DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Transmittal of New Application filed 10/18/2023.
B. Claims 1-16 remains pending.
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 1-5,7-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “ receives a request instruction and obtains aggregated data corresponding to the request instruction according to the request instruction”, grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a generic device and generic storage devices does not take the claim out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing and updating matched data in a computer environment. The claimed “a storage device, configured to store a multi-language template configuration; and a processor, coupled to the storage device” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools perform an existing data update process. Even considered in combination, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer with storage devices recited at a high level of generality is not a practical application of the abstract idea.The limitation wherein the processor performs type matching on a calling type and the multi-language template configuration according to the calling type of the request instruction, so as to obtain a multi-language template, which is corresponding to the calling type, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “in response to matching” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing data.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to the significantly more than the judicial exception because as noted previously, the computing device and the storage devices individually and in combination merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of matching data in a computer environment; wherein the processor performs multi-language conversion on the aggregated data according to the multi-language template to obtain converted data. The same applies here. (MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is ineligible.
Claims 2-5,7-8,10-13, 15-16 and do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Desai, Anish et al. (US Pub. 2017/0357631 A1), herein referred to as “Desai”.
As for claims 1 and 9, Desai teaches. A multi-language conversion device and corresponding method of claim 9, comprising: a storage device, configured to store a multi-language template configuration; and a processor, coupled to the storage device (par. 5 One or more computers are programmed in accordance with the invention to receive input (e.g. from a user) that is indicative of word-processing documents in electronic form, which are to be analyzed together. Multiple word-processing documents are to be analyzed in response to a single command input by a user that identifies, for example, a directory name and/or portion(s) of file names. The multiple word-processing documents are to be analyzed, by performing one or more predetermined actions that are associated with one or more structures, based on user input. Each predetermined action is performed based on document contents (e.g. strings of text) that are structured by a structure that is associated by a rule with that predetermined action; par. 7 the user also identifies a specific action to be performed whenever the layout structure identified by an identifier in the rule's condition is found in a document, by one or more computers programmed with software (called “document analyzer”) in accordance with the invention; par. 10 par. 10 computer(s) automatically remove images from each document among multiple documents (to be analyzed as identified by user command), and then convert each document into a markup language and then identify within each document one or more layout structures satisfying a condition in a rule that identifies an associated action. ,
wherein the processor receives a request instruction and obtains aggregated data corresponding to the request instruction according to the request instruction (par. 30 user input to a location on a hard drive that has a plurality of documents wherein the invention (herein software) uses a document analyzer to automatically parse these groups of documents the user inputted; par. 31 computer receives user inputs to identify a structure J which by example is a table within one of many inputted documents for the software to use the document analyzer; the structure is termed “layout structure”); fig. 1b; par. 34-35 templates 131x are used to find layout structures of data collection,
wherein the processor performs type matching on a calling type and the multi-language template configuration according to the calling type of the request instruction, so as to obtain a multi-language template, which is corresponding to the calling type (par. 33 computer 100 uses the predetermined identifier (e.g. identifier in FIG. 1B) to identify the structure J as being present in document 112I; subset of documents are identified for having same layout structure by using a template; par. 35 goes further in examples of finding same layout structure in a subset group of documents A, I and N and their structures labeled as B, J and M (used in the disclosure to help follow along),
wherein the processor performs multi-language conversion on the aggregated data according to the multi-language template to obtain converted data (par. 105 act 303, computer 100 converts the template, by using a feature (e.g. macro) in the word-processing software (which created the template), into a rich format expressed in a markup language readable by humans, enabling text documents in this format to be used by different word-processors across different platforms; par. 106 act 304, computer 100 converts the template (e.g. now in the RTF format) into another markup language for displaying pages and having no semantic markup, e.g. the Extensible Stylesheet Language for Formatting Objects or “XSL-FO.” XSL-FO is a part of the XSL specification defined by W3C).
As for claims 2 and 10, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 1 and corresponding method of claim 9, wherein a terminal device outputs the request instruction to the processor through an application program interface, and the processor receives the request instruction, wherein the processor outputs the converted data to the terminal device corresponding to the request instruction, and then displays the converted data on a display of the terminal device (par. 6-7 using API or application program to create structured form to display on terminal screen through user actions mentioned in claim 1 analysis; par. 125 Document analyzer 134 gets the rule by processing this rule using DOM Parser (API to get an xml data) as follows.).
As for claims 3 and 11 , Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 1 and corresponding method of claim 9, wherein the processor executes the multi-language conversion according to a language type of a current webpage, so as to convert the aggregated data into the converted data conforming to the language type (par. 141 document analyzer 134 (as described above in reference to act 304 in FIG. 3A and act 315 in FIG. 3B) is to convert the MS-RTF documents to platform independent and position independent format, with style information in XML structures called XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language). The XSL files can be processed by Java using any open source or proprietary APIs. Document analyzer 134 performs RTF to XSL conversion for every document to be analyzed as follows. All the RTF documents are stored in the processing directory. As noted above, the directory is defined in a property file with the key “BATCH_RTF_DOC_DIR”. At this stage, document analyzer 134 reads an individual document and invokes APIs in software called BI (Business Intelligence) Publisher APIs available from Oracle Corporation. The BI API reads an entire document in RTF format and uses the style information of the document content to generate the XSL file containing the to-be-analyzed document. The directory of the XSL file is defined in the property file 139 with the key “XSL_DIR”).
As for claims 4 and 12, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 1 and corresponding method of claim 9, wherein the multi-language template comprises a conversion rule and a plurality of tag fields, wherein the processor performs the type matching according to semi-structured data and structured data in the aggregated data to obtain the multi-language template, which is corresponding to the semi-structured data and the structured data, wherein the processor performs the multi-language conversion on the tag fields in the aggregated data according to the tag fields and the conversion rule of the multi-language template to obtain the converted data (par. 141-142 After the conversion, document analyzer 134 has an XSL file containing the to-be-analyzed document. Each XSL file is then processed (as per act 305 in FIG. 3A and 316 and 317 in FIG. 3B) using an event driven stream parser, commonly known as a SAX parser wherein SAX is an abbreviation of “Simple API for XML.”; The SAX parser in document analyzer 134 is an event driven based parsing. An event is triggered as soon as the parsing encounters start of the tag, end of the tag and characters in between start and end of the tags. Following are the XSL-FO tags that are used during parsing by document analyzer 134 (as per FIG. 3C)).
As for claims 5 and 13, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 1 and corresponding method of claim 9, wherein the multi-language template comprises an original data type, a converted data type, and a plurality of multi-language conversion fields, wherein the multi-language template configuration comprises a plurality of multi-language templates (par. 35 a number of different standardized documents 112A . . . 112I . . . 112N are generated from the same template 131X, and a subset of these standardized documents 112I . . . 112N form group 115X. Template 131X includes several structures B . . . J . . . M that are identified by respective identifiers ID-B, ID-J and ID-M. The structures (also called “layout structures”) B . . . J . . . M are present in template 131X, e.g. in binary form (originally created in the template 131X by the word-processing software, such as WORD available from Microsoft Corporation). These structures B . . . J . . . M and their identifiers ID-B, ID-J and ID-M are retained in a new document 112I after it is created by user 181 I copying template 131X and editing new document 112I to input text into one or more of structures B . . . J . . . M).
As for claims 6 and 14, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 5 and corresponding method of claim 13, wherein the processor obtains business data from the storage device according to the request instruction, wherein the multi-language conversion device further comprises a task engine, and the task engine obtains dynamic data according to the request instruction, wherein the processor performs an aggregation operation on the business data and the dynamic data to obtain the aggregated data (par. 79 SDA 134/141 enables users to process existing and new templates built with word processing software and process a repository of documents based on the above processed templates, without code changes, and (2) SDA 134/141 allows users to dynamically capture different data structures in a relational database, again without code changes. Par. 141 At this stage, document analyzer 134 reads an individual document and invokes APIs in software called BI (Business Intelligence) Publisher APIs available from Oracle Corporation. The BI API reads an entire document in RTF format and uses the style information of the document content to generate the XSL file containing the to-be-analyzed document. The directory of the XSL file is defined in the property file 139 with the key “XSL_DIR”. After the conversion, document analyzer 134 has an XSL file containing the to-be-analyzed document. Each XSL file is then processed (as per act 305 in FIG. 3A and 316 and 317 in FIG. 3B) using an event driven stream parser, commonly known as a SAX parser wherein SAX is an abbreviation of “Simple API for XML.” ).
As for claims 7 and 15, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 1 and corresponding method of claim 9, wherein the calling type is a type of an application program interface, wherein the processor matches the calling type of the request instruction with the multi-language template configuration, and then obtains the multi-language template corresponding to the calling type from a plurality of multi-language templates (par. 34-36 matching user requests for data types within parsed collection of documents that contains multi-language template configurations the system is able to aggregate data par. 62 by the documents analyzer for further statistical analysis by the user via the user interface).
As for claims 8 and 16, Desai teaches. The multi-language conversion device according to claim 7 and corresponding method of claim 15, wherein the multi-language template configuration comprises a look-up table, wherein the look-up table shows a corresponding relationship between a type of the application program interface and the multi-language template, wherein the type of the application program interface is a business scenario type (as discussed above the templates X,Y and Z defined in fig. 1B are used as look-up functionality to find matching documents with the templates to aggregate data for data analyzer; par. 141-142 invoking APIs for business intelligence for converting data and dynamic analysis of converted data with event driven SAX parser; par. 119 FIG. 3C, as follows. In an act 322 of operation 316, document analyzer 134 starts analyzing the current document (which, as noted above in reference to act 315, is in a dimensionless format), by looking for a layout structure in the document that is valid. Thereafter, in act 323, all the data in the valid layout structure is stored in computer memory (e.g. in random access memory or RAM). Next, in act 324, document analyzer 134 matches all valid layouts by validating them using rules defined in dimensionless format by users (e.g. in rules file 133X as discussed above).
(Note :) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 October 28, 2025