341377Notice 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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 no statutory 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 no statutory 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 no statutory 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, (4 +7), 8, and 10 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,656 in view of Han, et al. (US 2016/0147386 A1). Application distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites detecting and identifying the presence of marking of interest on the document instead of or in addition to and/or including stamp. However, Han, et al. (See for example, Fig. 17, and the associated text) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method claim of the '656 patent such that it would identify the presence of marking of interest as shown in Figure 17 instead of or in addition to and/or including identifying the presence of stamp, text and color. One having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification so that it may identify marking of interest instead of or in addition and/or including stamp, text or color, as per the teaching of Han, et al.
Claims 9 (which depends from independent claim 5), 6, 7, 10, 11, and 17 (which depends from independent claim 13), 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,656 in view of Han, et al. (US 2016/0147386 A1). Representative Application claims 9 and 17 distinguish from representative claims 1 and 11 of the patent only in that they recite transmitting, by a first computing device to a computing system, textual data of a document and image data (See the table below. The table is also applicable to application claim 17 vs patent claim 11). While this feature is inherently required by the step of receiving as defined by independent claims 1 and 11 of the patent, Han, et al. (See for example, paragraphs 0080-0087; and Figs. 1 and 10 “the document comprising text and image data is transmitted by the scanner “150” or scanning apparatus “100” and received by the classifier “160” to detect and classify the scanned image according to an extracted stamp) teach this feature). text). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system claim of the '656 patent such that it would include a transmitting mechanism by way of a scanning apparatus/scanner. One having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make such a modification, if for no other reason than to transmit content of the document, and as a result, it would at least allow detecting/extracting the content of the document and classify the document according to the extracted content as per the teaching of Han, et al.
Application No. 19/059,816
US Patent No. 12,236,656
Claim 9. A method for detection and classification of markings of interest on a document, comprising:
Claim 1. A method for stamp detection and classification, comprising:
transmitting, by a first computing device to a computing system, textual data of a document and image data comprising a capture of the document, the computing system configured to identify a presence of a marking of interest on the document based on a plurality of intermediate detections of the marking of interest from the textual data and image data by a corresponding plurality of machine learning models; and
receiving, by a computing device, textual data of a document and image data comprising a capture of the document; identifying, by the computing device, a presence of a stamp on the document based on a plurality of intermediate detections of the stamp from the textual data and image data by a corresponding plurality of machine learning models;
receiving, by the first computing device from the computing system, a subset of image data comprising the marking of interest, extracted text from the subset of the image data, and an identification of a classification of the marking of interest;
responsive to identifying the presence of the stamp, extracting, by the computing device, a subset of the image data comprising the stamp; extracting, by the computing device via optical character recognition, text from the subset of the image data; and storing, by the computing device in a database, the subset of the image data comprising the stamp, the extracted text from the subset of the image data, and an identification of a classification of the stamp.
wherein the marking of interest comprises a stamp, endorsement, or seal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 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. Claims 1-20 would also be allowable if applicant overcomes the rejection under an obviousness double patenting by way of an amendment or filing a terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights