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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
“S906” in Figure 9
“S2004” in Figure 20
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0004, line 15, paragraph 0005, line 5, paragraph 0006, line 5, paragraph 0008, lines 2-3, paragraph 0009, line 5, paragraph 0012, line 6, paragraph 0015, line 2, and paragraph 0127, line 4, “a atypycal document” should read “an atypical document”.
In paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0015, 0016, 0019, 0020, 0022, 0024, 0036, 0038, 0047, 0049, 0050, 0051, 0056, 0061, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0068, 0071, 0072, 0073, 0076, 0078, 0082, 0083, 0086, 0087, 0088, 0090, 0092, 0095, 0096, 0097, 0098, 0099, 0100, 0121, 0123, 0126, 0127, 0131, 0155, 0156, 0157, 0159, 00161, 0162, and 0167, “atypycal document” should read “atypical document”.
In paragraph 0013, line 9, “user device 2” should read “user device 3”.
In paragraph 0122, line 6, “(S905: YES)” should read “(S906: YES)”.
In paragraph 0122, line 12, “(S905: NO)” should read “(S906: NO)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 – 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “a atypycal document” should read “an atypical document”.
In claim 1, line 26, “the information representation structure analysis device comprising:” should read “the information representation structure analysis device further comprising:”.
In claim 1, lines 29-30, “the atypycal document” should read “the atypical document”.
In claim 13, lines 2, 5, and 7, “the atypycal document” should read “the atypical document”.
In claim 14, line 4, “a atypycal document” should read “an atypical document”.
In claim 14, line 23, “the atypycal document” should read “the atypical document”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a storage part configured to store” in claim 1
“an information representation grammar identification part configured to identify an information representation grammar” in claim 1
“a support information type identification part configured to identify a support information type” in claim 1
“an information representation template retrieval part configured to identify the information representation template” in claim 1
“an information representation grammar identification assistance processing part configured to generate a screen for obtaining the extraction target and the basis information” in claim 12
“an information representation pattern verification part configured to obtain the extraction target from the atypical document” in claim 13
“an information representation pattern generation part configured to generate the information representation pattern” in claim 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure sufficient to perform the claimed functions is found in the specification in paragraph 0039, lines 1-6, “The processor 11 illustrated in Fig. 2 is formed with, for example, a CPU (central processing unit), an MPU (micro processing unit), a GPU (graphics processing unit), an FPGA (field programmable gate array), an ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit), an AI (artificial intelligence) chip, or the like.”, and paragraph 0040, lines 1-4, “The main storage device 12 is a device that stores programs and data, and is, for example, a ROM (read-only memory), a RAM (random access memory), a non-volatile memory (NVRAM (non-volatile RAM)), or the like.”.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the information representation pattern generation part" in line 6 and "the extracted extraction target" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 – 11, 14 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an information representation structure analysis device configured using an information processing device, the information representation structure analysis device comprising: a storage part configured to store an information representation being a mode of representation of information in an atypical document, an extraction target being information intended to be extracted from the information representation, and basis information being information to be a basis in extraction of the extraction target from the information representation; an information representation grammar identification part configured to identify an information representation grammar based on the extraction target and the basis information, the information representation grammar being a grammar describing the information representation to be an extraction source of the extraction target; and a support information type identification part configured to identify a support information type of support information being information used in the extraction of the extraction target from the information representation, the support information type being a category of the support information based on a structure of the information representation, wherein the storage part stores an information representation template for each combination of the information representation grammar and the support information type, the information representation template being a template used for generation of an information representation pattern being a program code for implementing a function of extracting the extraction target, the information representation structure analysis device further comprising: an information representation template retrieval part configured to identify the information representation template to be used for the generation of the information representation pattern to be used for extraction of the extraction target from the atypical document, based on the information representation grammar and the support information type identified for the information representation.
