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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. Examiner suggests that title maybe changed to provide more description regarding the instant invention. Therefore, a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “input control unit”, “determination unit, “control unit”, “scan control unit”, “obtaining unit”, and “arrangement unit” in claims 1-2, 5-7 and 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification, according to PG-Pub, shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
input control unit - CPU 301 creates, as a query for input to the generative AI, paragraphs 43, 61.
determination unit – CPU 301, paragraphs 65-69.
control unit – CPU 301, paragraphs 65-69.
scan control unit - CPU 301 controls a scan control unit 316 to cause the scanning unit 317 to optically read an original document, paragraphs 31, 40.
obtaining unit – CPU 301, paragraph 42.
arrangement unit – CPU 301, paragraphs 53-56.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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 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 1-5, 8-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., JP 2019-145023 in view of Yim, US 2025/0217412.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses an electronic device (document review server 10, paragraph 15) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions (memory such as a ROM and a RAM, paragraph 15); and at least one processor that, upon execution of the stored instructions (CPU executes a program stored in a ROM or the like, paragraph 15), is configured to function as:
an input control unit (control device 11, paragraph 15) configured that inputs processing target text to a processing system (document to be reviewed is acquired by the control device of document review server and is inputted into learned typographical detection model for analyses, paragraphs 26-27);
a determination unit (control device 11, paragraph 15) configured to compare the processing the input target text and first output from the processing system (document to be reviewed (target document) is compared with output “1” detected from the learned typographical detection model) and determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied (and based on this it is determined that a predetermined condition is satisfied such as “a character whose appearance probability is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold is detected in the target yard”, paragraph 27).
Takahashi fails to explicitly disclose inputting a processing instruction to a processing system; compare first text output from the processing system and determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied; and a control unit configured that outputs first text as a result of the processing instruction when the predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied, and outputs second text different from the first text when it is determined that the predetermined condition is not satisfied.
However, Yim teaches inputting a processing instruction to a processing system (queries can be inputted/submitted to processing system as shown in fig. 1, paragraphs 20, 27 and paragraph 33, “query completion engine 136 is configured to generate one or more refined queries based on the text fragment generated by OCR engine 110 or the modified text fragment generated by OCR correction engine 132. Query completion engine 136 can receive or otherwise obtain the original or modified text fragment and perform query completion to generate one or more refined queries”);
compare first text output (initial query results 142) from the processing system and determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied (initial query results based on the text search query are compared to see if they satisfy a predicted system task (predefined condition), paragraph 23, 37, 48);
and a control unit (components of computing environment 100 can be implemented by one or more computing devices, paragraph 25 with each having controllers, paragraphs 74, 85) configured that outputs first text as a result of the processing instruction when the predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied (if query results are determined to satisfy one or more predefined fulfillment condition, such as by meeting or exceeding a fulfillment threshold then the query results 142 as outputted are displayed on a results display 152 as a result of the unrefined query which satisfied the predetermined condition without having to generate the search results page with refined queries, paragraphs 36-37),
and outputs second text different from the first text when it is determined that the predetermined condition is not satisfied (if query results 142 do not fulfill the predicted task (i.e., predetermined condition is not satisfied) then one or more refined queries 144 are generated and corresponding query results 146 (i.e., second text) different from query results 142 (i.e., first text) on the results display 152, paragraph 38).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 2, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the input control unit transmits the processing target text and the processing instruction to the external system such that the processing target text and the processing instruction are input into the processing system which is provided in an external system (Yim, server computing system 260, fig, 2 is external to client computing system 205, wherein, input image and text with query refinement engine 230 transmit the target text and query to the server’s search platform 270, fig. 2 with corresponding paragraphs).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 3, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the processing system is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) system (Takahashi, learned typographical detection model, paragraphs 22, 27-29 and Yim also teaches, computing systems 2 include one or more machine-learned models 20. For example, the machine-learned models 20 can be or can otherwise include various machine-learned models such as neural networks (e.g., deep neural networks), paragraphs 75, 87).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 4, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the predetermined condition is a condition for determining whether the first text is a result of processing according to the processing instruction being performed as expected (Yim, predefined fulfillment condition such as by meeting or exceeding a fulfillment threshold is determined based on whether the query results 142 as outputted/displayed is a result of the unrefined query which satisfied the predetermined condition without having to generate the search results page with refined queries, paragraphs 36-37).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 5, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the input control unit inputs the processing target text and a second processing instruction obtained by changing the processing instruction to the processing system when it is determined that the predetermined condition is not satisfied, and the second text is text output from the processing system as a result of the second processing instruction (Yim, if query results 142 do not fulfill the predicted task (i.e., predetermined condition is not satisfied) then one or more refined queries 144 are generated with output text and changed/refined queries and the second/different query results 146 (i.e., second text) different from query results 142 (i.e., first text) on the results display 152 as a result of refined query processing’s, paragraph 34-38, 46). (for further details see paragraphs 55-57, 66-71).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 8, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the processing instruction is a query (Yim, “generate one or more refined queries based on the text fragment generated by OCR engine 110 or the modified text fragment generated by OCR correction engine 132. Query completion engine 136 can receive or otherwise obtain the original or modified text fragment and perform query completion to generate one or more refined queries”, paragraphs 33).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 9, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the query includes text requesting correction of an erroneous character of text (Yim, a first unrefined query can be passed to the search/assistant platform 170 using the original text 104 and a second unrefined query can be passed to the search/assistant platform including the modified text. Search/assistant platform 170 generates query results 142 in response to the unrefined query or queries and generates query results 142 which are passed back to the query refinement engine 130 so that system can detect and correct errors in the identified text, paragraphs 33-34, 20, 46).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 10, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the query includes text requesting summarization of text (Yim, a first unrefined query can be passed to the search/assistant platform 170 using the original text 104 and a second unrefined query can be passed to the search/assistant platform including the modified text. Search/assistant platform 170 generates query results 142 or results 146 in response to the unrefined query or refined queries based on summarization of kind of text sent, paragraphs 34-36).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 11, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the query includes text requesting abstraction of a specific character string in text (Yim, “system can detect certain keywords, phrases, or other indications of intent associated with a query. For example, the system can detect the keyword “definition” in the text fragment”, paragraph 31).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 12, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the query includes text requesting translation of text (Yim, “prediction engine 134 can detect the language of the text fragment and compare it to a default or other specified language for a region or location in which the user query originated. If the text is in a foreign language (i.e., is not in the default language for the region), the task prediction engine 134 can determine that the predicted task for the query is translation, paragraphs 31, 20).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 13, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein execution of the stored instructions further configures the at least one processor (Takahashi, CPU executes a program stored in a ROM or the like, paragraph 15) to operate as: an obtaining unit (Takahashi, control device 11, paragraph 15) configured to divide an image into a plurality of regions (Takahashi, document review server 10 divides the document to be reviewed into word units, paragraph 31 and Yim, “one or more segmentation models 68 can be utilized to segment one or more portions of the dataset from the one or more datasets. For example, the one or more segmentation models 68 may utilize one or more segmentation masks (e.g., one or more segmentation masks manually generated and/or generated based on the one or more bounding boxes) to segment a portion of an image…and/or a portion of text”, paragraph 108) on which character recognition processing is performed, and obtain, as the processing target text, text from each of the plurality of divided regions (Yim, perform optical character recognition (OCR) on image data to recognize text in an image and generate a text-based output, such as a text fragment including a plurality of characters including system can perform optical character recognition (OCR) on at least a portion (or all the segmented portions) of the image to generate a text fragment having a sequence of characters such as text from each of the plurality of segmented regions, paragraphs 16, 19).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 14, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein for each processing target text corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of regions, the input control unit performs control so as to input that processing target text and a processing instruction corresponding to text obtained from that respective one of the plurality of regions to the processing system (Yim, image processing task may be object detection, where the image processing output identifies one or more regions in the one or more images and, for each region, a likelihood that region depicts an object of interest. As another example, the image processing task can be image segmentation, where the image processing output defines, for each pixel in the one or more images, a respective likelihood for each category in a predetermined set of categories, paragraph 98, 108).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 17, it is a method version of claim 1 reciting similar features and thus is rejected on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of claim 1, see rationale as applied above. Note that non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught by Yim in paragraphs 6, 74, 85.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., JP 2019-145023 in view of Yim, US 2025/0217412 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Miyauchi, US 2022/0327850.
Regarding claim 7, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches a OCR engine 110, fig. 1 configured to perform control to scan an original, and the processing target text is text detected in the original scanned (Yim, perform optical character recognition (OCR) on image data (original digital document) to recognize text in an image according to OCR performed and generate a text-based output, such as a text fragment including a plurality of characters including system can perform optical character recognition on at least a portion of the image to generate a text fragment having a sequence of characters to identify text in an image and perform error correction to correct errors in the OCR, paragraphs 15-16, 19).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim fails to further teach scan control unit configured to perform control to scan an original document, and target text is text detected in the original document scanned according to control by the scan control unit.
However, Miyauchi scan control unit (scan control unit 302) configured to perform control to scan an original document, and the processing target text is text detected in the original document scanned according to control by the scan control unit (generating scanned image data by causing the scanner unit 122 to perform the document original reading operation via the scanner I/F unit 115 in accordance with the instructions to perform scan processing from the scan control unit 302 and in addition, image analysis processing, such as text block detection processing, OCR processing is performed for the scanned image data. The character string area that is detected from the scanned image is also called “text block”, paragraphs 42-43).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable with Miyauchi because they all teach performing image processing and image analysis on the image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Yim with the teachings of Miyauchi for the benefit of making it possible to appropriately perform updating of information that is used for the processing to set a property of a scanned image as taught by Miyauchi at paragraphs 160.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., JP 2019-145023 in view of Yim, US 2025/0217412 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Faaborg et al., US 2022/0114327.
Regarding claim 15, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches first text or the second text output from the processing system according to the processing target text (Yim, query results 142 or 146, paragraphs 36-38).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim fails to further teach an arrangement unit configured to arrange first text or second text output from processing system according to a layout.
However, Faaborg teaches an arrangement unit configured to arrange first text or second text output from processing system according to a layout (one layout interpretation model may thus be trained to determine current text that includes words arranged according to a layout, process the current text with the at least one layout interpretation model to determine the layout, and output the current text with the words arranged according to the layout, paragraphs 5-6, 77).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable with Faaborg because they all teach performing image processing and image analysis on the image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Yim with the teachings of Faaborg for the benefit of having at least one layout interpretation model may thus be trained to determine current text that includes words arranged according to a layout as taught by Faaborg at paragraph 5.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al., JP 2019-145023 in view of Yim, US 2025/0217412 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Hirayama et al., US 11,750,760.
Regarding claim 16, Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim further teaches wherein the input control unit (Yim, components of computing environment 100 can be implemented by one or more computing devices, paragraph 25 with each having controllers, paragraphs 74, 85) performs input, as the processing target text, text obtained by character recognition processing to the processing system (Yim, perform optical character recognition (OCR) on image data to recognize text in an image and generate a text-based output, such as a text fragment including a plurality of characters including system can perform optical character recognition (OCR) on at least a portion, paragraphs 16, 19).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable because they both teach correcting errors in the text image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi with the teachings of Yim for the benefit of implementing error correction techniques to correct recognized text with refined search queries for producing satisfying error correction results as taught by Yim at paragraphs 36-38.
Combination of Takahashi in view of Yim fails to further teach based on an amount of data in an image file, control as to whether to input, as target text, text obtained by first processing, or input the image file instead of the first processing.
However, Hirayama teaches based on an amount of data in an image file, control as to whether to input, as target text, text obtained by first processing, or input the image file instead of the first processing (wherein if the number of blocks having the statistical amounts greater than or equal to the set value is greater than or equal to the threshold, the output image data is generated by performing the first image processing with respect to the input image data instead of performing the second image processing with respect to the input image data, claim 8).
Takahashi and Yim are combinable with Hirayama because they all teach performing image processing and image analysis on the image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Yim with the teachings of Hirayama for the benefit of performing processing with respect to read image data that reduces the file size as much as possible while suppressing information loss as taught by Hirayama in summary section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cited prior arts and other related prior arts fail to teach all the limitations of claim 6 such as: “wherein the input control unit performs re-input processing that inputs the processing target text and a correction processing instruction obtained by changing the processing instruction to the processing system when it is determined that the predetermined condition is not satisfied, the determination unit compares the processing target text and text output from the processing system as a result of the correction processing instruction, and performs redetermination processing that determines whether the predetermined condition is satisfied, and the control unit generates an error notification indicating failure of processing according to the processing instruction when it is determined that the predetermined condition is not satisfied even when the re-input processing and the redetermination processing are performed a predetermined number of times”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang, US 2022/0292293
Osada et al., US 2019/0318190
Aravamudan et al., US 2012/0215533
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAWANDEEP DHINGRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/PAWAN DHINGRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights