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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: Represented by Fig 5 (Claims 1-9)
Species B: Represented by Fig 6 (Claims 10-16)
Species C: Represented by Fig 4 (Claims 17-18)
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variant of each other based on the current record. Species A directed to a method for page identification training for an automated document. Species B directed to a method for page predictions for an automated document. Species C directed to a method for automatic page alignment for an automated document.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
A telephone call was made to Attorney THANH VUONG on 06/08/2026 and election to Species A without traverse being made.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Claims 10-18 have been withdrawn by the Applicant.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims directed to page identification algorithm which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “feeding training documents…; breaking down the training documents into pages; saving the…documents…; grouping similar documents…; validating the one or more clusters; normalizing the pages…; retrieving a…(PCA) feature number; generating page identification models; and completing page identification training”, which is grouped within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of feeding training documents…; breaking down the training documents into pages; saving the…documents…; grouping similar documents…; validating the one or more clusters; normalizing the pages…; retrieving a…(PCA) feature number; generating page identification models; and completing page identification training which is a process that deals with mathematical calculations because claims are directed to performing page identification algorithm. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as, data extraction system, pixel-based raster format, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the data extraction system, pixel-based raster format perform the steps or functions of feeding training documents…; breaking down the training documents into pages; saving the…documents…; grouping similar documents…; validating the one or more clusters; normalizing the pages…; retrieving a…(PCA) feature number; generating page identification models; and completing page identification training. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a data extraction system, pixel-based raster format, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of page identification algorithm. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, a data extraction system, pixel-based raster format perform the steps or functions of feeding training documents…; breaking down the training documents into pages; saving the…documents…; grouping similar documents…; validating the one or more clusters; normalizing the pages…; retrieving a…(PCA) feature number; generating page identification models; and completing page identification training. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of page identification algorithm. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 further describe the abstract idea of page identification algorithm. Specifically, claim 2 further describe the page identification training, claim 3 further describing saving into raster format, claims 4-5 further describing grouping similar documents, claim 6 further describing normalization factors, claim 7 further describing Principal Component Analysis and claims 8-9 further describe page identification models which are all part of the abstract idea of page identification algorithm. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the data page classification” and “the one or more clusters" in lines 4 and 8 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as each depends from claim 1.
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, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Chevalier (US 20140281903 hereafter ‘Chevalier’).
With respect to claim 1 Chevalier discloses:
feeding training documents (i.e. original document) into the data page classification and data extraction system (See paragraph 0038 and 0097);
breaking down the training documents into pages (See paragraph 0038 i.e. original document pages in digital format);
saving the training documents into pixel-based raster format (See paragraph 0038-0039);
grouping similar documents together into clusters (See paragraph 0024, 0038-0039);
validating the one or more clusters (See paragraph 0097);
normalizing the pages using a normalization factor (See paragraph 0097);
retrieving a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) feature number (See paragraph 0099);
generating page identification models; and completing page identification training (See paragraph 0097-0099).
With respect to claim 3, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein saving into raster format further comprises saving in a known image format, selecting from a list consisting of jpeg, bitmap or portable network graphic (png) (See paragraph 0038).
With respect to claim 4, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein the grouping similar documents together further comprising labelling the documents (See paragraph 0047)
With respect to claim 5, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein grouping similar document can be done manually or through unsupervised clustering (See paragraph 0024, 0038-0039)
With respect to claim 6, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein normalization factors are selected from list consisting of portrait, landscape, size, black and white, and colour. (See paragraph 0097).
With respect to claim 7, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used for dimensionality reduction by projecting each data point onto only the first few principal components to obtain lower-dimensional data while preserving as much of the data’s variation as possible (See paragraph 0099).
With respect to claim 8, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein generating page identification models further comprises splitting the data into training or test data and generating artifacts (See paragraph 0097-0099).
With respect to claim 9, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier further discloses: wherein the identification model is selected from a list consisting of PCA model, SVC model, SVCLin model, Decision Tree model, and Stack Classifier model (See paragraph 0099).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Chevalier (US 20140281903 hereafter ‘Chevalier’).
With respect to claim 2, Chevalier discloses all the limitations as described above. Chevalier discloses page identification training (See paragraph 0097-0099). Chevalier does not disclose: training comprises “teach me” training. The type of training is only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and not functionally related to the recited method steps. The feeding, breaking, saving, grouping, validating, normalizing, retrieving, generating and completing steps would perform the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of application filed to complete any type of training because such type of training does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights