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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 2-4, “an edge” and “the edge” is interpreted to refer to all sides that make up the border of the document, and not one single side of the document. This is required of claims 2-4 because feature points that correspond to the edge include points on orthogonal sides of the document.
In claim 5, the “document image” and “background image” are interpreted to be portions of the obtained image (consistent with para 11 of the specification and FIG. 2A), not two different images.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 1, claims 1-8 are machine (apparatus) claims and claim 9 is a process/method claim. Under Step 2A Prong One, all claims recite abstract ideas, specifically mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). These mental processes are more particularly recited in claim 1 as: extracts a feature point from the image; identifies a plurality of feature points arranged in a predetermined direction in the image as feature points that correspond to an edge defining a range of the document; sets an area outside the range of the document on the basis of the identified feature points; and removes the feature points in the set area. These steps can be performed in the human mind by looking at an image and visually identifying the edges of a document in the image, therefore also determining the area outside the document for removal. Claim 9 recites the same steps. Dependent claims 2-8 provide additional limitations that are further part of the abstract idea of determining the location of document edge points in the independent claims.
It is noted that the above analysis is according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Consider also that “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). See also footnotes 14 and 15 of the Federal Register Notice.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because each of claims 1-9 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional element of generating and/or obtaining an input image in claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 adds insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements (controller of claim 1; line image sensor and light source element groups of claim 2) are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) with respect to Mental Processes: “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer”. See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3) “Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(D), as well as the case law cited therein.
Under Step 2B, each of claims 1-9 do not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception as per MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III. In other words, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 2- 8, additional limitations are directed to the abstract idea of identifying the edge of a document in an image, which may be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper, as described above. The addition of further judicial exceptions does not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(I)).
For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1-9 recite a non-statutory mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyashita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0120236 A1), hereinafter Miyashita.
Regarding claim 1, Miyashita teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: a controller (Miyashita, para 47: “information processing apparatus 200”; see also processing device in para 41), wherein the controller:
obtains an image that is obtained by reading a document (Miyashita, para 38: “input image received from the image reading apparatus 100”);
extracts a feature point 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”);
identifies a plurality of feature points arranged in a predetermined direction in the image as feature points that correspond to an edge defining a range of the document (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);
sets an area outside the range of the document on the basis of the identified feature points (Miyashita, area that is not part of the document region, para 99: “The document region detector 228 detects a document region from the detected straight lines (step S214)”); and
removes the feature points in the set area (Miyashita, para 101: “The document region detector 228 generates a cut image by cutting a region corresponding to the detected document region from the input image and stores it in the second storage device 210 (step S215).”).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Miyashita teaches wherein the image is generated by using a line image sensor and light source element groups (Miyashita, para 27: “The image reading apparatus 100 is implemented as, e.g., a scanner. The image reading apparatus 100 is more particularly implemented as an ADF (Auto Document Feeder) scanner which transports a document and captures an image of the document”), a plurality of imaging elements being arranged along a first straight line in the line image sensor (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”), and the light source element groups being arranged along a second straight line that 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 the predetermined direction is parallel to the second straight line (Miyashita, the second straight line is parallel to the vertical sub-scanning direction, see para 87 and 97).
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Miyashita teaches wherein the feature points that correspond to the edge includes feature points that correspond to two sides of the document, the two sides being substantially parallel to the first straight line (Miyashita, 1001 and 1002 in FIG. 10, these sides are substantially parallel to the main scanning direction, or first straight line, para 89: “From the image 1000, a straight line 1001 corresponding to the upper side of the document is detected from edge pixels corresponding to the upper side of the document, and a straight line 1002 corresponding to the lower side of the document is detected from edge pixels corresponding to the lower side of the document”; para 97: “straight lines extending in the sub-scanning direction within the image can hardly be detected, while straight lines extending in the main scanning direction can easily be detected”).
PNG
media_image1.png
559
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Miyashita teaches further comprising: an image input device (Miyashita, part of the image reading apparatus), wherein the image input device includes a background portion 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”), and the image includes a background image corresponding to the background portion and a document image corresponding to the document (Miyashita, 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”).
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Miyashita teaches wherein the background is white (Miyashita, para 93: “The document backing 105 facing the imaging device 102 is black or white”).
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Miyashita teaches wherein the controller: calculates coordinates of the feature points extracted from the image; and extracts the feature points that correspond to a part of the edge defining the document range on the basis of 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 teaches wherein the controller: identifies pixels of the feature points extracted from the image; and extracts the feature points that correspond to a part of the edge defining the document range on the basis of 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 by Miyashita because the method steps of claim 9 are the same as the steps performed in claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita in view of Shustorovich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2016/0125613 A1), hereinafter Shustorovich.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 3), Miyashita teaches wherein when the two sides of the document that are substantially parallel with the first straight line are a first side and a second side, and in the image, straight lines that are separated from the feature points corresponding to the first side and the second side are 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), the feature points that correspond to a part of the edge 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 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 are 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_image2.png
545
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
231
360
media_image3.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. 2013/0120806 A1
U.S. Patent No. 2014/0177004 A1
U.S. Patent No. 2009/0268264 A1
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 9-5 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