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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending in the instant application. Claims 5-6 and 15-16 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended. The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-24 is hereby made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments pertaining to the eligibility of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered by the examiner, but are not found to be persuasive. As stated in the previous office action, the examiner submits that the Federal Circuit has found (see at least EPG v Alstom) that the collection, analysis, and display of certain results of collection and analysis to be a patent ineligible concept. The Court found that the process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, devoid of any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing said functions to be directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has found that the when the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools, that the claims fail to do more than merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas. The pending claims do not require an inventive set of components or methods that would generate new data and further do not invoke any inventive programming. The Courts have found that merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information to provide a humanly comprehensible amount of information useful for users, by itself does not transform the otherwise abstract processes of information collection and analysis. The two part analysis has to take into account how the desired result is achieved. The examiner submits that the computers, networks, and displays as recited in the pending claims does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The pending claims do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces, but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components and display devices. Nothing in the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, requires anything other than off the shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. The pending claims further fail to include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything other than generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguable inventive concept in the realm of application of the information based abstract idea. No language has been added to the newly amended independent claims to render the claims patent eligible. All of the newly added method steps merely recite determination of scores and association of data, which is still reconciliation and accounting techniques that are understood in the art to be extra solution activity that fails to render the claims eligible under 35 USC 101, given the current guidelines as outlined in at least 2106 of the MPEP.
For at least the reasoning provided above, the examiner submits that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained and made final.
The amendments and arguments as submitted by Applicant have been considered by the examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the grounds of rejection addressing the amended claims, as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1–4, 7-14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1–4, 7-14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the MPEP 2106 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance analysis which follows.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a method (claims 1-4, 7-12, 21, and 22) a system (claims 13, 17-19, 23, and 24),and a computer program product (claim 20) where the system and the computer program product are substantially directed to the subject matter of the method. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of reconciling invoice and receipt data by:
Scanning invoices and receipts received in image form;
filtering the received invoice and receipt data to generate filtered data;
performing line-level matching on the filtered data based on one or more line-level attributes and one or more distance based algorithms to identify line item matches between the invoices and receipts;
determining, from the line-level matching, one or more matched line items and unmatched line items between each pair of the invoices and receipts included in the filtered data;
calculating one or more types of claims for both the matched line items and the unmatched line items to measure a total deviation between each pair of the invoices and receipts;
comparing each of the one or more line-level attributes between each pair of line items by calculating one or more distance metrics using one or more distance-based algorithms;
determining a distance score based on each distance metric; combining the distance score corresponding to each line-level attribute to generate an aggregated score;
calculating one or more types of claims for both the matched line items and the unmatched line items to measure a total deviation between each pair of invoices and receipts;
determining a line-level match of the invoice and the receipt responsive to the aggregated score exceeding a pre-defined threshold
determining a level of match between each pair of the invoices and receipts based on the calculated claims; and
generating a recommended matching pair of invoice and receipt based on the level of match between each pair of the invoices and receipts.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated MPEP 2106 categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes managing personal relationships or interactions between people (e.g., tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a preset spending limit, such as reconciling transaction data).
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the MPEP 2106 step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor,” and “memory” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.). Independent claims 13 and 20 are nearly identical to independent claim 1 and so the analysis for claim 1 also applies to claims 13 and 20.
Dependent claims 2–4, 7-12, 13-14, and 17–19 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1–4, 7-14, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2019/0370388) in view of Baron et al (US 11,941,064).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses an invoice tracking method for computer-specific detection of deviation between invoices and receipts, the method comprising:
Scanning invoices and receipts received in image format (see at least paragraph [0030] to Li et al), converting the scanned invoices and receipts through optical character recognition (OCR) into text information(see at least paragraph [0030]to Li et al); filtering the received invoice and receipt to generate filtered data including text information converted from the filtered invoices and receipts(see at least paragraph [0030] to Li et al); performing line-level matching on the filtered data based on one or more line-level attributes and one or more distance-based algorithms to identify line item matches between the invoices and receipts (see at least paragraph [0027] to Li et al); determining, from the line-level matching, one or more matched line items and unmatched line items between each pair of the invoices and receipts included in the filtered data (see at least paragraph [0018] to Li et al); calculating one or more types of claims for both the matched line items and the unmatched line items to measure a total deviation between each pair of the invoices and receipts (see at least paragraph [0017] to Li et al); determining a level of match between each pair of the invoices and receipts based on the calculated claims (see at least paragraph [0019] to Li et al); and generating a recommended matching pair of invoice and receipt based on the level of match between each pair of the invoices and receipts (see at least paragraph [0041] to Li et al).
The applied prior art reference Li et al does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the line-level matching further comprises: pairing each line item of each invoice and receipt included in the filtered data; comparing a first line-level attribute between each pair of line items to calculate a first distance score using a first distance-based algorithm to compare respective strings of converted text information associated with the first line-level attribute; comparing a different second line-level attribute between each pair of line items to calculate a second distance score by using a second distance-based algorithm to compare respective strings of converted text information associated with the second line- level attribute; combining the first distance score and the second distance score corresponding to the first line-level attribute and the second line-level attribute to generate an aggregated score for each line item; and determining a line-level match of the invoice and the receipt responsive to the aggregated score exceeding a pre-defined threshold.
However, Baron et al discloses a machine learning comparison system and method, wherein the line-level matching further comprises: pairing each line item of each invoice and receipt included in the filtered data (see at least column 6, lines 28-30, to Baron et al); comparing a first line-level attribute between each pair of line items to calculate a first distance score using a first distance-based algorithm to compare respective strings of converted text information associated with the first line-level attribute (see at least column 2, lines 43-48 to Baron et al); comparing a different second line-level attribute between each pair of line items to calculate a second distance score by using a second distance-based algorithm to compare respective strings of converted text information associated with the second line- level attribute (see at least column 2, lines 50-55 to Baron et al); combining the first distance score and the second distance score corresponding to the first line-level attribute and the second line-level attribute to generate an aggregated score for each line item (see at least column 7, lines 17-19 to Baron et al); and determining a line-level match of the invoice and the receipt responsive to the aggregated score exceeding a pre-defined threshold (see at least column 2, lines 39-40 to Baron et al).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for centralized data reconciliation using artificial intelligence mechanisms, as disclosed by Li et al and the machine learning comparison system and method as taught by Baron et al, in order to more accurately extract and reconcile information from receipts, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a many-to-many line level relationship, including a single line of an invoice being associated with multiple lines of a receipt, is detected and determined based on one or more operations of filtering the received invoice and receipt data, performing the line-level matching, determining the one or more matched line items and unmatched line items, calculating the one or more types of claims, determining the level of match, or generating the recommended matching pair (see at least paragraph [0040] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a one-to-many relationship, including a single invoice being associated with multiple receipts, is detected and determined based on one or more operations of filtering the received invoice and receipt data, performing the line-level matching, determining the one or more matched line items and unmatched line items, calculating the one or more types of claims, determining the level of match, or generating the recommended matching pair (see at least paragraph [0034] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein prior to filtering the received invoice and receipt data to generate the filtered data, further comprising: determining whether the received data is in an electronic data interchange (EDI) format; responsive to determining whether the received data is in an EDI format, identifying one or more operations to pre-process the received data; and pre-processing the received data using the one or more operations(see at least paragraph [0030] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to generating the recommended matching pair, receiving user feedback about the recommended matching pair (see at least paragraph [0020] to Li et al); specifying a set of attributes of the received invoice and receipt data for the recommended matching pair (see at least paragraph [0017] to Li et al); and training one or more machine learning (ML) models to identify matching pairs of invoices and receipts by providing the user feedback as input to the one or more ML models (see at least paragraph [0018] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more distance metrics are updated based on the user feedback provided as input to the one or more ML models (see at least paragraph [0018] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the distance score corresponding to each line-level attribute is combined based on a weight associated with each line-level attribute, and the weight is adjustable based on training the one or more ML models using the user feedback (see at least paragraph [0016] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more line-level attributes comprise at least one of an item number and an item description(see at least paragraph [0024] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more types of claims include a price claim, a quantity claim, or a line claim, and wherein calculating a type of claim comprises: generating a number of the type of line-level claims; and summing up the number of the type of line-level claims corresponding to the matched line items or the unmatched line items (see at least paragraph [0024] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the level of match comprises: generating, based at least on the calculated claims, one or more match percentages to indicate the level of match between the invoice and the receipt (see at least paragraph [0017] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein filtering the received invoice and receipt data to generate the filtered data comprise: creating, from the received invoice and receipt data, first bindings based on a first set of attributes; identifying a second set of attributes different from the first set of attributes (see at least column 6, lines 4-8 to Baron et al); creating, from the first bindings, second bindings based on the second set of attributes (see at least column 5, lines 48-54 to Baron et al); determining a plurality of combinations of receipts from the second bindings (see at least column 5, lines 48-54 to Baron et al); performing one or more checks on the plurality of combinations of receipts, the one or more checks including at least one line item check (see at least column 5, lines 48-54 to Baron et al); identifying, from the plurality of combinations of receipts, third bindings that qualify each of the one or more checks; and outputting the third bindings as the filtered data (see at least column 6, lines 59-63 to Baron et al).
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses the method of claim 1, wherein comparing each of the one or more line- level attributes between each pair of line items by calculating one or more distance metrics using one or more distance-based algorithms comprises: comparing item number as one of the line-level attributes using a Levenshtein distance (see at least column 2, lines 45-48 to Baron et al), and comparing item description as another one of the line-level attributes using a Jaro-Winkler distance (see at least column 8, lines 3-5 to Baron et al).
Claims 13-14, 17-20, 23, and 24 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627