The claim 1 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information representation structure analysis device” and “an information processing device”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “store an information representation” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing information from a document, “store an extraction target” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing target information to be extracted from a document, “store basis information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing basis information for extracting information from a document, “identify an information representation grammar” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a grammar for representing information in a document, “identify a support information type of support information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying support information for extracting information from a document, and “identify the information representation template” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a template for representing a document. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements “an information representation structure analysis device” and “an information processing device”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0036 of the specification, “Fig. 2 illustrates a hardware configuration example of the information processing devices (atypical document management device 2, user device 3, and information representation structure analysis device 100) forming the document information management system 1. An information processing device 10 illustrated as an example includes a processor 11, a main storage device 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, an input device 14, an output device 15, and a communication device 16. The information processing device 10 is, for example, a personal computer, an office computer, a server device, a smartphone, a tablet, or the like.”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 – 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2 – 11 and 17 depend from claim 1, and thus recites the limitations of claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the claim 1 limitations recite abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claims 2 – 11 and 17 do not preclude the steps of claim 1 from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person using the method of claim 1 to identify support information and a template for extracting information from a document could also perform the limitations of claims 2 – 11 and 17:
Claim 2: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that an extraction target has the same meaning as predetermined information.
Claim 3: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a position where an extraction target is described is in a predetermined region.
Claim 4: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a position where an extraction target is described has a predetermined positional relation with predetermined information.
Claim 5: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a position where an extraction target is described has a predetermined relation with predetermined information.
Claim 6: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a position of a first extraction target has a predetermined positional relation with a second extraction target.
Claim 7: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that two or more extraction targets all belong to a predetermined region.
Claim 8: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a position of each of two or more extraction targets has a predetermined positional relation with predetermined information.
Claim 9: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a first extraction target has a predetermined relation with a second extraction target.
Claim 10: A person could identify a grammar for representing information in a document, where the grammar represents that a first extraction target and a second extraction target have a predetermined relation with predetermined information.
Claim 11: A person could identify support information for extracting information from a document, where the support information is a word dictionary.
Claim 17: A person could determine an information representation pattern by applying an extraction target and basis information to the identified information representation template.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons discussed above for claim 1, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an information representation structure analysis method of causing an information processing device to perform steps of: storing an information representation being a mode of representation of information in an atypical document, an extraction target being information intended to be extracted from the information representation, and basis information being information to be a basis in extraction of the extraction target from the information representation; identifying an information representation grammar based on the extraction target and the basis information, the information representation grammar being a grammar describing the information representation to be an extraction source of the extraction target; identifying a support information type of support information being information used in the extraction of the extraction target from the information representation, the support information type being a category of the support information based on a structure of the information representation; storing an information representation template for each combination of the information representation grammar and the support information type, the information representation template being a template used for generation of an information representation pattern being a program code for implementing a function of extracting the extraction target; identifying the information representation template to be used for the generation of the information representation pattern to be used for extraction of the extraction target from the atypical document, based on the information representation grammar and the support information type identified for the information representation.
The claim 14 limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing device”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the actions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “storing an information representation” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing information from a document, “storing an extraction target” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing target information to be extracted from a document, “storing basis information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing basis information for extracting information from a document, “identifying an information representation grammar” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a grammar for representing information in a document, “identifying a support information type of support information” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying support information for extracting information from a document, “storing an information representation template” in the context of this claim encompasses a person writing information representation templates, and “identifying the information representation template” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying a template for representing a document. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element “an information processing device”. The additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Examples of generic computer components can be found in paragraph 0036 of the specification, “Fig. 2 illustrates a hardware configuration example of the information processing devices (atypical document management device 2, user device 3, and information representation structure analysis device 100) forming the document information management system 1. An information processing device 10 illustrated as an example includes a processor 11, a main storage device 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, an input device 14, an output device 15, and a communication device 16. The information processing device 10 is, for example, a personal computer, an office computer, a server device, a smartphone, a tablet, or the like.”. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 16 depend from claim 14, and thus recites the limitations of claim 14.
For the reasons discussed above for claim 14, the claim 14 limitations recite abstract ideas. The additional limitations of claim 16 does not preclude the steps of claim 14 from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person using the method of claim 14 to identify support information and a template for extracting information from a document could also perform the limitations of claim 16 and determine an information representation pattern by applying an extraction target and basis information to the identified information representation template. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the reasons discussed above for claim 14, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons discussed above for claim 14, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 – 3 and 11 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Patent No. 10,713,481) in view of Ghatage et al. (US Patent No. 10,402,163), hereinafter Ghatage.
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses an information representation structure analysis device configured using an information processing device (Column 5, lines 37-41, "Referring now to FIG. 1, an illustrative computing device 100 for extracting data from a source document, includes at least one processor 102, an I/O subsystem 104, at least one on-die cache 106, and a memory controller 108 to control a memory 110."), the information representation structure analysis device comprising:
a storage part configured to store an information representation being a mode of representation of information in an atypical document (Column 8, lines 16-32, "Upon receiving the source document from the document acquisition module 300, the data extraction module 302 is configured to extract data from the source document to provide meaning and context. In the embodiment shown, the data extraction module 302 is in communication with a recognition server 316, which performs optical character recognition (“OCR”) scanning of the source document. For example, the data extraction module 302 could be programmed to communicate with the application program interface (“API”) of a third party scanning server. In such an embodiment, the source document could be sent to the recognition server 316 for OCR scanning. The recognition server 316 could return one or more files containing OCR information concerning the source document. In some cases, for example, the recognition server 316 could produce a file, such as an XML file, containing the coordinate position (e.g., top, left, right, bottom) of every character on the page."; A file containing optical character recognition (OCR) information for a document reads on storing an information representation of a document.),
an extraction target being information intended to be extracted from the information representation (Column 11, lines 1-12, "Once rows and columns are identified, the data extraction module 302 uses the section identification module 314 to analyze the various rows to attempt to identify sections and sub-sections. In some embodiments, the section identification module 314 identifies sections and subsections using a data dictionary of words that match the expected sections/subsections for the source document. For example, if the expected source document is a balance sheet or an income statement, examples of expected sections and subsections are listed in FIG. 9. In this example, the expected sections for balance sheet are assets, total assets, and liabilities while current assets and other assets are subsections of assets."; A data dictionary of words that match the expected sections/subsections for the source document reads on storing an extraction target.),
and basis information being information to be a basis in extraction of the extraction target from the information representation (Column 11, lines 38-44, "In the embodiment shown, the extraction system 202 includes a client mapping module 304, which is configured to give meaning to the rows on the included pages of the source document. The client mapping module 304 includes a user interface, which could be an app or web portal, from which the users can give meaning to the rows on the included pages."; Column 11, line 66 - Column 12, line 1, "After processing this document, the mapping actions taken by the user are stored in the client mapping database 306."; Storing mapping actions taken by the user reads on storing basis information.);
an information representation grammar identification part configured to identify an information representation grammar based on the extraction target and the basis information, the information representation grammar being a grammar describing the information representation to be an extraction source of the extraction target (Column 11, lines 38-60, "In the embodiment shown, the extraction system 202 includes a client mapping module 304, which is configured to give meaning to the rows on the included pages of the source document. The client mapping module 304 includes a user interface, which could be an app or web portal, from which the users can give meaning to the rows on the included pages. For example, the user interface may be configured to mapping a line item (e.g. Label=“Cash”) to a client export template (i.e., the format desired for export). By way of example, the label of “Cash” could be used to map rows in pages to “Cash” in the client export template, which indicates that the given line item should be included in the balance for “Cash” that is exported. More than one line item may be mapped to a single export template line. By completing the mapping for each line (or marking it as “unmapped”), the client user establishes the meaning for each line and where to include its value in the final output. The final output to the customer as part of the integration file includes the client export template line items with their balances summed together based upon the “mapping” completed via the user interface of the client mapping module 304 (e.g., web user interface), which can be stored in the client mapping database 306."; The client user establishing the meaning for each line reads on the basis information, and mapping line items to a client export template reads on identifying an information representation grammar.);
and a support information type identification part configured to identify a support information type of support information being information used in the extraction of the extraction target from the information representation, the support information type being a category of the support information based on a structure of the information representation (Column 9, line 41 - Column 10, line 2, "In the embodiment shown, the page identification module 310 analyzes the rows near the top of the page (block 500). A determination is made whether the title lines (i.e., those without values in the first page of the page) match a dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement (block 502). If the title lines do not include any terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement, the page is marked to be ignored (block 504). If title lines include terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement, the page is marked as being a type of income statement or balance sheet (block 506). The page identification module 310 next determines whether the page just analyzed is the last page in the source document (block 508). If the analyzed page is not the last page in the source document, the page identification module 310 goes to the next page and continues the process (block 510). If the analyzed page is the last page, the page identification module 310 determines whether any pages have been found in the source document for the expected document type (block 512). If there have been pages found for the expected document type, the data extraction module 302 turns to the column identification module 312 as explained below (block 514). If no pages are found for the expected document type, secondary line items further down the page are inspected for terms/synonyms (block 516). The page identification module 310 next determines whether there are secondary line items which are expected on a balance sheet or income statement, such as “Assets” or “Liabilities” (block 518)."; A dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement reads on support information.).
Schmidt does not specifically disclose: wherein the storage part stores an information representation template for each combination of the information representation grammar and the support information type, the information representation template being a template used for generation of an information representation pattern being a program code for implementing a function of extracting the extraction target; the information representation structure analysis device further comprising: an information representation template retrieval part configured to identify the information representation template to be used for the generation of the information representation pattern to be used for extraction of the extraction target from the atypical document, based on the information representation grammar and the support information type identified for the information representation.
Ghatage teaches:
wherein the storage part stores an information representation template for each combination of the information representation grammar and the support information type, the information representation template being a template used for generation of an information representation pattern being a program code for implementing a function of extracting the extraction target (Column 5, lines 1-15, "In instances when a new or unrecognized type of document such as a bank statement or pay slip is received by the OCR tool or when a configuration cannot be found for a document image, instead of generating an error and triggering manual action to define a new configuration for the document, the tool may automatically create a new configuration template and/or new type for the document by analyzing the document image based on image comparisons and/or stored knowledge about other documents such as bank statement or pay slip characteristics, configurations, formatting, and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips in general. The tool may then automatically extract target data from the new type of bank statement or pay slip based on the newly created configuration."; Column 6, lines 17-27, "In exemplary step 212, a new self-learned configuration template may be created based on the newly identified document configuration and formatting information, and the new configuration template may be stored in a configuration database for use in the electronic verification and validation tool. The new configuration template may identify locations and formatting of extraction target data within an identified type of digital image document for an identified entity. For example, the location and formatting of amounts of money from a salary may be provided for a letter size bank statement from a specified bank."; Storing a new configuration template in a configuration database reads on storing an information representation template, and creating a new configuration template for the document by analyzing the document image based on image comparisons and stored knowledge about other documents such as bank statement or pay slip characteristics, configurations, formatting, and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips in general reads on an information representation template being a combination of the information representation grammar and the support information, where stored knowledge about other documents reads on support information and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips reads on an information representation grammar.);
the information representation structure analysis device further comprising: an information representation template retrieval part configured to identify the information representation template to be used for the generation of the information representation pattern to be used for extraction of the extraction target from the atypical document, based on the information representation grammar and the support information type identified for the information representation (Column 5, lines 1-15, "In instances when a new or unrecognized type of document such as a bank statement or pay slip is received by the OCR tool or when a configuration cannot be found for a document image, instead of generating an error and triggering manual action to define a new configuration for the document, the tool may automatically create a new configuration template and/or new type for the document by analyzing the document image based on image comparisons and/or stored knowledge about other documents such as bank statement or pay slip characteristics, configurations, formatting, and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips in general. The tool may then automatically extract target data from the new type of bank statement or pay slip based on the newly created configuration."; Creating a new configuration template for the document by analyzing the document image based on image comparisons and stored knowledge about other documents such as bank statement or pay slip characteristics, configurations, formatting, and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips in general reads on identifying the information representation template, where stored knowledge about other documents reads on support information and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips reads on an information representation grammar.).
Ghatage is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of extracting information from documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmidt to incorporate the teachings of Ghatage to create a new configuration template for a document by analyzing the document image based on image comparisons and stored knowledge about other documents such as bank statement or pay slip characteristics, configurations, formatting, and information known about types and patterns of data found within bank statements or pay slips in general. Doing so would allow for analyzing paper documents in order to identify and extract target reference data to be used for verification of a user's electronically entered application data (Ghatage; Column 1, line 53 - Column 2, line 2).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt in view of Ghatage discloses the information representation structure analysis device as claimed in claim 1.
Schmidt further discloses:
wherein the number of the extraction targets is one, and the information representation grammar is a grammar representing that the extraction target has the same meaning as predetermined information or a predetermined information group (Column 11, line 38 - Column 12, line 11, "(42) In the embodiment shown, the extraction system 202 includes a client mapping module 304, which is configured to give meaning to the rows on the included pages of the source document. The client mapping module 304 includes a user interface, which could be an app or web portal, from which the users can give meaning to the rows on the included pages. For example, the user interface may be configured to mapping a line item (e.g. Label=“Cash”) to a client export template (i.e., the format desired for export). By way of example, the label of “Cash” could be used to map rows in pages to “Cash” in the client export template, which indicates that the given line item should be included in the balance for “Cash” that is exported. More than one line item may be mapped to a single export template line. By completing the mapping for each line (or marking it as “unmapped”), the client user establishes the meaning for each line and where to include its value in the final output. The final output to the customer as part of the integration file includes the client export template line items with their balances summed together based upon the “mapping” completed via the user interface of the client mapping module 304 (e.g., web user interface), which can be stored in the client mapping database 306. FIG. 10 provides an example of mapping various rows with various labels to “Cash” in the export template. In this example, the source document lines for “Cash and cash equivalents” and “marketable securities” were mapped to “Cash” in the export template so the resulting line item for “Cash” is equal to the sum of the two mapped lines. After processing this document, the mapping actions taken by the user are stored in the client mapping database 306. The next time the document is submitted for a different time period, the extraction system 202 attempts to “replay” the mapping rules by matching the source document labels against the saved mapping action. Since “Marketable securities” at this general position in the document was mapped to “Cash” last time, it is automatically mapped to the same place again. In this way, most lines are mapped in the same way as when previously processed by the user. Only lines that are new or (label has) changed must be manually mapped by a user again."; A client mapping module giving meaning to a line of a document reads on an information representation grammar, and “Cash and cash equivalents” being mapped to “Cash” reads on representing that the extraction target has the same meaning as predetermined information.).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt in view of Ghatage discloses the information representation structure analysis device as claimed in claim 1.
Schmidt further discloses:
wherein the number of the extraction targets is one, and the information representation grammar is a grammar representing that a position where the extraction target is described is in a predetermined region or region group (Column 9, lines 31-46, "Upon giving structure to the source document using the document assembly module 308, the data extraction module 302 uses the page identification module 310 to determine pages from the source document that are required. For example, the page identification module 310 could be configured to identify which pages represent all or part of a balance sheet or an income statement. FIGS. 5A and 5B show example operations that could be performed by the page identification module 310 to identify those pages from the source document that are required according to one embodiment. In the embodiment shown, the page identification module 310 analyzes the rows near the top of the page (block 500). A determination is made whether the title lines (i.e., those without values in the first page of the page) match a dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement (block 502)."; Analyzing the rows near the top of the page and determining that the title lines match a dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement, reads on a grammar representing that a position where the extraction target is described is in a predetermined region.).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt in view of Ghatage discloses the information representation structure analysis device as claimed in claim 1.
Schmidt further discloses:
wherein the support information type is at least one of a regular expression, a word dictionary, meta information, an HTML structure, a set of words, and a structure of the information representation (Column 9, line 41 - Column 10, line 2, "In the embodiment shown, the page identification module 310 analyzes the rows near the top of the page (block 500). A determination is made whether the title lines (i.e., those without values in the first page of the page) match a dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement (block 502). If the title lines do not include any terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement, the page is marked to be ignored (block 504). If title lines include terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement, the page is marked as being a type of income statement or balance sheet (block 506). The page identification module 310 next determines whether the page just analyzed is the last page in the source document (block 508). If the analyzed page is not the last page in the source document, the page identification module 310 goes to the next page and continues the process (block 510). If the analyzed page is the last page, the page identification module 310 determines whether any pages have been found in the source document for the expected document type (block 512). If there have been pages found for the expected document type, the data extraction module 302 turns to the column identification module 312 as explained below (block 514). If no pages are found for the expected document type, secondary line items further down the page are inspected for terms/synonyms (block 516). The page identification module 310 next determines whether there are secondary line items which are expected on a balance sheet or income statement, such as “Assets” or “Liabilities” (block 518)."; A dictionary of terms/synonyms indicative of a balance sheet or income statement reads on the support information type being a word dictionary.).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt in view of Ghatage discloses the information representation structure analysis device as claimed in claim 1.
Ghatage further teaches:
further comprising an information representation grammar identification assistance processing part configured to generate a screen for obtaining the extraction target and the basis information, present the screen to a user, and receive the extraction target and the basis information from the user via the screen, wherein the storage part stores the extraction target and the basis information obtained by the information representation grammar identification assistance processing part (Column 5, lines 25-28, "The configu