media_image7.png
545
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
231
360
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As demonstrated above, Miyashita searches line by line for additional feature points that might correspond to the edge of the document. Shustorovich teaches a method for searching a smaller region of interest around areas that contain the edge of the document. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the method of Shustorovich with the image processing apparatus of Miyashita in order to improve the computational efficiency of the method (Shustorovich, narrowing the search area makes the method more computationally efficient, para 184: “In this manner, operation 1408 may operate as a “narrowing” of the defined region of interest to facilitate, e.g. more accurate, consistent edge detection, more computationally efficient edge detection, etc. as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art upon reading the present descriptions”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 2019/0356789 A1
U.S. Patent No. 2016/0286080 A1
U.S. Patent No. 7,010,745 B1 (Applicant: SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA)
U.S. Patent No. 2019/0141213 A1 (Applicant: SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EMMA E DRYDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 EST.
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, ANDREW BEE can be reached at (571) 270-5183. 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.
/EMMA E DRYDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights