6

In reference to the patent: WO2014145999A3

The inventions in this patent are entirely described by the Diploma Thesis of Kai Niklas submitted on 11th June 2010 http://www.l3s.de/~tahmasebi/Diplomarbeit_Niklas.pdf

The priority date on this patent is Mar 15, 2013, years after the publication of Kai Niklas' thesis.

This thesis described in detail the OCR Key algorithm as described in this patent, including the same steps of the claim executed in the same order.

The thesis even described the algorithm using the same name, the "OCR Key" algorithm.

There is no reference the the thesis of Kai Niklas in this patent application, whereas it clearly should have been cited as prior art.

There is no novel content in this patent and the application should be rejected.

  • Do you have any prove that the thesis was published prior to the application dates? – DonQuiKong Nov 29 '16 at 20:37
  • so what is the question here? – Abhi Dec 29 '16 at 6:08
1

The international search has found prior art for all three claims. Claim 1 and 3 were deemed not new and claim 2 obvious. https://register.epo.org/ipfwretrieve?apn=US.2014030867.W&lng=en

Since then, no action has been taken by the applicant.

The entry into the national phase has to be done max. 30/31 months after the filing of the PCT application - this has passed.

Therefore, this patent is not getting granted anywhere, it has lapsed.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.