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 .
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 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.
Claim 1-2, 10, 12-13, 14, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kanagasabai et. al. (United States Patent US 11,954,931 B1) in view of Tang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 117523586 A).
The applied reference has a common applicant and assignee (Xerox Corporation) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Kanagasabai et. al. discloses a method and multi-function device for detecting a security mark embedded in a colored media document, the method and multi-function device executing instructions to perform operations comprising: extracting a region of the colored media document, wherein the region comprises a location of the colored media document (Kanagasabai et. al. Abstract, col 5, lines 15-20: The IR security mark includes one or more security texts and/or images which is further covered or hidden by a pattern that the user cannot see it with naked eyes. col 6, lines 43-56: the scanner generates the scanned data in any desired color space/format for further processing. Col 7 lines 39-47: Once all 8 regions of interest/locations are identified, the 8 regions of interest are extracted from the scanned data. The security mark detection model then identifies which region of interest includes the IR security mark.); analyzing color values associated with a color channel of the extracted region (Kanagasabai et. al. col 6, lines 43-56: The security mark detection module converts the received scanned data/image from the RGB color space to a LAB color space (CIELAB color space).; determining, based on the analysis, at least one foreground threshold value and at least one adjacent foreground threshold value, wherein the foreground threshold value and the adjacent foreground threshold value depend at least on a color of a media of the colored media document (Kanagasabai et. al. col 8 lines 23-60: the tamper detection module compares the calculated ratio with the pre-determined threshold value to classify the block as a tampered block or non-tampered block); processing, using the at least one adjacent foreground threshold value (Kanagasabai et. al. col 8 lines 23-26: pre-determined threshold value), and detecting, based on analysis of the foreground image and the adjacent foreground image, the security mark embedded in the colored media document (Kanagasabai et. al. col 10, lines 29-66).
However, Kanagasabai et. al. fails to disclose processing, using the at least one foreground threshold value, the extracted region to generate a foreground image; the extracted region to generate an adjacent foreground image.
Tang et. al. teaches processing, using the at least one foreground threshold value, the extracted region to generate a foreground image; the extracted region to generate an adjacent foreground image (Tang et. al. Abstract: collecting image information of checks; performing first image segmentation on the image information by using a foreground extraction model to extract a foreground and remove a background pattern, so as to obtain a foreground image of a check).
This is important to the claimed invention because it allows focus of the relevant parts of the image, improving accuracy by removing background interference. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagasabai et. al. and Tang et. al. so that the foreground is extracted from the overall image as part of the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 and 14, Kanagasabai et. al. further discloses the method of claim 1 and multi-function device of claim 13, wherein the color values comprise: a CIELAB color space, and the color channel is at least one of L-channel, a-channel, or b-channel (Kanagasabai et. al. col 6 lines 43-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 and 18, Kanagasabai et. al. discloses the method of claim 1 and the multi-function device of claim 13, wherein processing, using the at least one foreground threshold value, comprises: comparing the color values associated with the color channel of the extracted region with the at least one foreground threshold value (Kanagasabai et. al. col 8 lines 23-60: the tamper detection module compares the calculated ratio with the pre-determined threshold value to classify the block as a tampered block or non-tampered block). However, Kanagasabai et. al. fails to disclose to generate the foreground image.
Tang et. al. teaches to generate the foreground image (Tang et. al. Abstract: collecting image information of checks; performing first image segmentation on the image information by using a foreground extraction model to extract a foreground and remove a background pattern, so as to obtain a foreground image of a check). This is important to the claimed invention because it allows focus of the relevant parts of the image, improving accuracy by removing background interference. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagasabai et. al. and Tang et. al. so that the foreground is extracted from the overall image as part of the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12 and 20, Tang et. al. further discloses the method of claim 1 and the multi-function device of claim 13, further comprising: combining the foreground image and the adjacent foreground image to create a created image; extracting the security mark from the created image; and verifying an authenticity of the colored media document by matching the extracted security mark with one or more pre-selected security marks (Tang et. al page 3, para.5-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
1302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3-5 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagasabai et. al. (United States Patent US 11,954,931 B1) in view of Tang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 117523586 A) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Patel et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0180113 A1).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Kanagasabai et. al. and Tang et. al. disclose the method of claim 1 and the multi-function device of claim 15. However, Kanagasabai et. al. and Tang et. al. fail to disclose wherein analyzing the color values comprises analyzing a histogram of the color values associated with the color channel to identify a mean of the histogram, one or more peaks of the histogram and one or more valleys of the histogram.
Patel et. al. teaches wherein analyzing the color values comprises analyzing a histogram of the color values associated with the color channel to identify a mean of the histogram, one or more peaks of the histogram and one or more valleys of the histogram (Patel et. al. [0070]-[0074]: The peaks present in the histogram identify the foreground and background, and it is identified experimentally that mean of the peaks (left and right peak values) is the optimal spot of the global threshold value for the image.).
