Ex Parte MalikDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201713545025 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/545,025 07/10/2012 Amal Z. Malik 20120252-US-NP 3297 100913 7590 11/15/2017 JONES ROBB, PLLC (w/XEROX CORPORATION) 1420 Spring Hill Road Suite 325 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER WASHINGTON, JAMARES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing @j onesrobb. com kevin.robb @j onesrobb. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMAL Z. MALIK Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,0251 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 8—11, 13—15, 17, 35, and 36. Claims 1—6, 16, and 18—34 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 7 and 12 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.2 1 Appellant identifies Xerox Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed July 10, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed February 2, 2016 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed September 2, 2016 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 17, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed January 17, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods and systems for facilitating modification of text colors in digital images by providing options for defining a number of text colors and/or for selecting text colors to appear in images, and then modifying digital images to include text with the defined or selected number of text colors. (Spec. Tflf 4, 6, 110; Title, Abstract.) Claims 8 and 17 are independent. Claims 8 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A method for facilitating modification of text colors in a digital image, the method comprising: displaying, by a processor, an option to input a number of text colors on a display associated with a computing device; receiving, by the processor, an input comprising the number of text colors; scanning, by the processor, a document to generate the digital image, wherein the digital image comprises at least text comprising a first set of text colors such that the text is extracted into a plurality of layers based on color and spatial proximity; determining, by the processor, a count of pixels comprising text in the digital image for each color in the first set of text colors based on the extracted layers; identifying, by the processor, colors from the first set of text colors based on at least the count of pixels for each color in the first set of text colors, wherein a number of the identified colors equals the inputted number of text colors; and modifying, by the processor, the digital image such that the text in the modified digital image comprises the identified colors, wherein the modification comprises changing the color of text in the digital image that does not comprise one of the identified colors to one of the identified colors. 17. A method for facilitating modification of text colors in a digital image, the method comprising: 2 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 determining, by a processor, a first set of text colors from the digital image, wherein the first set of text colors are determined based on colors of text in the digital image and the text of the digital image is extracted into a plurality of layers based on color and spatial proximity; displaying, by the processor, the first set of text colors on a display associated with a computing device; receiving, by the processor, an input for selecting a plurality of colors from the first set of text colors; displaying, by the processor, a second set of text colors on the display in response to the selection of the plurality of colors, wherein the second set of text colors corresponding to each of the selected text color comprise a set of replacement text colors; receiving, by the processor, an input for selecting a replacement text color, from the set of replacement text colors, for each of the selected plurality of colors; converting, by the processor, text color that comprises one or more of the selected plurality of colors to corresponding selected replacement text color based on the extracted layers; and generating, by the processor, a modified digital image based on the converting; and performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the modified digital image, wherein the number of text colors for text that undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less than the number of text colors of the digital image. (App. Br. 33, 35—36 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 8, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2007/0146754 Al, published June 28, 2007), Spaulding et al. (US 2003/0011607 Al, published Jan. 16, 2003, 3 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 “Spaulding”), and Malik et al. (US 2011/0069885 Al, published Mar. 24, 2011, “Malik”). (Final Act. 2-5.) (2) Claims 10, 11, 13, 14, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, and Hsu (US 2012/0203371 Al, published Aug. 9, 2012). (Final Act. 5—7.) (3) Claims 17 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, Hsu, and Martinez et al. (US 2006/0001690 Al, published Jan. 5, 2006, “Martinez”). (Final Act. 8-10.) ANALYSIS Claims 8—11, 13—15, and 35 Claim 8 recites, inter alia: receiving, by the processor, an input comprising the number of text colors; scanning, by the processor, a document to generate the digital image, wherein the digital image comprises at least text comprising a first set of text colors . . . ; determining, by the processor, a count of pixels comprising text in the digital image for each color in the first set of text colors . . . ; identifying, by the processor, colors from the first set of text colors based on at least the count of pixels for each color in the first set of text colors, wherein a number of the identified colors equals the inputted number of text colors; and modifying, by the processor, the digital image such that the text in the modified digital image comprises the identified colors, wherein the modification comprises changing the color of text in the digital image that does not comprise one of the identified colors to one of the identified colors. (App. Br. 33 (Claims App.).) 4 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 The Examiner relies on Chang to teach the claimed displaying, receiving, scanning, and modifying a digital image “such that the text in the modified digital image comprises the identified colors, wherein the modification comprises changing the color of text in the digital image that does not comprise one of the identified colors to one of the identified colors,” as recited in claim 8. (Final Act. 2—3.) The Examiner further relies on (1) Spaulding to teach the claimed determining and identifying steps employing “the count of pixels for each color in the first set of. . . [an image’s] colors,” and (2) Malik to teach text extraction into layers based on color and spatial proximity. (Final Act. 3—4.) Appellant contends Chang does not teach or suggest “receiving ... an input comprising the number of text colors.” (App. Br. 20—21; Reply Br. 6, 12.) Particularly, Appellant argues Chang merely discloses segmenting an image into text and pictorial/graphic areas, and selecting output colors for rendering the image before printing, but Chang’s “selected output colors are not specific to text colors” or “to a text segment.” (App. Br. 20—21.) We do not agree. Initially, we note claim 8 does not restrict the received “input” to only “text colors,” and merely requires “an input comprising the number of text colors” (emphasis added) to designate an “inputted number of text colors” for modifying a digital image’s text colors. We agree with the Examiner that Chang’s “set of ‘good’ output colors” that a print engine can print includes a “number of text colors” as claimed. (Ans. 5—6 (citing Chang 132).) Chang’s set of “‘good’ output colors” for the print engine are a specific palette of colors chosen to reduce the number of colors in an original image before the image is printed. (See Chang 132, Abstract.) 5 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 Chang also discloses the original image includes text, which is segmented from graphic and pictorial objects/areas and is “improve[d] . . . differently based on the type of the object, e.g., sharpening for the text. . . and applying different color conversion and color enhancement for the different [image] areas.” (See Chang 111.) We find the skilled artisan, viewing this teaching, would recognize that Chang selects text colors, as claimed, for modifying an image’s original text colors, for example by sharpening the image’s text and by reducing the number of text (and other) colors in the image to the set of “‘good’ output colors” printable by a print engine. (Ans. 8, 12 (citing Chang 111)-) Appellant further argues “Spaulding discloses counting pixels based on the number of occurrences for each input color, but the counted pixels for each input color are not specific to pixels comprising text.” (App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 6, 12—13.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Spaulding’s counted pixels for each input color (of an input image) would be specific to pixels comprising text when, for example, the input image includes only text. The skilled artisan would recognize that Spaulding’s counting pixels in images to determine color distributions can be readily applied to a digital text image for “determining ... a count of pixels comprising text in the digital image for each color in the [image’s] first set of text colors” as recited in claim 8. (Ans. 8, 13 (citing Spaulding 120; see also ^fl[ 28—29).) Appellant additionally argues the Examiner’s combination of Chang and Spaulding lacks articulated reasoning because “Chang and Spaulding do not specifically address text color and/or text pixels”; rather, Chang and Spaulding, “at best,. . . disclose an inputted number of colors that is not 6 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 specific to text colors.” (App. Br. 22—23.) As discussed supra, we are not persuaded that Chang and Spaulding do not teach processing specific to text colors. Additionally, the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for combining Chang’s text color adjustment with Spaulding’s color redistribution based on pixel counting, to reduce image colors and, thereby, improve image storage and reproduction. (Ans. 9, 14—15 (citing Spaulding 11 6, 20); see also Spaulding 13; Chang || 2—3.) In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 9—11, 13—15, and 35. (See App. Br. 30.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 8, we sustain the rejections of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 17 and 36 Claim 17 recites “performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the modified digital image” that was generated based on “converting . . . text color that comprises one or more of the selected plurality of colors [from a first set of text colors of an original digital image] to corresponding selected replacement text color,” and “wherein the number of text colors for text that undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less than the number of text colors of the [original] digital image.” (App. Br. 35—36 (Claims Appx.).) The Examiner, among other things, finds Martinez discloses “applying an OCR process to the already modified image [of Chang and Spaulding] as shown in | [84] wherein as a first measure, step 41, the color reduction process is implemented wherein colors are ‘snapped’ to the closest 7 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 primary color and subsequently undergoes the OCR process in step 42.” (Ans. 5—6 (citing Martinez 1 84).) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant’s arguments that Martinez, alone or in combination with other cited references, fails to teach or suggest performing OCR on a modified digital image whose number of text colors for text that undergoes OCR is less than the number of text colors of the original (un modified) digital image. (App. Br. 10.) Particularly, Martinez performs OCR on an original digital image in order to identify text characteristics of color, size, and orientation, and based on the identified text characteristics, Martinez then modifies the original image by color-snapping to reduce the number of text colors in the image. (See Martinez H 44, 84, Figs. 5 (describing step 41) and 8 (describing step 42).) Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Martinez applies “an OCR process to the already modified image . . . wherein as a first measure, step 41, the color reduction process is implemented wherein colors are ‘snapped’ to the closest primary color and subsequently undergoes the OCR process in step 42.” (Ans. 5—6.) Martinez does not apply OCR to the snapped-color image of step 41; rather, Martinez applies OCR to an original image before the color snapping procedure in step 41 and before the spatial resolution increase of step 42. (See Martinez H 44, 84, Figs. 5 and 8.) Thus, Martinez does not perform OCR on a modified image that was generated (before the OCR) from a reduced number of text colors of an original image, as required by claim 17. (App. Br. 10-11, 13; Reply Br. 2—3.) Rather, Martinez discloses an inverse sequence that performs OCR on an original image in order to reduce text colors in the image. (See Martinez 1144, 84, Figs. 5 and 8.) 8 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not presented sufficient rationale to show “why one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the color processing techniques disclosed in Chang and Spaulding with the OCR techniques disclosed in Martinez,” in the particular order recited in claim 17. (Reply Br. 9; see also App. Br. 3.) The Examiner’s rationale to combine the references (to enhance image quality of an output image by selecting important colors, (Ans. 10), and to recognize font sizes to enable further processing of the identified characters, (Ans. 9)) is insufficient to show that the skilled artisan would apply Martinez’ OCR to Chang and Spaulding’s reduced-color image, because Martinez performs OCR before reducing the colors in an image, as discussed supra. Martinez also does not recognize the benefits of reducing the colors in a digital image prior to performing optical character recognition; rather, Martinez requires optical character recognition to identify text characteristics before reducing the colors in an image. (App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 12; see Martinez || 44, 84, Figs. 5 and 8.) In contrast, Appellant’s claim 17 advantageously reduces the colors in a digital image prior to performing optical character recognition, to improve optical character recognition for the image. App. Br. 14—15 (citing Spec. Tflf 3, 110). The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Malik and Hsu make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Martinez, Chang, and Spaulding. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, Hsu, and Martinez. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 36 (reciting “performing optical character recognition (OCR) on the modified digital image, wherein the number of text colors for text that 9 Appeal 2017-004703 Application 13/545,025 undergoes OCR of the modified digital image is less than the number of text colors of the generated digital image”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chang, Spaulding, Malik, Hsu, and Martinez. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8—11, 13—15, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation