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 .
This office action is in response to application 18503592 filed on November 7, 2023.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 9, 2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609, a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the office action.
Claim Objections
Claim15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the system of claim 3”; however, claim 3 is a method claim. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the system of claim 14”.
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 3-5 and 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the original document rendering output” lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the original document image”.
Regarding claims 4-5, the claims depend on parent claim 3 and do not address the antecedent basis issue. As such, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the original document rendering output” lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “the original document image”.
Regarding claims 15-16, the claims depend on parent claim 14 and do not address the antecedent basis issue. As such, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 8-12, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (20180150434A1) in further view of Boutelle et al. (US20140108897A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium, the method comprising:
(A) receiving an original document as input (Referring to FIG. 29, the method S7000 of converting an electronic document ... operation S7100 of loading an original document … generate the content layer 4000 and the frame layer 5000 by using the electronic data extracted from the original document 3000)([0294] and [0298]);
(C) applying … transformations on the original document … (In operation S7400 for correcting the content layer ... modify a structure of the content layer 4000)([0300]; transformations (i.e., changes to original document) are applied);
(E) outputting the final transformed document (In operation S7500 for generating a converted document, the electronic document converting system 10000 may generate a converted document by using the content layer 4000 and the frame layer 5000 and output the converted document)([0301]).
Kim differs from the claim in that Kim fails to teach rendering the original document to produce a document image, applying transformations to the original document in ordered manner (i.e., page by page) to produce a plurality of transformed documents (i.e., pages), wherein the applying rejects any transformed pages that satisfies a difference criterion relative to a rendered appearance of the original document (i.e., original pages), and identifying a final transformed document that was not rejected in the plurality of transformed documents (i.e., creating an output document that does not include rejected pages).
However, rendering an original document to produce a document image, applying transformations to the original document page by page produce a plurality of transformed pages, wherein the applying rejects any transformed pages that satisfies a difference criterion relative to a rendered appearance of original pages, and creating an output document that does not include rejected pages is taught by Boutelle (FIG. 1 is a flow chart demonstrating an overview of the processing of a fixed-layout document to produce a portable document … In operation 102, the fixed-layout document is received ... the document may first be converted into a predetermined format … In operation 104, fonts are identified, and embedded fonts are extracted from the document, converted and/or normalized ... In operation 106, text blocks within the document are identified, extracted and processed ... In operation 108, non-textual content is extracted ... In operation 110, the processed fonts and content are combined in the selected non-fixed layout format ... In operation 112, the quality or correctness of the output document is determined ... FIG. 2 is a flow chart demonstrating a method of processing the fonts of a fixed-layout document ... In operation 202, processing of the first page or of a next page of the document begin ... FIG. 3 is a flow chart demonstrating a method of processing the content of a fixed-layout document ... In operation 302, processing of the first (or next) page commences by taking two images of the page. One image will be used for error detection ... FIG. 4 is a flow chart demonstrating a method of finalizing the conversion of a fixed-layout document ... In operation 410, if the number and/or types of differences between the images exceed a limit, the method continues at operation 412; otherwise, the method advances to operation 414 ... In operation 414, the selected page (i.e., the assembled page or the image of the original document) is added to the output document)([0022-0028], [0034-0035], [0056-0057], [0072], [0086], and [0089]; Figures 1-4 – transforming an original document page by page such that an output document does not include rejected pages is shown).
The examiner notes Kim and Boutelle teach a method for transforming documents. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the rendering, the applying, and the identifying of Boutelle such that the method renders an original document to produce a document image, applies transformations to the original document in ordered manner to produce a plurality of transformed documents, wherein the applying rejects any transformed pages that satisfies a difference criterion relative to a rendered appearance of the original document, and identifies a final transformed document that was not rejected in the plurality of transformed documents. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of ensuing an output document has high fidelity.
Regarding claim 8, Kim-Boutelle teach the method of claim 1, wherein the original document comprises an XHTML document, and wherein the final transformed document comprises an XHTML document (Kim does disclose expressly that the original and final document are XHTML. Instead, Kim indicates the original document maybe any electronical format that is web-compatible (e.g., HTML5, XML, etc.)(an original document should be interpreted by a comprehensive meaning including all electronic documents in various forms ... A converted document is an electronic document in a web-compatible form ... the converted document may ... HTML5 ... extensible markup language (XML) or so on)([0077] and [0083]). Applicant has not disclosed that having XHTML document form provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Moreover, it appears that the document form of Kim, or applicant’s invention, would have performed equally well as both implementations renders a web-compatible document. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim such that the original and final document are XHTML because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Kim-Boutelle teach the method of claim 1, wherein the original document comprises an HTML document, and wherein the final transformed document comprises an HTML document (Kim does disclose expressly that the original and final document are HTML. Instead, Kim indicates the original document maybe any electronical format that is web-compatible (e.g., HTML5, XML, etc.)(an original document should be interpreted by a comprehensive meaning including all electronic documents in various forms ... A converted document is an electronic document in a web-compatible form ... the converted document may ... HTML5 ... extensible markup language (XML) or so on)([0077] and [0083]). Applicant has not disclosed that having HTML document form provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Moreover, it appears that the document form of Kim, or applicant’s invention, would have performed equally well as both implementations renders a web-compatible document. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim such that the original and final document are HTML because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kim).
Regarding claim 10, Kim-Boutelle teach the method of claim 1, wherein the original document comprises an iXBRL document, wherein the final transformed document comprises an iXBRL document, and wherein meanings of iXBRL tags in the original document are preserved in the final transformed document according to the iXBRL specification (Kim does disclose expressly that the original and final document are iXBRL (i.e., tags are maintained and carried over from original to final). Instead, Kim indicates the original document maybe any electronical format that is web-compatible (e.g., HTML5, XML, etc.)(an original document should be interpreted by a comprehensive meaning including all electronic documents in various forms ... A converted document is an electronic document in a web-compatible form ... the converted document may ... HTML5 ... extensible markup language (XML) or so on)([0077] and [0083]). Applicant has not disclosed that having iXBRL document form provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Moreover, it appears that the document form of Kim, or applicant’s invention, would have performed equally well as both implementations renders a web-compatible document. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim such that the original and final document are iXBRL because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Kim-Boutelle teach the method of claim 1, wherein (C)(2)(d) comprises determining whether the current image comparison output satisfies the difference criterion, which comprises determining whether the current image comparison output is greater than a predetermined threshold value (Boutelle - In operation 410, if the number and/or types of differences between the images exceed a limit)([0086]).
Regarding system claims 12 and 19-22, the claims generally correspond to method claims 1 and 8-11, respectively, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Boutelle, and in further view of Alam et al. (US6336124B1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim-Boutelle teach the method of claim 1, wherein a mapping of elements is generated (Boutelle - in both the input and output page images, text region boundaries are calculated or identified; each region is mapped to the font size for text in the region)([0080]). Kim-Boutelle differs from the claim in that Kim-Boutelle fails to teach the mapping maps element identifiers in the original document (i.e., input data) to corresponding location renderings in the original document image (i.e., intermediate format).
However, mapping element identifiers in input data to corresponding location renderings in an intermediate format is taught by Alam (FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating an embodiment of step 306 of converting the input data to ... an intermediate format at a step 402 ... The intermediate format is preferably a format that can be easily utilized to transfer the data representing the contents of the documents ... The intermediate format document preferably includes information including characters ... and locations within a document ... The intermediate format block may also store an image or other grouped or blocked portion of the input document ... the intermediate format may be a listing of the intermediate format blocks along with their X and Y coordinates ... FIG. 7 shows a flow diagram illustrating an embodiment of step 402 of extracting data from an image of a document and convert the data to the intermediate format)(column 5 lines 51-54, column 6 lines 50-58, and column 7 lines 2-4 and lines 12-15; element identifiers (e.g., characters) in input data are mapped to corresponding coordinate locations in intermediate format).
The examiner notes Kim, Boutelle, and Alam teach a method for transforming documents. As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Boutelle to include the mapping of Alam such that the method maps element identifiers in an original document to corresponding location renderings in an original document image. One would be motivated to make such a combination to provide the advantage of efficiently converting documents to different formats.
Regarding claim 3, Kim-Boutelle-Alam teach the method of claim 2, further comprising: (F) before (C), generating, based on the original document and the original document rendering output, a plurality of features, the plurality of features including a plurality of classifications of a plurality of elements in the original document (Boutelle - FIG. 1 is a flow chart demonstrating an overview of the processing of a fixed-layout document to produce a portable document … In operation 102, the fixed-layout document is received ... the document may first be converted into a predetermined format … In operation 104, fonts are identified, and embedded fonts are extracted from the document, converted and/or normalized ... In operation 106, text blocks within the document are identified, extracted and processed ... In operation 108, non-textual content is extracted)([0022-0027]; features comprising classifications of elements (e.g., fonts, text blocks, and non-textual content) of a document are generated).
Regarding claim 4, Kim-Boutelle-Alam teach the method of claim 3, wherein generating the plurality of features comprises: inferring semantics of the plurality of elements in the original document based on relative positions of the plurality of elements within the original document; and generating the plurality of features based on the inferred semantics of the plurality of elements (Boutelle - a text block in the input document may include ‘GDXG’, with some arbitrary encoding that corresponds to glyphs in the embedded font to produce the desired output … To preserve the positioning of the original document, these sub-blocks will be adjusted)([0062] and [0065]; the semantics (i.e., meaning) of elements in original document along with its positioning are generated).
Regarding claim 5, Kim-Boutelle-Alam teach the method of claim 3, wherein (F) further comprises generating, based on the original document, the original document image, the original document map, and the plurality of classifications, a plurality of nestings of components specified by the plurality of classifications (Boutelle - metrics are stored for affecting how the font will be positioned when displayed within the corresponding operating system. These metrics may include windows ascent and descent ... typographic ascent and descent ... typographic line gap ... hhead ascent and descent (for line spacing) and line gap, and/or others)([0048]; nesting components (i.e., metrics) are generated for elements classified elements).
Regarding system claims 13-16, the claims generally correspond to method claims 2-5, respectively, and recite similar features in system form; therefore, the claims are rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider the reference fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein and enumerated below teaches a method and apparatus for transforming documents.
US20040181746A1
US20060101058A1
US20070038927A1
US20070150494A1
US20130174010A1
US20130239098A1
US20160132537A1
US6941511B1
US7398464B1
US7818665B1
US8782515B2
EP3101554A1
CN112507666A
CN115587158A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yongjia Pan whose telephone number is (571)270-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/YONGJIA PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights