DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission, received on October 27, 2025, amending claims 1 and 20, cancelling claim 8, and adding new claim 21. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Particularly, in claims 1 and 20, the phrase “only ones of the plurality of pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group” is considered confusing. Being plural, “ones” suggests that multiple pieces of form data having a same attribute are included in any particular group, however the pronoun “one” itself suggests only one piece of form data having a same attribute is included. The Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 20 to instead recite, “only one of multiple pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group,” or the like.
Claims 2-7, 9-19 and 21 depend from claim 1 and thereby include all of the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-19 and 21 are objected to for the same reasons as claim 1 noted above.
Further regarding claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for “[t]he information processing apparatus according to claim 8,” which is recited therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,995,846 to Matsueda (“Matsueda”), over U.S. Patent No. 6,549,302 to Takeda et al. (“Takeda”), and also over U.S. Patent No. 7,529,408 to Vohariwatt et al. (“Vohariwatt”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsueda describes a form display apparatus that enhances convenience for an operator who corrects a result of form recognition on electronic image data obtained from documents of unknown type (see e.g. column 2, lines 13-19; and column 2, lines 36-48). Like claimed, Matsueda particularly teaches that the form display apparatus comprises a processor (see e.g. column 5, lines 26-32; and column 13, lines 25-32: Matsueda teaches that the following tasks can be implemented by a processor, i.e. a CPU, executing appropriate software), the processor configured to:
with a plurality of pieces of form data having attributes of forms being grouped in accordance with form definition information that defines groups respectively with the attributes, receive a user input with respect to an ungrouped piece of the form data, the attributes being form class including a type of form and/or attached file (see e.g. column 2, lines 20-30; and column 6, lines 29-42: Matsueda teaches acquiring form data and performing form recognition on the acquired data to determine what type of form the acquired data belongs. Matsueda further demonstrates that a sequence of forms of the same identified type can then be grouped together, i.e. in a “job,” and that a predetermined number of unrecognized forms can be included as an attachment to a previous group having a recognized form type based on user settings – see e.g. column 7, line 1 – column 8, line 40; and FIGS. 6 and 7. The unrecognized forms included as an attachment to a previous group can be considered as having an “attached file” attribute like claimed. Accordingly, a plurality of pieces of form data having attributes of forms are grouped in accordance with form definition information, e.g. according to form type, input sequence, and/or user settings regarding unrecognized forms, wherein the form definition information defines groups respectively with the attributes, the attributes being form class including a type of form and/or attached file. Matsueda discloses that, after the form data is grouped as such, the user can select one or more pieces of unrecognized form data and apply one or more user inputs to move the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data – see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16. Matsueda thus further teaches receiving a user input with respect to an ungrouped, i.e. unrecognized, piece of form data.); and
re-group the form data using a pre-programmed grouping process responsive to the user input and the form definition information (see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16: as noted above, Matsueda discloses that the user can select one or more pieces of unrecognized form data and apply one or more user inputs to move the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data. The form data is thus re-grouped in response to the user input and the form definition information. Like noted above, Matsueda teaches that such tasks can be implemented by a processor, i.e. a CPU, executing appropriate software instructions – see e.g. column 5, lines 26-32; and column 13, lines 25-32. The software instructions necessary for moving the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data in response to the user inputs is considered a “pre-programmed grouping process” like claimed.).
The form display apparatus described by Matsueda is thus considered an information processing apparatus similar to that of claim 1. However, Matsueda does not explicitly teach receiving a change of an attribute of the ungrouped piece of the form data, whereby the form data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute responsive to the change, as is required of the information processing apparatus of claim 1. Moreover, Matsueda does not explicitly teach that the re-grouping of form data is such that only ones of the plurality of pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group, as is further required by claim 1.
Similar to Matsueda, Takeda teaches enabling a plurality of pieces (i.e. pages or “manuscripts”) of document data having attributes to be grouped (i.e. divided into documents) in accordance with definition information (i.e. a predefined algorithm) that defines groups respectively with the attributes (see e.g. column 1, lines 32-45; column 2, lines 18-25; column 4, lines 9-17; column 5, line 15 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 8 – column 11, line 22: Takeda teaches scanning a plurality of pages of document content in one operation and dividing the plurality of pages into individual documents based on attributes of the pages, such as the order in which the pages were scanned and whether the pages are identified as document pages or “sheet” pages.). Takeda further teaches numbering the pages (i.e. storing a manuscript order) of document data and grouping the pages (i.e. into documents) in an order of the page numbers (see e.g. column 5, line 41 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 5 – column 11, line 22). Moreover, Takeda teaches receiving a change of an attribute (e.g. the recognized type) of a piece of document data, whereby the document data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute in response to the change (see e.g. column 7, lines 1-39; and FIGS. 6-8: Takeda teaches enabling the user to change an attribute of a page, e.g. to change whether the page constitutes a document page or sheet page. In response, the pages are re-grouped based on the changed attribute, e.g. the documents are combined or divided based on the attribute – see e.g. column 12, line 27 – column 13, line 64. The software instructions necessary for re-grouping the pages based on the changed attribute can be considered a “pre-programmed grouping process” like claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda and Takeda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda so that the form class attribute additionally includes a page number like taught by Takeda, and so as to enable the user to change an attribute (e.g. the recognized form type) of the document data, whereby the document (i.e. form) data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in response to the change and the definition information, as is taught by Takeda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can ease the burden on the user, as is taught by Takeda (see e.g. column 2, lines 28-38; column 13, lines 54-64; and column 15, lines 61-67). It would have been particularly advantageous to utilize page numbers because they can aid in the access and re-grouping of the document data, as is further evident from Takeda (see e.g. column 1, lines 45-57; and column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 64).
Similar to Matsueda, Vohariwatt teaches acquiring a sequence of page images and performing page type identification to determine a page type for each page image (see e.g. column 7, lines 6-29). Regarding the claimed invention, Vohariwatt further teaches grouping the sequence of page images (i.e. into forms or document packages) in accordance with definition information (i.e. a page sequence definition), whereby the page images can be grouped such that only ones of a plurality of page images having a same attribute (i.e. a same page type) is included in any particular group (see e.g. column 7, lines 29-53; and column 15, line 59 – column 17, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grouping and re-grouping of the form data taught by Matsueda and Takeda such that only ones of a plurality of pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group, like done with the page data taught by Vohariwatt. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable more particular groupings to be formed, as is evident from Vohariwatt (see e.g. column 16, line 59 – column 17, line 11). Accordingly, Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an information processing apparatus like that of claim 1.
As per claim 2, Matsueda suggests that the pieces of the form data are grouped in accordance with an order of arrangement of the pieces (see e.g. column 7, lines 1-60; and FIGS. 5 and 6: Matsuda demonstrates that pages of form data having a same type and that are adjacent to each other are grouped together.). Matsueda, however, does not explicitly disclose that pieces of the form data are numbered in an order of arrangement with serial numbers serving as one of the attributes, whereby the form data is grouped in an order of the serial numbers, as is required by claim 2. Takeda nevertheless teaches numbering pieces (i.e. pages) of document data in an order of arrangement with serial numbers (i.e. a manuscript order) serving as one of the attributes, and grouping the document data (i.e. into documents) in an order of the serial numbers (see e.g. column 5, line 41 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 5 – column 11, line 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt so as to also number the pieces of the document (i.e. form) data in an order of arrangement with serial numbers serving as one of the attributes, and to group the document data in an order of the serial numbers, as is taught by Takeda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such serial numbers because they enable the documents to be efficiently re-grouped in response to an attribute change, as is evident from Takeda (see e.g. column 1, lines 45-57; and column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 64). Accordingly, Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt are further considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, an information processing apparatus like that of claim 2.
As per claim 3, Matsueda demonstrates that un-grouped pieces of form data can be re-grouped by starting with a leading ungrouped piece of the form data in the order of arrangement (see e.g. column 12, line 25 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16: Matsueda demonstrates that the user can select a leading ungrouped, i.e. unrecognized, piece of form data to group into a previous or next group.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 3.
As per claim 4, Matsueda suggests that the form data belonging to a group immediately prior to the leading ungrouped piece of the form data is re-grouped by starting with a leading piece of the form data belonging to the group (see e.g. column 12, line 25 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16: Matsueda demonstrates that the user can select a leading ungrouped, i.e. unrecognized, piece of form data and move the piece to a previous group. In such circumstances, the form data belonging to the group immediately prior to the leading ungrouped piece is re-grouped so as to include the piece, and starts with a leading piece of the form data belonging to the group.). Takeda provides a similar teaching (see e.g. column 12, lines 5-27: Takeda demonstrates that, in response to changing an attribute of a page, the document data belonging to a document immediately prior to the page can be re-grouped so as to incorporate the page by starting with a leading page of the document.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 4.
As per claims 5-7, Matsueda teaches displaying the form data in a list (see e.g. column 12, lines 25-53; and FIG. 15: Matsueda teaches displaying a user interface in which the groups, i.e. jobs, of form data are displayed via a list of buttons, including a previous job display button, a present job display button and a next job display button, and whereby the forms of a selected group are displayed as a list in response to selection of a corresponding one of the buttons.). As described above, it would have been obvious to modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda so as to alternatively or additionally enable the user to change an attribute of the document data (e.g. the ungrouped form data) like taught by Takeda. Takeda similarly teaches displaying the document data in a list, and further teaches receiving in the list the change of the attribute with respect to each piece of the document data (see e.g. column 6, line 30 – column 7, line 39; column 12, line 27 – column 13, line 4; and FIGS. 5-8.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like in each of claims 5-7.
As per claims 9-12, Matsueda teaches displaying the form data together if the form data belongs to a same group (see e.g. column 12, lines 25-53; and FIG. 15: Matsueda teaches displaying a user interface in which the groups, i.e. jobs, of form data are displayed via a list of buttons, including a previous job display button, a present job display button and a next job display button, and whereby the forms of a selected group are displayed together in response to selection of a corresponding one of the buttons.). Takeda provides a similar teaching (see e.g. column 6, lines 30-67; and FIG. 6). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like in each of claims 9-12.
As per claims 13-15, Matsueda teaches not displaying the form data belonging to a group that is adjacent to another group (see e.g. column 12, lines 25-53; and FIG. 15: Matsueda teaches displaying a user interface in which the groups, i.e. jobs, of form data are displayed via a list of buttons, including a previous job display button, a present job display button and a next job display button, and whereby the forms of a selected group are displayed together in response to selection of a corresponding one of the buttons. Accordingly, only the form data of the selected group is displayed, and the form data of adjacent groups are not displayed.). Takeda provides a similar teaching (see e.g. column 6, lines 30-67; and FIG. 6). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like in each of claims 13-15.
As per claim 16, Matsueda further teaches that the attributes can comprise information indicating whether the form data is an attached file (e.g. information indicating the position of an unrecognized form in relation to a previous recognized type of form within a sequence of forms), wherein the form data is grouped in accordance with the form definition information that defines presence or absence of the attached file on a per group basis (see e.g. column 7, lines 32-43; and FIGS. 6B and 7.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 16.
As per claim 17, Matsueda teaches, by regarding the form data as the attached file, grouping the form data that is unknown (i.e. unrecognized) in terms of form type serving as one of the attributes (see e.g. column 7, lines 32-43; and FIGS. 6B). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 17.
As per claim 18, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda so as to alternatively or additionally enable the user to change an attribute of the document data (e.g. change a document type of an ungrouped piece of the form data), whereby the document (i.e. form) data is re-grouped in response to the change, as is taught by Takeda. Consequently, it follows that the user could change an attribute of an unrecognized document to a that of a recognized document type, whereby the document would then be re-grouped based on the changed type. The document type attribute can thus be considered an “exclusion flag” like claimed; if the exclusion flag is off (i.e. the document type is set to a recognized document type), the corresponding document is grouped with other documents, whereas if the exclusion flag is on (i.e. the document type is set to an unrecognized document type), the document is not grouped with other documents (particularly, if unrecognized documents are set to be not grouped together like in FIG. 6C of Matsueda). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 18.
As per claim 19, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda so as to alternatively or additionally enable the user to change an attribute of the document data (e.g. change a document type of an ungrouped piece of the form data), whereby the document (i.e. form) data is re-grouped in response to the change, as is taught by Takeda. Takeda particularly teaches receiving a change of an attribute for a grouped piece (i.e. page) of the form data, and canceling grouping of a group (i.e. document) to which the form data having received the change belongs (see e.g. column 13, lines 5-27). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Matsueda describes a form display apparatus that enhances convenience for an operator who corrects a result of form recognition on electronic image data obtained from documents of unknown type (see e.g. column 2, lines 13-19; and column 2, lines 36-48). Like claimed, Matsueda particularly teaches:
with a plurality of pieces of form data having attributes of forms being grouped in accordance with form definition information that defines groups respectively with the attributes, receiving a user input with respect to an ungrouped piece of the form data, the attributes being form class including a type of form, and/or attached file (see e.g. column 2, lines 20-30; and column 6, lines 29-42: Matsueda teaches acquiring form data and performing form recognition on the acquired data to determine what type of form the acquired data belongs. Matsueda further demonstrates that a sequence of forms of the same identified type can then be grouped together, i.e. in a “job,” and that a predetermined number of unrecognized forms can be included as an attachment to a previous group having a recognized form type based on user settings – see e.g. column 7, line 1 – column 8, line 40; and FIGS. 6 and 7. The unrecognized forms included as an attachment to a previous group can be considered as having an “attached file” attribute like claimed. Accordingly, a plurality of pieces of form data having attributes of forms are grouped in accordance with form definition information, e.g. according to form type, input sequence, and/or user settings regarding unrecognized forms, wherein the form definition information defines groups respectively with the attributes, the attributes being form class including a type of form and/or attached file. Matsueda discloses that, after the form data is grouped as such, the user can select one or more pieces of unrecognized form data and apply one or more user inputs to move the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data – see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16. Matsueda thus further teaches receiving a user input with respect to an ungrouped, i.e. unrecognized, piece of form data.); and
re-grouping the form data using a pre-programmed grouping process responsive to the user input and the form definition information (see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16: as noted above, Matsueda discloses that the user can select one or more pieces of unrecognized form data and apply one or more user inputs to move the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data. The form data is thus re-grouped in response to the user input and the form definition information. Matsueda teaches that such tasks can be implemented by a processor, i.e. a CPU, executing appropriate software instructions – see e.g. column 5, lines 26-32; and column 13, lines 25-32. The software instructions necessary for moving the selected, unrecognized form data to a previous group of recognized form data, to a next group of recognized form data, or to a new group of form data in response to the user inputs is considered a “pre-programmed grouping process” like claimed.).
Matsueda discloses that such teachings can be implemented via program code stored on a non-transitory storage medium (see e.g. column 13, lines 25-44). Such a non-transitory storage medium comprising program code for implementing the above-described teachings of Matsueda is considered a non-transitory computer readable medium similar to that of claim 20. However, Matsueda does not explicitly teach receiving a change of an attribute of the ungrouped piece of the form data, whereby the form data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute responsive to the change, as is required by the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 20. Moreover, Matsueda does not explicitly teach that the re-grouping of form data is such that only ones of the plurality of pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group, as is further required by claim 20.
Similar to Matsueda, Takeda teaches enabling a plurality of pieces (i.e. pages or “manuscripts”) of document data having attributes to be grouped (i.e. divided into documents) in accordance with definition information (i.e. a predefined algorithm) that defines groups respectively with the attributes (see e.g. column 1, lines 32-45; column 2, lines 18-25; column 4, lines 9-17; column 5, line 15 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 8 – column 11, line 22: Takeda teaches scanning a plurality of pages of document content in one operation and dividing the plurality of pages into individual documents based on attributes of the pages, such as the order in which the pages were scanned and whether the pages are identified as document pages or “sheet” pages.). Takeda further teaches numbering the pages (i.e. storing a manuscript order) of document data and grouping the pages (i.e. into documents) in an order of the page numbers (see e.g. column 5, line 41 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 5 – column 11, line 22). Moreover, Takeda teaches receiving a change of an attribute (e.g. the recognized type) of a piece of document data, whereby the document data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute in response to the change (see e.g. column 7, lines 1-39; and FIGS. 6-8: Takeda teaches enabling the user to change an attribute of a page, e.g. to change whether the page constitutes a document page or sheet page. In response, the pages are re-grouped based on the changed attribute, e.g. the documents are combined or divided based on the attribute – see e.g. column 12, line 27 – column 13, line 64. The software instructions necessary for re-grouping the pages based on the changed attribute can be considered a “pre-programmed grouping process” like claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda and Takeda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Matsueda such that the form class attribute additionally includes a page number like taught by Takeda, and so as to enable the user to change an attribute (e.g. the recognized form type) of the document data, whereby the document (i.e. form) data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in response to the change and the definition information, as is taught by Takeda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can ease the burden on the user, as is taught by Takeda (see e.g. column 2, lines 28-38; column 13, lines 54-64; and column 15, lines 61-67). It would have been particularly advantageous to utilize page numbers because they can aid in the access and re-grouping of the document data, as is further evident from Takeda (see e.g. column 1, lines 45-57; and column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 64).
