DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“set of normalized data field type” in line 5 of claim 1, last line of claim 2, line 7 of claim 10, last line of claim 11, line 5 of claim 19 should read “set of normalized data field types”.
“the set of tokens” in line 4 of claims 3, 12 and line 15 of claim 19 lacks antecedent basis.
“a first normalized data field types” in line 6 of claim 6, line 7 of claim 15 should read “a first normalized data field type[[s]]”.
“the SDLC for configuration syntax” in line 3 of claims 8, 17 should read “the SDLC .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites limitation that is already recited in claim 19 and thus fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heavenrich (US 20160371238).
Claims 1-3 and 5-6, these claims are rejected for similar reasons as in claims 10-12 and 14-15.
Claim 10, Heavenrich discloses At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by processing circuitry, (e.g. fig. 1, ¶31-32) cause the processing circuitry to:
receive a sample data; (e.g. fig. 3, ¶33: Beginning at block 305, computing device 104 is configured to retrieve unstructured data 140 from memory 112.)
identify a set of data field types of the sample data; (e.g. figs. 3-5, ¶37, 39-41, 47-48: Having retrieved the default parsing rules at block 325, processor 108 is configured to apply the default parsing rules to unstructured data 140 at block 330. Applying the parsing rules includes traversing unstructured data 140 and, for each paragraph, or other defined portion of unstructured data 140, making a series of determinations by comparing the properties of the paragraph to the properties in the parsing rules. FIG. 4 shows an example of those determinations, though it is contemplated that the determinations shown in FIG. 4 can be varied…Once the parsing of unstructured data 140 is complete, processor 108 is configured to perform block 335 of method 300 (shown in FIG. 3). At block 335, processor 108 is configured to control display 120 to present the results of the parsing performed at block 330. FIG. 5 depicts a simplified example of the presentation of parsing results at block 335. In particular, FIG. 5 shows the results of following the processing flow of FIG. 4 for pages 204, 208 and 212 of unstructured data 140. Each row in the table shown in FIG. 5 is one section created during the parsing of pages 204, 208 and 212. A hierarchy level is indicated in the left-most column, followed by a name of the section, a type of the section, and the contents of the section.)
cause presentation of a user interface (UI) on a display of a first device to enable a user of the first device to input a custom mapping between a set of normalized data field type and the identified set of data field types, the custom mapping comprising a plurality of configurations, each configuration of the plurality of configurations includes configuration syntax from a set of predefined configuration syntax; and (e.g. figs. 3, 5-6, ¶34, 49, 51-55: Templates are files defining associations between unstructured data 140 and the predetermined format used by application 132. As will be discussed in further detail below, a template specifies a set of properties of unstructured data 140, such as field names, keywords and the like, in association with a corresponding set of properties defined by the predetermined format used by application 132, in effect mapping unstructured data 140 to the predetermined format. As will be seen below, templates are created and updated during repeated performances of the conversion process of method 300…Returning to FIG. 3, processor 108 is then configured to proceed to block 340, where it receives changes (if any) to the parsing results displayed at block 335. The interface shown in FIG. 5 can include elements (e.g. buttons and drop-down menus) that are selectable using input device 116 to change the structure and contents of the sections. For example, sections can be merged with one another or divided into multiple sections. Further, sections can be renamed, assigned different types than the types determined at block 330, and so on. When hierarchy conflicts are displayed, the input data received at block 340 can include a selection of which of the conflicting hierarchies to keep…Once all changes have been received (signaled, for example, by the selection of a “complete” element in the interface of FIG. 6), processor 108 proceeds to block 345. At block 345, processor 108 is configured to create a template, or to update a template if a template was used in the parsing process, based on the changes received at block 340.)
store the custom mapping as a template. (e.g. fig. 3, ¶56: Having created the template, processor 108 is configured to save the template to memory 112—FIG. 7 depicts computing device 104 in which memory 112 now contains a template 700.)
Claim 11, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, further cause the processing circuitry to: receive a set of data; and generate a set of normalized data by processing the set of data with the template, the normalized data including data of the set of normalized data field type. (e.g. fig. 3, ¶59-60, 57)
Claim 12, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein processing the set of data with the template further cause the processing circuitry to: generate a tokenized set of data using a lexer; parse the set of tokens into a data structure using a parser, the parser configured to re-order the set of tokens into the data structure based on precedence in order of operations; and apply the data structure to the template to generate the set of normalized data. (e.g. figs. 2-3, 10, 8, ¶60-63, 57)
Claim 14, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the configuration syntax includes one or more data transformations of a data field type of the identified set of data field types to a normalized data type of the set of normalized data types. (e.g. figs. 3, 5-6, ¶49-51)
Claim 15, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the causing presentation of the UI to enable the user of the first device to create the custom mapping further cause the processing circuitry to: generate the UI, the UI comprising the set of normalized data field types and at least one input field; and receive a first input from the first device, the first input being associated with a first normalized data field types of the set of normalized data field types, the first input comprising a first configuration syntax, the first configuration syntax including one or more data transformations of a first data field type of the identified set of data field types to the first normalized data field type. (e.g. figs. 3, 5-6, ¶34, 49, 51-55)
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 of this title, 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 4, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heavenrich (US 20160371238) in view of Czerwonka (US 20040255275).
Claims 4 and 20, these claims are rejected for similar reasons as in claim 13.
Claim 13, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the parser is further configured to re-order the set of tokens into the data structure based on precedence in order of operations (e.g. figs. 2-3, 10, 8, ¶60-63, 57) and does not appear to explicitly disclose but Czerwonka discloses using Reverse Polish notation. (e.g. ¶88)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Czerwonka into the invention of Heavenrich for the purpose of eliminating the parentheses and arranging the suitable operation prioritization (Czerwonka, ¶88).
Claim 19, Heavenrich discloses A method comprising:
receiving a sample data; (e.g. fig. 3, ¶33: Beginning at block 305, computing device 104 is configured to retrieve unstructured data 140 from memory 112.)
identifying a set of data field types of the sample data; (e.g. figs. 3-5, ¶37, 39-41, 47-48: Having retrieved the default parsing rules at block 325, processor 108 is configured to apply the default parsing rules to unstructured data 140 at block 330. Applying the parsing rules includes traversing unstructured data 140 and, for each paragraph, or other defined portion of unstructured data 140, making a series of determinations by comparing the properties of the paragraph to the properties in the parsing rules. FIG. 4 shows an example of those determinations, though it is contemplated that the determinations shown in FIG. 4 can be varied…Once the parsing of unstructured data 140 is complete, processor 108 is configured to perform block 335 of method 300 (shown in FIG. 3). At block 335, processor 108 is configured to control display 120 to present the results of the parsing performed at block 330. FIG. 5 depicts a simplified example of the presentation of parsing results at block 335. In particular, FIG. 5 shows the results of following the processing flow of FIG. 4 for pages 204, 208 and 212 of unstructured data 140. Each row in the table shown in FIG. 5 is one section created during the parsing of pages 204, 208 and 212. A hierarchy level is indicated in the left-most column, followed by a name of the section, a type of the section, and the contents of the section.)
causing presentation of a user interface (UI) on a display of a first device to enable a user of the first device to input a custom mapping between a set of normalized data field type and the identified set of data field types, the custom mapping comprising a plurality of configurations, each configuration of the plurality of configurations includes configuration syntax from a set of predefined configuration syntax; (e.g. figs. 3, 5-6, ¶34, 49, 51-55: Templates are files defining associations between unstructured data 140 and the predetermined format used by application 132. As will be discussed in further detail below, a template specifies a set of properties of unstructured data 140, such as field names, keywords and the like, in association with a corresponding set of properties defined by the predetermined format used by application 132, in effect mapping unstructured data 140 to the predetermined format. As will be seen below, templates are created and updated during repeated performances of the conversion process of method 300…Returning to FIG. 3, processor 108 is then configured to proceed to block 340, where it receives changes (if any) to the parsing results displayed at block 335. The interface shown in FIG. 5 can include elements (e.g. buttons and drop-down menus) that are selectable using input device 116 to change the structure and contents of the sections. For example, sections can be merged with one another or divided into multiple sections. Further, sections can be renamed, assigned different types than the types determined at block 330, and so on. When hierarchy conflicts are displayed, the input data received at block 340 can include a selection of which of the conflicting hierarchies to keep…Once all changes have been received (signaled, for example, by the selection of a “complete” element in the interface of FIG. 6), processor 108 proceeds to block 345. At block 345, processor 108 is configured to create a template, or to update a template if a template was used in the parsing process, based on the changes received at block 340.)
storing the custom mapping as a template; (e.g. fig. 3, ¶56: Having created the template, processor 108 is configured to save the template to memory 112—FIG. 7 depicts computing device 104 in which memory 112 now contains a template 700.)
receiving a set of data; and (e.g. fig. 3, ¶59: Beginning again at block 305, processor 108 is assumed to receive input data identifying a modified version 140a of unstructured data 140, shown in FIG. 9.)
generating a set of normalized data by processing the set of data with the template, the normalized data including data of the set of normalized data field type, the processing the set of data with the template comprising: generating a tokenized set of data using a lexer; parsing the set of tokens into a data structure using a parser, the parser configured to re-order the set of tokens into the data structure based on precedence in order of operations; and applying the data structure to the template to generate the set of normalized data. (e.g. figs. 3, 10, 8, ¶59-63, 57: Thus, processor 108 loads template 700 at block 315, and proceeds to block 320. At block 320, rather than applying the default parsing rules as described above, processor 108 compares the contents of unstructured data 140a to template 700. Whenever a match is found between the properties of one or more paragraphs of unstructured data 140a and the properties specified for a given section in template 700, processor 108 creates a section having the attributes specified in template 700. If a paragraph, or group of paragraphs, in unstructured data 140a do not match any of the records of template 700, then processor 108 can be configured to parse the non-matching paragraphs using the default parsing rules, as illustrated by the broken line between blocks 320 and 325 in FIG. 3. Following the parsing of unstructured data 140a, processor 108 is configured to display the results of parsing at block 335. FIG. 10 depicts a simplified example of the results of block 320 (and possibly block 330, if non-matching paragraphs are detected). Of particular note, the sections defined in FIG. 10 correspond to those defined in FIG. 6, after the receipt of changes at block 340. In other words, the storage of changes to parsing results in template 700 can reduce or obviate the need to make further changes in subsequent conversions. If any changes are required to the parsing results shown in FIG. 10, they are received at block 340, and template 700 is updated at block 345 to modify existing records or to add new records. For example, if unstructured data 140a included an additional page whose paragraphs did not match any of the records in template 700, template 700 could be expanded to include a new record associating the properties of those paragraphs with section attributes…Referring again to FIG. 3, processor 108 is then configured, at block 350, to store the finalized sections created from unstructured data 140 according to the predetermined format used by application 132.)
Heavenrich does not appear to explicitly disclose but Czerwonka discloses using Reverse Polish notation. (e.g. ¶88: tokens may be ordered using Reverse Polish Notation)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Czerwonka into the invention of Heavenrich for the purpose of eliminating the parentheses and arranging the suitable operation prioritization (Czerwonka, ¶88).
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heavenrich (US 20160371238) in view of Yao (US 20160335383).
Claim 7, this claim is rejected for similar reasons as in claim 16.
Claim 16, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the causing presentation of the UI to enable the user of the first device to create the custom mapping further cause the processing circuitry to: receive a second input from the first device, the second input being associated with a second normalized data field type of the set of normalized data field types, the second input comprising a second configuration syntax; (e.g. figs. 3, 5-6, ¶34, 49, 51-55) and does not appear to explicitly disclose but Yao discloses identify invalid syntax in the second configuration, the invalid syntax not comprised in the set of predefined configuration syntax; and reject the second input. (e.g. ¶59)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Yao into the invention of Heavenrich for the purpose of rejecting invalid configurations from the user and requesting the user to provide new configuration as appropriate.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heavenrich (US 20160371238) in view of Marc (US 20200250370).
Claims 8-9, these claims are rejected for similar reasons as in claims 17-18.
Claim 17, Heavenrich discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein each of the configuration syntax belonging to the set of predefined configuration syntax have been through a systems development life cycle (SDLC), the SDLC for configuration syntax comprising: designing the configuration syntax in a environment; peer-reviewing the configuration syntax; testing the configuration syntax; scanning the configuration syntax for vulnerabilities; and deploying the configuration syntax. (e.g. fig. 3, ¶34, 49-50, 52, 60, 63-64)
Although Heavenrich discloses an environment (see above), Heavenrich does not appear to explicitly disclose but Marc discloses a secure environment (e.g. ¶33, 42, 51)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Marc into the invention of Heavenrich for the purpose of protecting the template and its associated data from unauthorized access.
Claim 18, Heavenrich-Marc discloses The at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the set of predefined configuration syntax having been through the SDLC belongs to a custom language. (Heavenrich, e.g. ¶34, 49, 5)
Although Heavenrich discloses a custom language (see above), Heavenrich does not appear to explicitly disclose but Marc discloses a custom scripting language (e.g. ¶65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features described by Marc into the invention of Heavenrich for the purpose of adopting a known programming language thereby increasing the flexibility of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Razin (US 20230385298) discloses the controller is configured receive an unstructured data file comprising a set of documents; apply the unstructured data file to a document identification model to identify a data element identifier and an associated data element of each document of the set of documents; apply an optical character recognition engine to the identified data element identifier and associated identified data element to generate a structured data element identifier and an associated structured data element, the structured data element identifier and the associated structured data element configured as machine-identifiable characters; embed the structured data element identifier and associated structured data element as metadata with the unstructured data file; and store the unstructured data file and metadata in a database.
Hegde (US 20210056259) discloses a method and system generate customized financial document templates in a document preparation system, according to one embodiment. The method and system receive document data from a user corresponding to a document including a plurality of custom data fields in a custom template. The method and system map the custom data fields to system data fields from a relatively small subset of data fields selected from a system data field pool based on the characteristics of the user. The method and system generate a custom form template based on the document data and the mapping of the custom data fields to system data fields.
Luo (US 20230359771) discloses after the processing device 120 obtains the template setting request from the user, the processing device 120 may cause the terminal device to display a plurality of tags of the at least one original file. The processing device 120 may obtain a tag editing request from the user. The tag editing request may include deleting a tag from the plurality of tags, adding a tag in the plurality of tags, or the like, or any combination thereof. For example, the user may input the tag editing request via a delete tag button (e.g., a delete tag button as illustrated in FIG. 9) and/or an insert tag button (e.g., an insert tag button as illustrated in FIG. 9) in the template setting interface. As another example, the user may input the tag editing request via a voice. After one or more tags are selected from the plurality of tags of the at least one original file, one or more masking modes for the one or more selected tags, and one or more masking values corresponding to the one or more masking modes may be determined. The masking template for the at least one original file may be generated based on the one or more selected tags, one or more masking modes for the one or more sleeted tags, and one or more masking values corresponding to the one or more masking modes. In some embodiments, the masking template may be stored in the format of an extensible markup language (XML) file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GELAGAY SHEWAYE can be reached on (571)272-4219. 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.
/TRONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436