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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-094285, filed on 06/11/2024 and Application No. JP2023-187949 filed on 11/01/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4: recites “a digit separator line is set as a column region”. It should read as “the digit separator line is set as the column region” (emphasis added with underline) as “a digit separator line” and “a column region” are previously defined in claim 3 on which claim 4 claims dependency.
Claim 9: recites “a digit separator line. It should read as “the digit separator line” as a digit separator is previously defined in claim 8 on which claims 9 claims dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 7 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohma (US 20230078322 A1; hereafter referred to as Sohma) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20160005202 A1; hereafter referred to as Yamanaka).
Regarding Claim 1, Sohma teaches:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
a scanner to read a document and generate first image data of the document (Sohma, [0042] An SCNU 110 is a scanner (a reading unit) that reads an original document or the like to generate image data”); and
circuitry configured to:
detect a digit separator line in the first image data separately from another ruled line (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 described above, in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2 and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”); and
remove the digit separator line from the first image data (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line”).
However, Sohma does not explicitly teach
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits;
In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches:
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits (Yamazaki, [0137] “The six recognized cells are identified as the separate recognized cells by ruled lines for dividing the digits of the numbers. In this case, the coupling of the recognized cells is performed in order to facilitate the edition of the recognized characters….the ruled lines mean “the division of the digits of the numbers”).
Sohma and Yamazaki are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sohma with the invention of Yamazaki to make the invention that used a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits as the digit separator line; doing so can yield predictable results by displaying digits/characters without ruled lines between digits/characters; thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 2, Sohma in view of Yamazaki teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
detect a table region in the first image data (Sohma, Fig. 7A1, A2, B1, B2, [0056] “A document classification/extracted item selection process 221 performs document classification on the scanned document image 201 based on the content of the character recognition result information 202 ….the document classification/extracted item selection process 221 classifies documents into a receipt, an invoice, a delivery note, a report, a quotation, or the like as document classification contents and determines an extracted item such as a total price, a date, or the like in accordance with the content of each document classification”);
detect a column region in the table region (Sohma, Fig. 7A1, A2, B1, B2);
detect said another ruled line (Sohma, The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image)”); and
detect the digit separator line based on detection results of the table region, the column region, and said another ruled line (Sohma, [0082] “The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402”).
Regarding Claim 6, Sohma in view of Yamazaki teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to switch whether to remove the digit separator line (Sohma, [0082] “the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 …and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”).
Regarding Claim 7, Sohma in view of Yamazaki teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit second image data via a network to an external device external to the image processing apparatus, the second image data being obtained by removing the digit separator line from the first image data (Sohma, [0040] “A GPU 108 creates an image of a display content through calculation or calculates a display position or the like in accordance with a display instruction or a calculation instruction provided via the bus 105 in cooperation with the CPU 101 or the like and transmits the calculation result to a display device 109 for rendering the same. The calculation result may also be returned to the CPU 101 via the bus 105 to perform a calculation process in cooperation with the CPU 101”; Yamazaki, “[0105] After the completion of the processing of FIG. 9, the state is brought into a state where the selection of another recognized cell by the user is waited for. In the case where the user instructs the reception unit 305 to transmit the edited scan image to another apparatus, the control unit 303 cancels the state where the selection is waited for. Then, the control unit 303 makes the transmission/reception unit 301 transmit the edited scan image stored in the storage unit 302 to another apparatus”).
Regarding Claim 10, Sohma teaches:
An image processing method comprising:
reading a document and generate first image data of the document (Sohma, [0042] An SCNU 110 is a scanner (a reading unit) that reads an original document or the like to generate image data”); and
detecting a digit separator line in the first image data separately from another ruled line (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 described above, in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2 and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”); and
removing the digit separator line from the first image data (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line”).
However, Sohma does not explicitly teach
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits;
In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches:
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits (Yamazaki, [0137] “The six recognized cells are identified as the separate recognized cells by ruled lines for dividing the digits of the numbers. In this case, the coupling of the recognized cells is performed in order to facilitate the edition of the recognized characters …. the ruled lines mean “the division of the digits of the numbers”).
Sohma and Yamazaki are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sohma with the invention of Yamazaki to make the invention that used a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits as the digit separator line; doing so can yield predictable results by displaying digits/characters without ruled lines between digits/characters; thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 11, Sohma teaches:
A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of program codes which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method (Sohma, [0213] “a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of”), the method comprising:
reading a document and generate first image data of the document (Sohma, [0042] An SCNU 110 is a scanner (a reading unit) that reads an original document or the like to generate image data”); and
detecting a digit separator line in the first image data separately from another ruled line (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 described above, in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2 and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”); and
removing the digit separator line from the first image data (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line”).
However, Sohma does not explicitly teach
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits;
In the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches:
the digit separator line being a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits (Yamazaki, [0137] “The six recognized cells are identified as the separate recognized cells by ruled lines for dividing the digits of the numbers. In this case, the coupling of the recognized cells is performed in order to facilitate the edition of the recognized characters …. the ruled lines mean “the division of the digits of the numbers”).
