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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-39 and 43-48 are currently subject to non-statutory double patent rejections, but are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer, these claims would be allowable.
Claims 40-42 and 49-53 are 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:
With regards to claims 40 and 49, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1), discussed below with respect to the rejection of parent claims 39 and 48. However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 does not recite the polar coordinates include a first norm of the center left point and a second norm of the center right point, wherein the first norm and the second norm include a vector of the center left point and the center right point, respectively.
With regards to claims 41-42 and 50-53, these claims depend from claims 40 and 50, respectively, and therefore incorporate the features of those claims that were found allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 34
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 1
An apparatus comprising:
An apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry;
interface circuitry to obtain an image of a document;
machine-readable instructions; and
machine readable instructions; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to at least:
programmable circuitry to execute the machine readable instructions to at least:
generate a bounding box around a first word in an image, the bounding box having a left side boundary and a right side boundary around the first word;
generate nodes … from text boxes
(See note 1 below)
generate a feature graph based on a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box; and
generate nodes for a feature graph based on features extracted from text boxes, the
nodes including polar coordinates indicative of angular positions of the text boxes;
(See note 2 below)
generate a line of text based on the feature graph, the line of the text including the first word and a second word, the second word included in the image.
pass the feature graph through a graph neural network to generate an adjacency matrix; and
identify text lines in the image of the document by clustering the nodes by line based on the adjacency matrix.
(See note 3 below)
Note 1: One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a text box is a bounding box around a word. Text boxes, by definition, have a left and right side.
Note 2: Kim Byung Jin discloses features comprising a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box at pp. 12-13 and pp. 15-16 of the English translation. At the time of filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features comprising a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box, as taught by Kim Byung Jin, as a substitute for the unspecified extracted features recited by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618. This combination is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The prior art contained a method, recited by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618, which differed from the claimed method by the substitution of the features used to describe the position of a text box. Using features comprising a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box, to describe the position of a text box were known in the art, as evidenced by Kim Byung Jin. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the text box features taught by Kim Byung Jin into the invention recited by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 and the results would have been predictable; to wit, nodes for a feature graph would be selected based on the selected features.
Note 3: One of ordinary skill in the art would infer a “line of text” to comprise more than one word, such as a sentence.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 35
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 2
The apparatus of claim 34, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to process the image to extract positional information of the first word.
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nodes further include cartesian coordinates of the text boxes.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 36
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 1
The apparatus of claim 34, wherein generation of the feature graph based on the first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box includes one or more of the at least one processor circuit to:
(See discussion of claim 1 above)
cause selection of an x-coordinate of a center left point of the bounding box; and cause selection of a y-coordinate of the center left point of the bounding box.
generate nodes for a feature graph based on features extracted from text boxes, the
nodes including polar coordinates indicative of angular positions of the text boxes;
(See note 1 below)
Note 1: Kim Byung Jin discloses causing selection of an x-coordinate of a center left point of the bounding box; and causing selection of a y-coordinate of the center left point of the bounding box. at pp. 12-13 and pp. 15-16 of the English translation. The motivation for the combination is the same as previously presented.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 37
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 2
The apparatus of claim 36, wherein generation of the feature graph based on the second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box includes one or more of the at least one processor circuit to:
(See discussion of claim 1 above)
cause selection of an x-coordinate of a center right point of the bounding box; and cause selection of a y-coordinate of the center right point of the bounding box.
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the nodes further include cartesian coordinates of the text boxes.
(See note 1 below)
Note 1: Kim Byung Jin discloses causing selection of an x-coordinate of a center right point of the bounding box; and causing selection of a y-coordinate of the center right point of the bounding box at pp. 12-13 and pp. 15-16 of the English translation. The motivation for the combination is the same as previously presented.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 38
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 1
The apparatus of claim 37, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine polar coordinates corresponding to the center left point and the center right point of the bounding box.
generate nodes for a feature graph based on features extracted from text boxes, the
nodes including polar coordinates indicative of angular positions of the text boxes;
(See note 1 below)
Note 1: Kim Byung Jin discloses features comprising a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box at pp. 12-13 and pp. 15-16 of the English translation. The motivation for the combination is the same as previously presented.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 39
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618
Claim 3
The apparatus of claim 38, wherein the polar coordinates include a first angle of the center left point and a second angle of the center right point.
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the programmable circuitry is to execute the machine readable instructions to calculate the polar coordinates of the text boxes based on the cartesian coordinates of the text boxes.
(See note 1 below)
Note 1: Kim Byung Jin discloses features comprising a first center point on the left side boundary of the bounding box and a second center point on the right side boundary of the bounding box at pp. 12-13 and pp. 15-16 of the English translation. The motivation for the combination is the same as previously presented.
With regards to claims 43-48, the steps stored in the computer readable mediums of these claims are obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,618 in view of Kim Byung Jin (Korean Pub. No. KR 102052033 B1) for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 34-39, respectively, which recites an apparatus performing these same steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm. 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights