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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/14/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1 and 18-20 are amended. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection set forth below.
The applicant argues on page7-8 of the remarks filed that the prior art of Amtrup et al. US PG-Pub(US 20140079294 A1) would not disclose checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database. The Examiner agrees as Amtrup does not appear to teach this newly amended limitation. However, after further search and consideration, the newly discovered art of Tada et al. US PG-Pub(US 20180075429 A1) would disclose checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database in ¶[0072], discloses checking character strings in the invoice to determine if the string matches information stored in a database. Please see the updated claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amtrup et al. US PG-Pub(US 20140079294 A1) in view of Tada et al. US PG-Pub(US 20180075429 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Amtrup teaches an information processing apparatus ([0122] FIG. 4 illustrates a network architecture) comprising: a processor(Fig. 5, central processing unit(CPU) 510 ) configured to: obtain related information regarding a first form ([0045] “As shown in operation 102, optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on a scanned image of a first document, which may be a paper document used as part of an overall transaction. The first document may include any physical representation of handwritten, typewritten or printed text. For example, the first document may include an invoice, a receipt, a bill, a sales order document, an insurance claim document, etc. In another example, the first document may include an explanation of benefits document, a medical insurance document, etc.”, ¶[0045] discloses OCR performed onto a document image to extract text information from a document); identify a second form associated with related information similar to the related information regarding the first form ([0054] “Further, as shown in operation 106, a complementary document (or documents) associated with the first document is identified using the identifier. In the context of the current disclosures, the complementary document may include any document that is related in some way to the first document.”, ¶[0054] discloses determining a second document based on a comparison between an identifier from the first document)obtain definition information indicating a definition of processing for a check ([0057] “Further still, as shown in operation 108, a list of hypotheses mapping the first document to the complementary document are generated using textual information from the first document, textual information from the complementary document, and predefined business rules. In one embodiment, the textual information from the first document and from the complementary document may include numerical information, text, a symbol, etc. For example, the textual information may include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc.”, as disclosed in ¶[0057] of the prior art, the information extracted from the documents include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc)and output the definition information as a candidate for definition information to be applied to items on the first form. ([0067] “In addition, as shown in operation 110, a validity of the first document is determined based on the hypotheses. In the context of the current embodiment, the validity may include an indication of whether the first document is sufficiently related to the complementary document. For example, the validity may include an indication that the first document matches the complementary document. Additionally, the validity may be determined by analyzing the hypotheses. In another embodiment, the determination may be additionally based on a confidence level of the hypotheses.” [0068] “Further, in one embodiment, an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document.”, ¶[0067]-¶[0068] discloses if there is a different in similarity between the first and second documents an alert is generated for a user to evaluate and correct.)
wherein the respective related information indicates at least image information regarding a form or identification information for identifying the respective definition information. ([0045], “As shown in operation 102, optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on a scanned image of a first document, which may be a paper document used as part of an overall transaction. The first document may include any physical representation of handwritten, typewritten or printed text.”, ¶[0045] discloses performing OCR to determine textual data from the document and ¶[0057] discloses the textual data being extracted are a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc. )
Amtrup does not explicitly teach checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database
Tada teaches checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database(¶[0072], “The information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment then checks the character string indicated by the receipt information with reference to information relating to sale corresponding to the estimated retailer (for example, in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, information relating to sale in which a retailer chain name matches the estimated retailer). In the case where the information relating to sale is a database illustrated in FIG. 1, the information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment estimates the purchased article indicated by the receipt information by checking the character string indicated by the receipt information against the article name illustrated in FIG. 1 through forward match.”, ¶[0072] discloses checking character strings in the invoice to determine if the string matches information stored in a database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Amtrup with Tada in order to determine if the character string matches a database entry. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Amtrup in this manner in order to check a character string read by an optical character recognition (OCR), or the like, from a captured image which is obtained by capturing an image of the receipt which is a paper medium, or the like, against a database (or a table, the same will also apply in the following description) in which article name is prescribed. (Tada, ¶[0004])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of pieces of definition information are obtained as the definition information, output the definition information in descending order of a degree of similarity. ([0071] “In one exemplary embodiment, once extracted textual information from the first document has been later verified by an individual, or the extracted textual information has been verified by a computer by the determination of a perfect match, the verification is sent to the extractor. In this way, the extractor "learns" from the verified information and can apply the verified information to future extraction an analysis.” [0072] “Furthermore, as shown in operation 112, an indication of the determined validity is output.”, ¶[0071]-¶[0072] disclose comparing the textual data extracted and determining if there is a match and outputting to a user indicating the validity of the extraction to a user.)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the processor is configured to output information indicating the processing for the check corresponding to the obtained definition information. ([0067] “In addition, as shown in operation 110, a validity of the first document is determined based on the hypotheses. In the context of the current embodiment, the validity may include an indication of whether the first document is sufficiently related to the complementary document. For example, the validity may include an indication that the first document matches the complementary document. Additionally, the validity may be determined by analyzing the hypotheses. In another embodiment, the determination may be additionally based on a confidence level of the hypotheses.”
[0068] “Further, in one embodiment, an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document”, as disclosed in ¶[0067]-¶[0068], the prior art determines the validity between the extracted textual data in the first and second document and outputs the result to a user if there is an issue.)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 3, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the processor is configured to output information indicating the processing for the check corresponding to the obtained definition information. (¶[0069] discloses determining the validity of the document by checking values for line items and header fields. ¶[0071]-¶0072] discloses outputting the result of if the extracted text matches between the documents.)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the processor is configured to output information indicating a result of execution of the processing for the check corresponding to the obtained definition information. (¶[0069] discloses determining the validity of the document by checking values for line items and header fields. ¶[0071]-¶0072] discloses outputting the result of if the extracted text matches between the documents.)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 6, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the processor is configured to output information indicating a result of execution of the processing for the check corresponding to the obtained definition information. (¶[0069] discloses determining the validity of the document by checking values for line items and header fields. ¶[0071]-¶0072] discloses outputting the result of if the extracted text matches between the documents.)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 7, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the result is a result of execution of the processing for the check based on a parameter of the processing for the check input by a user. (¶[0068],“ an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document. For example, the alert may include an identification of a mismatch in expected similar or identical values in the first and complementary documents. user input may be received indicating at least one of a correction and a validation of items such as a line item, header field item, etc. of the first document.”, ¶[0068] discloses that a user can perform correction if a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document occurs.)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 9, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the result is a result of execution of the processing for the check based on a parameter of the processing for the check input by a user. (¶[0068],“ an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document. For example, the alert may include an identification of a mismatch in expected similar or identical values in the first and complementary documents. user input may be received indicating at least one of a correction and a validation of items such as a line item, header field item, etc. of the first document.”, ¶[0068] discloses that a user can perform correction if a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document occurs.)
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 7, where Amtrup further teaches, wherein the result is a result of execution of the processing for the check on the items on the first form. ([0054] Further, as shown in operation 106, a complementary document (or documents) associated with the first document is identified using the identifier. In the context of the current disclosures, the complementary document may include any document that is related in some way to the first document. For example, the complementary document may include at least one of a purchase order, a memorandum, a delivery note, etc. In another embodiment, the complementary document may have a relationship with the first document. For example, the complementary document may include a purchase order related to the first document, where the first document is an invoice.[0055] In another embodiment, the complementary document may be identified by comparing the identifier against a database, repository, etc. For example, a purchase order may be identified by comparing a purchase order number against a purchase order repository)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 9, where Amtrup further teaches wherein the result is a result of execution of the processing for the check on the items on the first form. ([0054] “Further, as shown in operation 106, a complementary document (or documents) associated with the first document is identified using the identifier. In the context of the current disclosures, the complementary document may include any document that is related in some way to the first document. For example, the complementary document may include at least one of a purchase order, a memorandum, a delivery note, etc. In another embodiment, the complementary document may have a relationship with the first document. For example, the complementary document may include a purchase order related to the first document, where the first document is an invoice.[0055] In another embodiment, the complementary document may be identified by comparing the identifier against a database, repository, etc. For example, a purchase order may be identified by comparing a purchase order number against a purchase order repository”, as disclosed in this section of the prior art, an identifier in the first document is used to determine items in the second document by comparing to a database or repository)
Regarding Claim 16, Amtrup teaches the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 13, where Amtrup further teaches, wherein the processor is configured to receive, from a user, selection of one of the items on the first form on which the processing for the check is to be performed. ([0073] “Additionally, a reconciliation screen may be output to a user upon failing to determine that the first document is valid or determining that the first document is invalid. For example, if one or more errors in the first document result in an unresolvable match with the complementary document, the errors are represented in the reconciliation screen, where a human operator (for example, an employee of the customer or the supplier) may view the errors and correct the first document in order to assist in the determination of the validity of the first document.”, ¶[0073] discloses a user is able to input areas in which there are errors present in determining the validity of the document.)
Regarding Claim 19, Amtrup teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program(¶[0121], A computer readable medium can include any medium capable of storing computer code thereon for use by a computer, including optical media such as read only and writeable CD and DVD, magnetic memory, semiconductor memory (e.g., FLASH memory and other portable memory cards, etc.), etc.) causing a processor(Fig. 5, central processing unit(CPU) 510 ) to execute a process for processing information, the process comprising: obtaining related information regarding a first form ([0045] “As shown in operation 102, optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on a scanned image of a first document, which may be a paper document used as part of an overall transaction. The first document may include any physical representation of handwritten, typewritten or printed text. For example, the first document may include an invoice, a receipt, a bill, a sales order document, an insurance claim document, etc. In another example, the first document may include an explanation of benefits document, a medical insurance document, etc.”, ¶[0045] discloses OCR performed onto a document image to extract text information from a document); identifying a second form associated with related information similar to the related information regarding the first form ([0054] “Further, as shown in operation 106, a complementary document (or documents) associated with the first document is identified using the identifier. In the context of the current disclosures, the complementary document may include any document that is related in some way to the first document.”, ¶[0054] discloses determining a second document based on a comparison between an identifier from the first document)obtaining definition information indicating a definition of processing for a check ([0057] “Further still, as shown in operation 108, a list of hypotheses mapping the first document to the complementary document are generated using textual information from the first document, textual information from the complementary document, and predefined business rules. In one embodiment, the textual information from the first document and from the complementary document may include numerical information, text, a symbol, etc. For example, the textual information may include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc.”, as disclosed in ¶[0057] of the prior art, the information extracted from the documents include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc)and outputting the definition information as a candidate for definition information to be applied to items on the first form. ([0067] “In addition, as shown in operation 110, a validity of the first document is determined based on the hypotheses. In the context of the current embodiment, the validity may include an indication of whether the first document is sufficiently related to the complementary document. For example, the validity may include an indication that the first document matches the complementary document. Additionally, the validity may be determined by analyzing the hypotheses. In another embodiment, the determination may be additionally based on a confidence level of the hypotheses.” [0068] “Further, in one embodiment, an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document.”, ¶[0067]-¶[0068] discloses if there is a different in similarity between the first and second documents an alert is generated for a user to evaluate and correct.)
Amtrup does not explicitly teach checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database
Tada teaches checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database(¶[0072], “The information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment then checks the character string indicated by the receipt information with reference to information relating to sale corresponding to the estimated retailer (for example, in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, information relating to sale in which a retailer chain name matches the estimated retailer). In the case where the information relating to sale is a database illustrated in FIG. 1, the information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment estimates the purchased article indicated by the receipt information by checking the character string indicated by the receipt information against the article name illustrated in FIG. 1 through forward match.”, ¶[0072] discloses checking character strings in the invoice to determine if the string matches information stored in a database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Amtrup with Tada in order to determine if the character string matches a database entry. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Amtrup in this manner in order to check a character string read by an optical character recognition (OCR), or the like, from a captured image which is obtained by capturing an image of the receipt which is a paper medium, or the like, against a database (or a table, the same will also apply in the following description) in which article name is prescribed. (Tada, ¶[0004])
Regarding Claim 20, Amtrup teaches a method for processing information (Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of processing information of a document image.) , the method comprising:
obtaining related information regarding a first form ([0045] “As shown in operation 102, optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on a scanned image of a first document, which may be a paper document used as part of an overall transaction. The first document may include any physical representation of handwritten, typewritten or printed text. For example, the first document may include an invoice, a receipt, a bill, a sales order document, an insurance claim document, etc. In another example, the first document may include an explanation of benefits document, a medical insurance document, etc.”, ¶[0045] discloses OCR performed onto a document image to extract text information from a document); identifying a second form associated with related information similar to the related information regarding the first form ([0054] “Further, as shown in operation 106, a complementary document (or documents) associated with the first document is identified using the identifier. In the context of the current disclosures, the complementary document may include any document that is related in some way to the first document.”, ¶[0054] discloses determining a second document based on a comparison between an identifier from the first document)obtaining definition information indicating a definition of processing for a check ([0057] “Further still, as shown in operation 108, a list of hypotheses mapping the first document to the complementary document are generated using textual information from the first document, textual information from the complementary document, and predefined business rules. In one embodiment, the textual information from the first document and from the complementary document may include numerical information, text, a symbol, etc. For example, the textual information may include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc.”, as disclosed in ¶[0057] of the prior art, the information extracted from the documents include a description of goods, a line item, a header field item, a unit price, a quantity of goods, an extended price, etc)and outputting the definition information as a candidate for definition information to be applied to items on the first form. ([0067] “In addition, as shown in operation 110, a validity of the first document is determined based on the hypotheses. In the context of the current embodiment, the validity may include an indication of whether the first document is sufficiently related to the complementary document. For example, the validity may include an indication that the first document matches the complementary document. Additionally, the validity may be determined by analyzing the hypotheses. In another embodiment, the determination may be additionally based on a confidence level of the hypotheses.” [0068] “Further, in one embodiment, an alert may be generated upon encountering a potential problem when determining the validity of the first document.”, ¶[0067]-¶[0068] discloses if there is a different in similarity between the first and second documents an alert is generated for a user to evaluate and correct.)
Amtrup does not explicitly teach checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database
Tada teaches checking whether information including character strings written on the second form matches information stored in a database(¶[0072], “The information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment then checks the character string indicated by the receipt information with reference to information relating to sale corresponding to the estimated retailer (for example, in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, information relating to sale in which a retailer chain name matches the estimated retailer). In the case where the information relating to sale is a database illustrated in FIG. 1, the information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment estimates the purchased article indicated by the receipt information by checking the character string indicated by the receipt information against the article name illustrated in FIG. 1 through forward match.”, ¶[0072] discloses checking character strings in the invoice to determine if the string matches information stored in a database.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Amtrup with Tada in order to determine if the character string matches a database entry. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Amtrup in this manner in order to check a character string read by an optical character recognition (OCR), or the like, from a captured image which is obtained by capturing an image of the receipt which is a paper medium, or the like, against a database (or a table, the same will also apply in the following description) in which article name is prescribed. (Tada, ¶[0004])
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amtrup et al. US PG-Pub(US 20140079294 A1) in view of Tada et al. US PG-Pub(US 20180075429 A1) in view of Horvath et al. US Patent(US 10178246 B1).
Regarding Claim 18, while the combination of Amtrup and Tada teach the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1, they do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of pieces of definition information are obtained as the definition information, output one of the plurality of pieces of definition information obtained as the definition information that is selectable
Horvath teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if a plurality of pieces of definition information are obtained as the definition information, output one of the plurality of pieces of definition information obtained as the definition information that is selectable (Col 2, Lines 16-27, “extracting one or more of the data entry items from the document based on processing the first image; and displaying the extracted data entry items on the live view image of the at least part of the document, the extracted data entry items being displayed in annotation overlays on the live view image in association with representations of their respective corresponding data fields in the live view image. The method further includes displaying, on the display, a first user interface element concurrently with the live view image of the at least part of the document, the first user interface element being selectable to update a database record using the extracted data entry items.”, as disclosed in this section of the prior art, the extracted data entry items of the document image are extracted and a user is able to select from the plurality of data entry items to update the record of it.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Amtrup and Tada with Horvath in order to allow an extracted data item to be selectable. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Amtrup and Tada in this manner in order to provide user interfaces that facilitate effective capture and processing of images of documents on electronic devices. (Horvath, Col 1, Lines 21-23)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/HAN HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2661