Similar to Matsueda, Vohariwatt teaches acquiring a sequence of page images and performing page type identification to determine a page type for each page image (see e.g. column 7, lines 6-29). Regarding the claimed invention, Vohariwatt further teaches grouping the sequence of page images (i.e. into forms or document packages) in accordance with definition information (i.e. a page sequence definition), whereby the page images can be grouped such that only ones of a plurality of page images having a same attribute (i.e. a same page type) is included in any particular group (see e.g. column 7, lines 29-53; and column 15, line 59 – column 17, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grouping and re-grouping of the form data taught by Matsueda and Takeda such that only ones of a plurality of pieces of form data having a same attribute is included in any particular group, like done with the page data taught by Vohariwatt. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable more particular groupings to be formed, as is evident from Vohariwatt (see e.g. column 16, line 59 – column 17, line 11). Accordingly, Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a non-transitory computer readable medium like that of claim 20.
As per claim 21, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the information processing apparatus taught by Matsueda so as to alternatively or additionally enable the user to change an attribute (e.g. the recognized type) of the document (i.e. form) data, whereby the document data is re-grouped in response to the change like taught by Takeda. Takeda suggests that a user can then cancel the grouping to which the document data having received the change of attribute belongs, i.e. by again changing the attribute for the document data, and subsequently performing the grouping process to re-group the document data using the pre-programmed grouping process (see e.g. column 13, lines 5-27). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt is further considered to teach an information processing apparatus like that of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 20, cancellation of claim 8, and addition of new claim 21. The Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the objections presented in the previous Office Action.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that, although they overcome the particular objections presented in the previous Office Action, the amendments have resulted in new claim objections, which are detailed above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the Applicant argues that there in no actual grouping of pieces of form data in Matsueda.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Like noted above, Matsueda teaches acquiring form data and performing form recognition on the acquired data to determine what type of form the acquired data belongs (see e.g. column 2, lines 20-30; and column 6, lines 29-42). Matsueda further demonstrates that a sequence of forms of the same identified type (e.g. loan forms, address change forms) are grouped together, i.e. in the same “job” (see e.g. column 7, line 1 – column 8, line 40; and FIGS. 6 and 7). Moreover, Matsueda teaches that a predefined number of forms that are unrecognized can be included with a group of recognized forms, as an attachment to the recognized forms (see e.g. column 7, lines 32-60; column 8, lines 7-29; and FIGS. 6B, 6D and 7). The groupings (i.e. jobs) of form data are subsequently displayed to the user so that the user can further adjust the groups of recognized/unrecognized forms if necessary (see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16). Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Matsueda teaches grouping pieces of form data like claimed.
The Applicant further argues that the prior art fails to teach receiving a change of an attribute of an ungrouped piece of form data, or re-grouping the form data using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute responsive to the change and the form definition information, as is required by claims 1 and 20.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees and submits that the combination of Matsueda and Takeda provides such a teaching. For the reasons noted above, Matsueda teaches grouping a plurality of pages of form data having attributes of forms (e.g. form types, attached files) in accordance with form definition information that defines groups with the attributes. Matsueda further teaches displaying the groups to the user, and enabling a user to re-group the form data (e.g. to move an unrecognized form to a group of recognized forms) (see e.g. column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 7; and FIGS. 15 and 16). Matsueda, however, does not explicitly teach receiving a change of an attribute of an ungrouped piece of form data, and re-grouping the form data using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute responsive to the change.
Like described above, Takeda nevertheless teaches enabling a user to change an attribute (e.g. the recognized type) of a piece of document data, whereby the document data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute in response to the change (see e.g. column 7, lines 1-39; and FIGS. 6-8: Takeda teaches enabling the user to change an attribute of a page, e.g. to change whether the page constitutes a document page or sheet page. In response, the pages are re-grouped based on the changed attribute, e.g. the documents are combined or divided based on the attribute – see e.g. column 12, line 27 – column 13, line 64.).
Like further described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda and Takeda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Matsueda so as to enable the user to change an attribute (e.g. the recognized form type in this case) of the document data, whereby the document (i.e. form) data is re-grouped using a pre-programmed grouping process in response to the change and the definition information, as is taught by Takeda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it can ease the burden on the user, as is taught by Takeda (see e.g. column 2, lines 28-38; column 13, lines 54-64; and column 15, lines 61-67). Consequently, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the combination of Matsueda and Takeda teaches receiving a change of an attribute of an ungrouped piece of form data, and re-grouping the form data using a pre-programmed grouping process in accordance with an attribute responsive to the change and form definition information, as is claimed.
Further regarding the pending claims, the Applicant argues that Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt fail to teach attributes that are form class including both a type of form and page number of the form, attached file, exclusion flag, and/or serial number, as is now claimed.
The Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees and submits that the combination of Matsueda and Takeda provides such a teaching.
In particular, like noted above, Matsueda teaches that a predefined number of unrecognized forms can be included with a group of recognized forms, as an attachment to the recognized forms (see e.g. column 7, lines 32-60; column 8, lines 7-29; and FIGS. 6B, 6D and 7). The unrecognized forms included as an attachment to a group of recognized forms can be considered as having an “attached file” attribute like claimed. Matsueda thus teaches attributes that indicate a form class including a type of form, and attached file.
Like further noted above, Takeda teaches scanning a plurality of pages of document content in one operation, numbering the pages (i.e. storing a manuscript order), and grouping the pages (i.e. into documents) in an order of the page numbers (see e.g. column 5, line 41 – column 6, line 12; and column 10, line 5 – column 11, line 22). Takeda thus teaches, inter alia, attributes that indicate a page number.
As is described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Matsueda and Takeda before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Matsueda such that the form class attribute additionally includes page numbers like taught by Takeda. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such page numbers because they can aid in the access and re-grouping of the document data, as is evident from Takeda (see e.g. column 1, lines 45-57; and column 12, line 22 – column 13, line 64). Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the combination of Matsueda and Takeda teaches attributes that comprise form class including both a type of form and page number of the form, and that indicate an attached file.
The Examiner respectfully notes here that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require all of the listed attributes. Independent claims 1 and 20 recite, “the attributes being form class including both a type of form and page number of the form, attached file, exclusion flag, and/or serial number.” The attributes are linked with a disjunction (“or”), and so the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims require only one of: the form class (including both type of form and page number); attached file, exclusion flag, and serial number. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims does not require a change in all the attributes either. Claim 1 for example recites, “receive a change of an attribute of an ungrouped piece of the form data.” As described above, the combination of Matsueda and Takeda teaches attributes that comprise form class including both a type of form and page number of the form, and that indicate an attached file. The combination also teaches enabling a user to change an attribute (e.g. the form type). Consequently, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the above-described combination of Matsueda, Takeda and Vohariwatt teaches “…receive a change of an attribute of an ungrouped piece of the form data, the attributes being form class including both a type of form and page number of the form, attached file, exclusion flag, and/or serial number,” as is recited in claim 1 and similarly expressed in claim 20.
The Applicant's arguments filed on October 27, 2025 have thus been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. §1.111(C) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. In particular, the U.S. Patent to Dobashi et al. cited therein describes an information processing device that receives a form and identifies the type of received form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, 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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/BTB/
2/6/2026
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141