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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,799 B2 (herein referred to as Chatbri). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, Chatbri discloses A system for adaptive, template-independent handwriting extraction from images using machine learning models and without manual localization or review (claim 1 - col. 15, lines 6-9), the system comprising:
cloud-based storage circuitry configured to store:
a model, wherein the model:
extracts units of handwritten content from the inputted images (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 10-14); and
adaptively merges the units of handwritten content in the inputted images (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 15-16);
a supervised machine learning model comprising a multi-layer perceptron that is integrated into the model, wherein the supervised machine learning model is trained to classify feature inputs as a native handwritten content type or a native typewritten content type (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 17-22);
cloud-based control circuitry configured to:
receive an input image, wherein the input image comprises native printed content and native handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 23-26);
process the input image with a model to generate an output image, wherein the output image comprises extracted handwritten content based on the native handwritten content, wherein processing the input image with the model to generate the output image (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 27-32) further comprises:
identifying the native printed content (claim 1 – col. 15, line 33);
filtering out the native printed content (claim 1 – col. 15, line 34);
identifying the native handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, line 35);
extracting the native handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, line 36);
identifying units in the native handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, line 37);
adaptively merging the units using scale space filtering (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 38-39); and
process, using a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, the output image to digitally recognize the extracted handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 40-42);
generate a digital representation of the input image, wherein the digital representation comprises the native printed content and the digitally recognized extracted handwritten content (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 43-46);
cloud-based input/output circuitry configured to:
generate for display, on a user interface, the digital representation (claim 1 – col. 15, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 2 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 3 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 4 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 5 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 6 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 7 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 8 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 9 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 10 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 11 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 12 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 13 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 14 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 15 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 16 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 17 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 18 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 19 of Chatbri.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 20 of Chatbri.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 12 recites the limitation “extracts units of handwritten content in the inputted images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). There is only one image that is input, and nowhere before this limitation the claims recite inputting multiple images. Therefore claims 2 and 12 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. All other claims depending on claims 2 and 12 are rejected at least for being dependent on claims 2 and 12.
None of the closest prior art(s) of record (e.g. Hoehne et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0302208 A1) teach “generating a digital representation of the input image, wherein the digital representation comprises the native printed content and the digitally recognized extracted handwritten content” as recited in claims 1, 2 and 12.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bloomberg, U.S. Patent No. 5,181,255, discloses a system and method for segmentation of Handwriting and machine printed text.
Ma et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0102022, discloses a method of detecting handwritten annotations form a scanned document image.
Takahashi, U.S. Patent No. 11,941,903, discloses method of extraction of handwritten text and printed text from read image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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.
/Manav Seth/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights