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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112 rejection, applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejection, applicant argues that text lines be recognized on several bases. Further applicant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer technology.
The examiner disagrees. While the claims claim various character data information, the usage of such information in the system is simply “based on” and is therefore recited at a high level of generality and do not describe an algorithm operating on that data. Further, because of the lack of algorithm, the claims are essentially an instruction to “apply it” and do not recite an improvement to computer technology or a practical application.
Claim 6 comes closest to overcoming the 101 rejection. However, the determination of the certain condition is not positively recited. The examiner believes that a positive recitation of the determination of the certain condition would advance prosecution. The examiner is unable to provide further guidance at this stage, unfortunately.
With respect to the art rejection, applicant argues that Long does not “establish any disclosure of a quantity represent the spacing between the text lines, or the angle of a text line, determined at the position of each individual character.”
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s characterization of the claims. The claims do not require a “quantity representing the spacing between the text lines or the angle of a text line.” Instead the claims recite “extract … interline scale information of each character, and orientation of each character from an image.” Long Figs 1-3 illustrate an angled sign as well as a what amounts to three lines in “golden sea
restaurant seafood
& bar”.
In correctly recognizing the text from the sign, Long would have extracted interline scale information in order to determine that the sign has three lines and to correctly associate each character with their respective line. Further, “golden sea” is angled while other characters are not and in order to properly transcribe the letters, information regarding the orientation of each character is determined.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas, (groups a, b - 2019 PEG)
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system, as in independent Claim 1 and in the therefrom dependent claims. Such terminals fall under the statutory category of "machine." Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A: The invention is directed to reading text which is akin to a mental process, As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
include a deep learning model trained to extract character area information, inter-character space area information, interline scale information of each character, and orientation information of each character from an image including text;
obtain word division information obtained by dividing characters included in the image into word units based on the character area information and inter-character space area information;
recognize text lines in the image based on the character area information, interline scale information, and orientation information;
obtain layout information of the text included in the image based on the recognized text lines; and
recognize each of the character included in the image and obtain text data in which the recognized characters are aligned based on the word division information and the layout information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"). Thus, under Step 2A of the Mayo framework, the Examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B.
Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in Claim 1 no additional steps to those deemed to be abstract idea(s).
In the instant case, Claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
The additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea include
a processor
Looking to MPEP 2106.05 (d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097,
1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, Examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
The remaining dependent claims—which impose additional limitations—also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-8 these dependent claim have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claim(s) have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, they are invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims for the other statutory classes are similarly analyzed.
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 1-5, 9-13 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US 2025/0022301, Long et al. (hereafter Long)
1. A character recognition system comprising:
At least one processor configured to: (Long ¶116 processor)
Extract, using a deep learning model trained to extract character area information, inter-character space area information, interline scale information of each character, and orientation information of each character from an image including text; (Long ¶7-8 machine learning, ¶10-12, Figs 1-3. Which looks at bounding boxes for space information, scale and orientation information)
obtain word division information obtained by dividing characters included in the image into word units based on the character area information and inter-character space area information; (Long ¶11 word entities)
recognize text lines in the image based on the character area information, interline scale information, and orientation information; (Long ¶16-17 text line)
obtain layout information of the text included in the image based on the recognized text lines; and (Long ¶50 orientation)
recognize each of the character included in the image and obtain text data in which the recognized characters are aligned based on the word division information and the layout information. (Long ¶71 character and word recognition)
2. The character recognition system of claim 1, wherein the character area information comprises information about an area in which a character is inferred to be located from among areas in the image, the inter-character space area information comprises information obtained by inferring a space area existing between adjacent characters, the interline scale information comprises information related to spacing between text lines determined at each position of the characters, and the orientation information comprises information about an angle of a text line determined at each position of the characters. (Long Fig 3., ¶71-73, 83-88, space, spacing, orientation of angled text for the characters)
3. The character recognition system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: define respective element areas for characters determined based on the character area information; and recognize the text lines in the image based on whether the defined element areas are connected or overlapped with each other. (Long Fig 3 bounding boxes and text lines)
4. The character recognition system of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: define a first element area corresponding to an initial element area for each of the characters determined based on the character area information; and cluster the characters into a text line candidate set based on whether the defined first element areas are connected or overlapped with each other, wherein a center position of the first element area corresponds to a center position of a corresponding character, and a rotation angle of the first element area corresponds to orientation information of the corresponding character. (Long Fig 3 bounding boxes and rotation)
5. The character recognition system of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: cluster the characters into a text line candidate set based on whether second element areas obtained by increasing a size of the first element areas are connected or overlapped with each other; and recognize text lines for the characters included in the image based on a clustering result. (Long Fig 3 text lines)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 would be allowable over the prior art if the other rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
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 Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 571-272-38383838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