Sohma and Yamazaki are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sohma with the invention of Yamazaki to make the invention that used a vertical ruled line that divides a numerical value by one digit or three digits as the digit separator line; doing so can yield predictable results by displaying digits/characters without ruled lines between digits/characters; thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohma (US 20230078322 A1; hereafter referred to as Sohma) in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20160005202 A1; hereafter referred to as Yamanaka) further in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20240386735 A1; hereafter referred to as Aggarwal).
Regarding Claim 3, Sohma in view of Yamazaki teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 2, but does not explicitly recite:
wherein the circuitry is configured to input, into a learned model, image data of the table region extracted from the first image data of the document to infer the column region.
In the same field of endeavor, Aggarwal teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to input, into a learned model, image data of the table region extracted from the first image data of the document to infer the column region (Aggarwal, [0032] “A portion of an input image may become a cell ROI when an algorithm executing on the computing system identifies the portion of the input image as potentially being a table, a cell, or a group of cells”; Aggarwal, [0027] “The image quality check 206 may be implemented using a machine learning model” [0028] “A line removal module may remove spurious horizontal and vertical lines that may otherwise be erroneously detected as table cells”).
Sohma, Yamazaki and Aggarwal are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sohma in view of Yamazaki with the invention of Aggarwal to make the invention that extracts table region from the first image data of the document to infer the column region; doing so can yield predictable results by extracting tabular data in an editable format (Aggarwal, [0022]); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 4, Sohma in view of Yamazaki further in view of Aggarwal teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the learned model has learned from teacher data in which a region including a digit separator line is set as a column region (Aggarwal, [0049] “further comprising preprocessing the input image to generate a stencil image consisting of horizontal and vertical lines that represent a layout of the first table and the second table”).
Regarding Claim 5, Sohma in view of Yamazaki further in view of Aggarwal teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to:
monochromatize the first image data (Sohma, [0048] A document image process 211 is a processing section for a function of performing adjustment of the concentration or the color of the entire image, binarization for character recognition”; [0081] “the CPU 101 performs a binarization process. The CPU 101 creates an image binarized (monochrome) from the scanned document image 201 in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2”); and
detect the digit separator line in the monochromatized first image data (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 described above, in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2 and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”).
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohma (US 20230078322 A1; hereafter referred to as Sohma) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20240386735 A1; hereafter referred to as Aggarwal).
Regarding Claim 8, Sohma teaches:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
a scanner to read a document and generate first image data of the document (Sohma, [0042] An SCNU 110 is a scanner (a reading unit) that reads an original document or the like to generate image data”);
circuitry configured to:
circuitry configured to output second image data obtained by removing a digit separator line from the first image data (Sohma, [0082] “Next, in S403, the CPU 101 is a section to perform a process of removing a ruled line. The CPU 101 detects a ruled line from the image (binarized image), which is the process result of S402 described above, in accordance with the document image process 211 of FIG. 2 and creates an image in which removal treatment is performed on an image part corresponding to the detected ruled line”; Sohma, [0054] “The character recognition result information 202 is mainly formed of a character recognition result that is output of the character recognition process 212 and an image of a process result of the document image process 211”);
However, Sohma does not explicitly recite:
circuitry configured to output second image data obtained by removing a digit separator line from the first image data using a learned model;
In the same field of endeavor, Aggarwal teaches:
circuitry configured to output second image data obtained by removing a digit separator line from the first image data using a learned model (Aggarwal, [0027] “The image quality check 206 may be implemented using a machine learning model”; Aggarwal, [0028] “A line removal module may remove spurious horizontal and vertical lines that may otherwise be erroneously detected as table cells”; Aggarwal, [0048] “ generating an output file based on the cell parameter information of the plurality of cells”).
Sohma and Aggarwal are considered analogous art as they are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sohma with the invention of Aggarwal to make the invention that uses a leaned model to remove digit separator line form the first image; doing so can yield predictable results by performing image quality check using machine learning model (Aggarwal, [0027]); thus one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references.
Regarding Claim 9, Sohma in view of Aggarwal teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the learned model has learned from teacher data including a digit separator line (Aggarwal, [0027] “The image quality check 206 may be implemented using a machine learning model” [0028] “A line removal module may remove spurious horizontal and vertical lines that may otherwise be erroneously detected as table cells”; [0048] “ generating an output file based on the cell parameter information of the plurality of cells”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200396346 A1 CHARACTER LINE DIVISION APPARATUS AND METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM The character line division apparatus has character line contact determination unit configured to determine whether a character line of interest comes into contact with another character line in the height direction, count value derivation unit configured to derive a count value of the number of black pixels in the width direction in the character line of interest in the character line of interest determined to come into contact with another character line, and character line division unit configured to perform character line division for the character line of interest determined to come into contact with another character line on the periphery of a reference point derived from the character line information and the character height information by taking a first position at which the count value becomes a minimum in the height direction of the character line of interest as a character line division position.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU whose telephone number is (571)270-0273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
VAISALI RAO. KOPPOLU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/VAISALI RAO KOPPOLU/
Examiner of Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights