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 .
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 thereof, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a program which is software. Examiner suggests amending the claim to include a structure.
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.
Claims 1-6 recite limitations that been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-2, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D11 and further in view of D2.2
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach a first score calculation unit that calculates a first score indicating a likelihood of a character string, or the first score for each of a plurality of candidate character strings which are candidates for character strings included in an input image (see abstract, ¶ 38: template probability representing the likelihood of the string); a character region estimation unit that estimates a region corresponding to each character included in the candidate character string among regions of the input image (see abstract, ¶ 37: character probabilities determined, implicit that character regions are segmented; ¶ 115: assessing the sequence of characters; see also ¶ 26: character segmentation); a second score calculation unit that calculates a second score indicating a consistency of characters included in the candidate character string on the see abstract, ¶¶ 37, 176-180: character probabilities); and a selection unit that selects one or more character strings from among the plurality of candidate character strings on the basis of the calculated first score and the calculated second score (see abstract, ¶ 39: selection based combined string probabilities and character probabilities).
D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the second score is based on the region estimated by the character region estimation, however D2 teach the missing feature (see ¶ 84: score based on position coordinates).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, D1 teaches determining strings based on combined string template probabilities and character probabilities. Meanwhile, D2 teaches determining character score based on the position information. It would have been obvious to incorporate known teachings of determining character score or probabilities based on position information as taught by D2 into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation would have been to enhance text recognition by determining scores based on position information.
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach character recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the first score calculation unit calculates the first score of the candidate character string included in a partial input image which is a part of the input image (see abstract, ¶¶ 37-39: string template probabilities, where the string comprises at least a part of the handwritten image).
With regard to claim 4, D2 teach character recognition device according to any one of claims 1, wherein the second score calculation unit calculates the second score on the basis of the characters included in the candidate character string and the region estimated by the character region estimation unit (see ¶ 84: character score calculated based on the region coordinates).
With regard to claim 5, D2 teach character recognition device according to claim 4, wherein the second score calculation unit calculates the second score on the basis of a likelihood that some character exists in the region of the input image (see ¶ 84: character score based on character existing at a particular location).
With regard to claim 6, D2 teach character recognition device according to any one of claims 1, wherein the input image includes a plurality of character input regions, and the second score calculation unit calculates the second score on the basis of the region corresponding to each character included in the candidate character string and the character input regions (see ¶ 84: score calculated for each character in the character string).
With regard to claims 7-8, see discussion of claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 and further in view of D3.3
With regard to claim 3, D1 fails to explicitly teach wherein the second score calculation unit calculates the second score on the basis of an amount by which regions corresponding to the characters included in the candidate character string overlap each other. However, D3 teach the missing feature (see § 1 ¶ 4: score or penalty calculated for overlapping characters; see also fig. 7).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, D1 teaches evaluating text strings based on combined string template probabilities and character probabilities. Meanwhile, D3 teach evaluating score for overlapping characters. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to incorporate known teachings of overlapping character recognition as taught by D3 into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced recognition of text with overlapping character regions.
Pertinent Art
Bai et al.4 relates to method and apparatus for recognizing character string in images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, 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 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.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2005/0226512.
2 US Publication No. 2018/0189562.
3 Baek, Youngmin, et al. "Cleval: Character-level evaluation for text detection and recognition tasks." 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, 2020.
4 US Publication No. 2018/0025256.
Prosecution Insights