This is important to the claimed invention because the histogram identifies the foreground and background, as well as the optimal global threshold value for the image for text information extraction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagasabai et. al., Tang et. al., and Patel et. al. so that the histogram is included as part of the solution of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4 and 16, Patel et. al. further discloses the method of claim 3 and the multi-function device of claim 15, wherein the at least one foreground threshold value is identified using the one or more valleys of the histogram or the mean of the histogram (Patel et. al. [0070]-[0074]: The peaks present in the histogram identify the foreground and background, and it is identified experimentally that mean of the peaks (left and right peak values) is the optimal spot of the global threshold value for the image.).
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Patel et. al. further discloses the method of claim 3 and the multi-function device of claim 15, wherein the at least one adjacent foreground threshold value is identified using the one or more valleys of the histogram and the one or more peaks of the histogram (Patel et. al. [0070]-[0074]: The peaks present in the histogram identify the foreground and background, and it is identified experimentally that mean of the peaks (left and right peak values) is the optimal spot of the global threshold value for the image.).
Claim(s) 6-9, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagasabai et. al. (United States Patent US 11,954,931 B1) in view of Tang et. al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 117523586 A) and Patel et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0180113 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhu (United States Patent Application Publication US 2002/0141641 A1).
Regarding 6, Kanagasabai et. al., Tang et. al. and Patel et. al. disclose the method of claim 3, However, Kanagasabai et. al., Tang et. al. and Patel et. al. fail to disclose wherein the color value corresponding to a first valley of the one or more valleys is identified as a lower threshold value for a foreground portion.
Zhu teaches wherein the color value corresponding to a first valley of the one or more valleys is identified as a lower threshold value for a foreground portion (Zhu Fig. 4, [0016], [0019]: At step 412, the valleys on each side of the peak are located and lower and upper thresholds for the characteristic indicated by the histogram are identified at appropriate points within the valleys. The lower and upper thresholds define the range used to identify a text label).
The histogram features is important to the claimed invention because it improves the accuracy of identifying the security text feature. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagasabai et. al., Tang et. al., Patel et. al. and Zhu so that the threshold values are identified from the histogram.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the color value corresponding to the mean of the histogram is identified as an upper threshold value for the foreground portion (Zhu Fig. 4, [0016], [0019]: At step 412, the valleys on each side of the peak are located and lower and upper thresholds for the characteristic indicated by the histogram are identified at appropriate points within the valleys. The lower and upper thresholds define the range used to identify a text label).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the color value corresponding to a second valley of the one or more valleys located in a direction of a lower color value than a highest peak of the one or more peaks is identified as a lower threshold value for an adjacent foreground portion adjacent to the foreground portion (Zhu Fig. 4, [0016], [0019]: At step 412, the valleys on each side of the peak are located and lower and upper thresholds for the characteristic indicated by the histogram are identified at appropriate points within the valleys. The lower and upper thresholds define the range used to identify a text label).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the color value corresponding to a third valley located in the direction of a higher color value than a highest peak of the one or more peaks is identified as an upper threshold value for the adjacent foreground portion (Zhu Fig. 4, [0016], [0019]: At step 412, the valleys on each side of the peak are located and lower and upper thresholds for the characteristic indicated by the histogram are identified at appropriate points within the valleys. The lower and upper thresholds define the range used to identify a text label).
Regarding claim 11 and 19, Kanagasabai et. al. further discloses the method of claim 6 and the multi-function device of claim 13, wherein processing, using the at least one adjacent foreground threshold value comprises: identifying, using the foreground image, one or more portions adjacent to one or more of the foreground portions in the extracted region (Kanagasabai et. al. Abstract, col 5, lines 15-20: The IR security mark includes one or more security texts and/or images which is further covered or hidden by a pattern that the user cannot see it with naked eyes. col 6, lines 43-56: the scanner generates the scanned data in any desired color space/format for further processing. Col 7 lines 39-47: Once all 8 regions of interest/locations are identified, the 8 regions of interest are extracted from the scanned data. The security mark detection model then identifies which region of interest includes the IR security mark.); and comparing the color values associated with the color channel of the identified one or more portions adjacent to the one or more foreground portions in the extracted region with the adjacent foreground threshold value (Kanagasabai et. al. col 8 lines 23-60: the tamper detection module compares the calculated ratio with the pre-determined threshold value to classify the block as a tampered block or non-tampered block). However, Kanagasabai et. al. fails to disclose to generate the adjacent foreground image.
Tang et. al. teaches to generate the adjacent foreground image (Tang et. al. Abstract: collecting image information of checks; performing first image segmentation on the image information by using a foreground extraction model to extract a foreground and remove a background pattern, so as to obtain a foreground image of a check). This is important to the claimed invention because it allows focus of the relevant parts of the image, improving accuracy by removing background interference. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kanagasabai et. al. and Tang et. al. so that the foreground is extracted from the overall image as part of the solution of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 September 14, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights