DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication(s) filed on December 31, 2025.
Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 21 have been amended.
Claim 22 is newly added for consideration.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
Claim 22 is allowed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berard et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0016832 A1, hereinafter as “Berard”), and further in view of Matsuo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0082566 A1, hereinafter as “Matsuo”).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an information processing system (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 21, and etc., disclose the system 10 for automated document separation) comprising:
one or more processors (see Berard, i.e. in para. 21 and etc., disclose that “[0021] A system 10 for automated document separation is illustrated in FIG. 1. The system 10 includes a client device 15, a network 20, a host device 25, and a database 30. In the illustrated embodiment, the client device 15 is, for example, a personal computer or scanner. However, in other embodiments, the client device 15 is any device which is capable of accessing the network 20. Such devices include mobile phones, laptop computers, tablet computers, personal digital assistants ("PDAs"), Wi-Fi enabled media devices, e-book readers, and the like…”) configured to:
acquire attribute information including a total number of pages of a document containing one or more pages and split information indicating a result of splitting in units of documents after a plurality of documents are read consecutively (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 4, step 205, para. 27 and etc., disclose that “[0027] FIG. 4 illustrates a process 200 executed by the host device 25 for separating documents. After the compilation document has been routed to the splitting module 115, the splitting module 115 performs the preliminary document splitting…”; in addition, in Berard, i.e. in par. 54, discloses that “[0054] The document section 1105 includes thumbnail-type images 1120 and 1125 of each page in a document. Various controls and indicators are provided to enable a user to edit the proposed document separations. For example, a page indicator 1130 provides an indication of the number of each page in a particular document, and linking button 1135 allows a user to link a page to or unlink a page from a document. For example, the proposed document illustrated in FIG. 22 includes two pages….”, and further in para. 59-63, disclose that “… In the illustrated embodiment, a page is only proposed as a new document when identifiable sender data is present, which simplifies the analysis of user modifications. In other embodiments, sender data is not the only criteria used to perform the preliminary document separation, and pages are proposed as new documents for other reasons (e.g., dates, times, number of pages, etc.). However, the logic provided herein is adaptable to any number of additional separation criteria with little modification because the analysis of the document separation is based primarily on user acknowledgement of the document separations. Following step 1370, the process 1300 proceeds to control section V…”); and
estimate an error for each split document on a basis of a difference between the total number of pages in each document obtained from the attribute information and a number of read pages in each split document obtained from the split information (see Berard, i.e. in para. 23 and etc., disclose that “The splitting module 115 then performs a multi-level document splitting operation. For example, the splitting module 115 extracts sender information from each page of the compilation document and performs a preliminary document separation based on the sender of each page. Sender information includes, for example, a name, a phone number, a fax number, a postal address, an email address, a value added tax ("VAT") code, a system identification directory of companies ("SIREN") code, or the like. Such an operation is performed for each page in the compilation document. After the splitting module 115 has completed the preliminary separation, the splitting module 115 accesses the knowledge base 125 to apply automatic correction rules to the preliminarily-split documents. The information within the knowledge base 125 is stored in, for example, tabular form based on sender information. This allows the sender of a particular document to be identified, the auto-correction rules for the document to be accessed, and the splitting module 115 to apply the auto-correction rules to the preliminarily-split document…”).
With regard to the arguments presented by applicant (on December 31, 2025, i.e. on pg. 8-10) relating to claim limitation of “acquire attribute information including a total number of pages of a document containing one or more pages and split information indicating a result of splitting in units of documents after a plurality of documents are read consecutively”.
In response to applicant’s argument(s) presented above, examiner disagree. Examiner submits that, in details, as set forth above, in Berard, i.e. in fig. 4, step 205, para. 27 and etc., disclose that “[0027] FIG. 4 illustrates a process 200 executed by the host device 25 for separating documents. After the compilation document has been routed to the splitting module 115, the splitting module 115 performs the preliminary document splitting…”; in addition, in Berard, i.e. in par. 54, discloses that “[0054] The document section 1105 includes thumbnail-type images 1120 and 1125 of each page in a document. Various controls and indicators are provided to enable a user to edit the proposed document separations. For example, a page indicator 1130 provides an indication of the number of each page in a particular document, and linking button 1135 allows a user to link a page to or unlink a page from a document. For example, the proposed document illustrated in FIG. 22 includes two pages….”, and further in para. 59-63, disclose that “… In the illustrated embodiment, a page is only proposed as a new document when identifiable sender data is present, which simplifies the analysis of user modifications. In other embodiments, sender data is not the only criteria used to perform the preliminary document separation, and pages are proposed as new documents for other reasons (e.g., dates, times, number of pages, etc.). However, the logic provided herein is adaptable to any number of additional separation criteria with little modification because the analysis of the document separation is based primarily on user acknowledgement of the document separations. Following step 1370, the process 1300 proceeds to control section V…”.
In interest of compact prosecution, examiner further supplement the teachings of Matsuo as following. Matsuo discloses an analogous invention relates to a technique of dividing or splitting a plurality of images into groups with increased users' convenience (see Matsuo, i.e. para. 6 and etc.). More specifically, in Matsuo, i.e. in para. 3-5 and etc., disclose that “[0003] Such a technique is disclosed to divide or split document data, when the number of pages to be included in an image file for read data is input, based on the input number of pages, and to generate image files that, in total, contain the input number of pages. [0004] After users instruct the division or split of the document data, the users may wish to check a division or split result. Users may wish to check whether a division or split result that is not intended is brought about, for example, with the input of wrong number of pages. [0005] To check the division result, the generated image file needs to be opened according to the above-described technique. Separately from the input of the number of pages, users need to open the image file...”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berard to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Matsuo, with the limitations discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to document processing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berard by the teachings of Matsuo, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Matsuo, thereby “…the division may be shown in a display by visually distinguishing between the designated groups. Visual distinctions may include color filtering, use of a division mark, use of grouping frames, labeling and the like and/or combinations thereof. By allowing a user to view the intended groupings, a user may further cancel designated groupings prior to splitting the images into the separate files” (see Matsuo, i.e. abstract and etc.).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to estimate that the error has not occurred with respect to a document among the split documents with no difference, and estimate that the error has occurred with respect to a document with the difference and a document for which the attribute information does not exist (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 5, 30, and etc., disclose “[0005] The knowledge base is updated each time a document is processed and a user provides feedback related to whether the documents were successfully separated. Based on the success or failure of the splitting module, the knowledge base evaluates the modifications made by a user and compares extracted strings from each page to determine what error was made during the document separation. The knowledge base is then updated to reduce the likelihood of, or prevent the occurrence of, the same error in the future”, and “[0030] Following the automatic correction of the preliminary document splitting, manual corrections from a user are received at the host device 25 (step 230). The manual corrections are provided via a user interface, and are provided to correct any mistakes made during the preliminary or automatic document splitting. An example of such a mistake is a page that corresponds to a new document being identified during the preliminary document splitting as a page within a prior document. If the automatic correction rules are unable to identify the error, the page is separated into a new document by the user's manual corrections. The manual corrections are saved by the knowledge base 125 for further analysis. The analysis by the knowledge base 125 includes an analysis of the modifications made to the separation of individual pages and an analysis of the content of the individual pages. The automatic document separation rules stored in the knowledge base 125 are then updated based on the analysis (step 235)…”).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause, upon estimating that the error has occurred, information indicating that the error is estimated to have occurred and information for resolving the error to be displayed on a user interface (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 21, step 1025, and in para. 51, disclose that “[0051] With reference to FIG. 21, the preliminarily separated and automatically corrected documents are saved as proposed documents (step 1020) to, for example, the knowledge base 125 or another memory which is accessible by the correction module 120. The saved documents are then displayed or made ready for display to a user (step 1025). For example, the saved documents are displayed or are accessible through a website or webpage using the user interface module 110. In some embodiments, a user uses a browser to access a webpage and view the documents. Using the user interface module 110, the user modifies the saved documents, and the modifications are received by the host device (step 1030) to correct any errors that were made during the preliminary document separation that were not corrected by the automatic correction rules. The user's modifications are saved (step 1035) by, for example, the knowledge base 125, which then analyzes the user modifications (step 1040) to learn from the corrections. The knowledge base 125 is then updated with new or updated automatic correction rules (step 1045)…”).
With regard to claim 21, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 1, para. 21, and etc., disclose the system 10 for automated document separation; and further in para. 3, discloses that “Alternatively, manual correction programs can be employed to correct for misplaced page separators, but such programs are unable to, for example, learn from prior corrections…”, and in para. 4, disclose that “The host device includes, among other things, a controller and a memory. A plurality of modules are connected to, or included in, the controller for executing various functions of the system…”) comprising:
acquiring attribute information indicating an attribute of a document containing one or more pages and split information indicating a result of splitting in units of documents after a plurality of documents are read consecutively (see Berard, i.e. in fig. 4, step 205, para. 27 and etc., disclose that “[0027] FIG. 4 illustrates a process 200 executed by the host device 25 for separating documents. After the compilation document has been routed to the splitting module 115, the splitting module 115 performs the preliminary document splitting…”); and
estimating an error for each split document on a basis of a difference between a total number of pages in each document obtained from the attribute information and a number of read pages in each split document obtained from the split information (see Berard, i.e. in para. 23 and etc., disclose that “The splitting module 115 then performs a multi-level document splitting operation. For example, the splitting module 115 extracts sender information from each page of the compilation document and performs a preliminary document separation based on the sender of each page. Sender information includes, for example, a name, a phone number, a fax number, a postal address, an email address, a value added tax ("VAT") code, a system identification directory of companies ("SIREN") code, or the like. Such an operation is performed for each page in the compilation document. After the splitting module 115 has completed the preliminary separation, the splitting module 115 accesses the knowledge base 125 to apply automatic correction rules to the preliminarily-split documents. The information within the knowledge base 125 is stored in, for example, tabular form based on sender information. This allows the sender of a particular document to be identified, the auto-correction rules for the document to be accessed, and the splitting module 115 to apply the auto-correction rules to the preliminarily-split document…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claims 4-19 and 22, claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection (if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4, the closest prior arts of record, Berard and Matsuo, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein with respect to a document among the split documents for which the error is estimated to have occurred, the one or more processors are configured to estimate the error on a basis of a presence or absence of the attribute information for each of the document and a document before or after the document, and a relationship of the difference”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Berard.
With regard to claims 5-19, the claims are depending directly or indirectly from the independent Claim 1, each encompasses the required limitations recited in the independent claim discussed above.
With regard to claim 22, the closest prior arts of record, Berard and Matsuo, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… wherein the one or more processors are configured to estimate that the error has not occurred with respect to a document among the split documents with no difference, and estimate that the error has occurred with respect to a document with the difference and a document for which the attribute information does not exist, and with respect to a document among the split documents for which the error is estimated to have occurred, the one or more processors are configured to estimate the error on a basis of a presence or absence of the attribute information for each of the document and a document before or after the document, and a relationship of the difference”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by Berard.
Therefore, claim 4-19 and 22 are objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 2021/0266416 A1) disclose an invention relates to an information processing apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium that, in splitting a read image obtained by reading a batch of paper media, make it possible to reduce the burden associated with splitting documents, in comparison to a case where documents with the same character, symbol, and other objects attached thereto are prepared in advance for each set of documents to identify the set of documents.
Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0306494 A1) disclose an invention relates to an information processing apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium that, in splitting a read image obtained by reading a batch of paper media.
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).
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681