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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/23, 4/15/24 and 1/28/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “recognize a text in an image output through the display”, “obtain valid data from the recognized text”, “obtain comparison data for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list”, “identify comparison data that matches the valid data from among the obtained comparison data”, and “provide additional information based on a title corresponding to the identified comparison data”.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of steps “recognize a text in an image output through the display”, “obtain comparison data for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list”, and “identify comparison data that matches the valid data from among the obtained comparison data” are that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. A human is able to recognize text in an image, compare the text to a list of titles and determine which title matches the recognized text.
The limitations “obtain valid data from the recognized text” and “provide additional information based on a title corresponding to the identified comparison data” are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, all the limitations are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations “obtain valid data from the recognized text” and “provide additional information based on a title corresponding to the identified comparison data”, the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “recognize a text in an image output through the display”, “obtain comparison data for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list”, and “identify comparison data that matches the valid data from among the obtained comparison data”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Additional elements limitations “obtain valid data from the recognized text” and “provide additional information based on a title corresponding to the identified comparison data” were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed above, the recitations of the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims do not include additional element to that make an inventive concept.
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, 2, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer et al. United States Patent Publication 20070217691 (hereinafter “Newcomer”), in view of Sudakov, United States Patent Publication 20210295084.
Claim 1:
Newcomer discloses:
An electronic device comprising:
a display (see figure 1 and paragraph [0070]). Newcomer teaches a display;
a memory storing at least one instruction (see paragraph [0024] and [0025]). Newcomer teaches a memory for storing instruction; and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
recognize a text in an image output through the display (see paragraph [0024]). Newcomer teaches recognizing text in an image output through the display ,
obtain comparison data for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list (see paragraph [0008]). Newcomer teaches obtaining data to compare the recognized character string to each title in the title list,
identify comparison data that matches the valid data from among the obtained comparison data (see paragraph [0008]). Newcomer teaches Each target document title has a document code associated therewith and comparing produces a match measure based at least in part on the comparison. The method also includes determining whether the match measure exceeds a predetermined match threshold and assigning a document code to the document based on whether the match measure, produced by a comparison of a corresponding target document title to a target character string, exceeds the predetermined match threshold., and
provide additional information based on a title corresponding to the identified comparison data (see paragraph [0045] and [0052]). Newcomer teaches providing additional information associated with the title of the document based on the identified match.
Newcomer fails to expressly disclose obtaining data from recognized text.
Sudakov discloses:
obtain valid data from the recognized text (see paragraph [0041]). Sudakov teaches may recognize the text included in the image without interworking with an external server itself, thereby obtaining the information about the contents.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer to include obtain validity data from the recognized text for the purpose of efficiently recognizing based on no predefined data, as recited by Sudakov.
Claim 2:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the valid data comprises at least one of first valid data or second valid data (see paragraph [0041]). Newcomer teaches the target data may come from a preexisting title plant, known business and personal names in the recording jurisdiction, geographic information in the recording jurisdiction like cities, subdivisions, and/or the like, and any of a wide variety of other sources. In some embodiments, the validation process pairs various combinations of recognized character strings with corresponding pairs of target data elements,
wherein the comparison data comprises at least one of first comparison data or second comparison data (see paragraph [0041]). Newcomer teaches Based on the document's type, data is recognized and validated at block. This may include comparing any text string recognized on the document to target data, and
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain first matching information indicating a matching degree between the first valid data and the first comparison data (see paragraphs [0041] and [0042]). Newcomer teaches obtaining matching information that calculates a degree and confidence score for the matching data,
obtain second matching information indicating a matching degree between the second valid data and the second comparison data (see paragraphs [0041] and [0042]). Newcomer teaches obtaining matching information that calculates a degree and confidence score for the matching data for multiple piece of data, and
identify the comparison data that matches the valid data, based on at least one of the first matching information or the second matching information (see paragraphs [0041] and [0042]). Newcomer teaches identifying the corresponding match based on the matching data.
Claims 11 and 12:
Although Claims 11 and 12 are method claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Claim 20:
Although Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claim 1.
Claims 3, 6-8, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer et al. United States Patent Publication 20070217691 (hereinafter “Newcomer”), in view of Sudakov, United States Patent Publication 20210295084, in further view of Gilling et al., United States Patent Publication 20190121904 (hereinafter “Gilling”).
Claim 3:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain the first valid data comprising one or more words (see paragraphs [0040]-[0042]). Newcomer teaches obtaining the first valid title data,
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose normalizing the recognized text.
Gilling discloses:
by removing special characters and numeric characters included in the recognized text, converting characters included in the recognized text to upper case, splitting the recognized text into words by using spaces included in the recognized text as separators, and removing words with fewer characters than a predetermined character amount (see paragraph [0053]). Gilling teaches removing special character, changing the uppercase and splitting text and characters into the words based on spaces.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claim 6:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain the first comparison data comprising one or more words (see paragraph [0041]). Newcomer teaches comparing any text string recognized on the document to target data,
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose normalizing the recognized text.
Gilling discloses:
by removing special characters and numeric characters included in the title, converting characters included in the title to upper case, and removing words with fewer characters than a predetermined character amount, from among a plurality of words included in the title (see paragraph [0053]). Gilling teaches removing special character, changing the uppercase and splitting text and characters into the words based on spaces.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claim 7:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain the second valid data comprising one or more words (see paragraphs [0040]-[0042]). Newcomer teaches obtaining the first valid title data,
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose normalizing the recognized text.
Gilling discloses:
by removing special characters and numeric characters included in the recognized text, converting characters included in the recognized text to upper case, splitting the recognized text into words by using spaces included in the recognized text as separators, and removing words with fewer characters than a predetermined character amount (see paragraph [0053]). Gilling teaches removing special character, changing the uppercase and splitting text and characters into the words based on spaces.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claim 8:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain the second comparison data comprising one or more words (see paragraph [0041]). Newcomer teaches comparing any text string recognized on the document to target data,
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose normalizing the recognized text.
Gilling discloses:
by removing special characters and numeric characters included in the title, converting characters included in the title to upper case, and removing words with fewer characters than a predetermined character amount, from among a plurality of words included in the title (see paragraph [0053]). Gilling teaches removing special character, changing the uppercase and splitting text and characters into the words based on spaces.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claims 13, 16-18:
Although Claims 13, 16-18 are method claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claims 3, 6-8, respectively.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer, in view of Sudakov, in further view of Yellapragada et al., United States Patent Publication 20180025222 (hereinafter “Yellapragada”).
Claim 4:
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain a confidence value for each character of a word in the recognized text, the confidence value indicating whether the character is correct (see paragraph [0028]). Yellapragada obtaining confidence score for each character,
obtain the first valid data by substituting a character having a confidence value less than or equal to a reference value with a predetermined symbol (see paragraph [0029]). Yellapragada teaches substituting characters with a confidence score or wrong character, and
compare each word included in the first valid data with the first comparison data, by considering the predetermined symbol as matching all characters. (see paragraph [0029]). Yellapragada teaches readjusting confidence scores after comparing the changed characters.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to evaluating each character for confidence scores and substituting character to increase confidence scores for the purpose of efficiently increasing optical character recognition accuracy, as recited by Yellapragada.
Claim 5:
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: based on an average confidence value of the characters of the word included in the first valid data being greater than or equal to a reference average value, obtain the confidence value for each character of the word (see paragraph [0030]). Yellapragada teaches determining an average confidence values for the characters and determining if it is above a threshold for valid data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to evaluating each character for confidence scores and substituting character to increase confidence scores for the purpose of efficiently increasing optical character recognition accuracy, as recited by Yellapragada.
Claim 9:
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
remove at least one predetermined character sequence from the recognized text, and obtain the valid data based on the recognized text from which the at least one predetermined character sequence is removed (see paragraph [0029]). Yellapragada teaches removing and substituting a character/character sequence and obtaining data based on the change recognized text.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to evaluating each character for confidence scores and substituting character to increase confidence scores for the purpose of efficiently increasing optical character recognition accuracy, as recited by Yellapragada.
Claims 14, 15:
Although Claims 14 and 15 are method claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claims 4 and 5, respectively.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer, in view of Sudakov, in further view of Yu, United States Patent Publication 20180343501.
Claim 10:
Newcomer discloses:
a communication unit,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify a title corresponding to the identified comparison data (see paragraph [0008]). Newcomer teaches identifying a title document based on the comparing which produces a match measure based at least in part on the comparison. Identifying a title that exceeds the match measure,
transmit the corresponding title to a server through the communication unit (see paragraph [0025], [0045] and [0052]). Newcomer teaches transmitting the title to be associated with the recognized text
receive additional information corresponding to the corresponding title from the server (see paragraph [0045] and [0052]). Newcomer teaches providing additional information associated with the title of the document based on the identified match, and
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yu discloses:
output the additional information through the display, wherein the additional information comprises at least one of recommendation information based on the corresponding title or information obtained through a search based on the corresponding title (See paragraph [0063]). Yu teaches outputting additional information to the user through the display of a recommendation of content that may be of interest to the user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Newcomer and Sudakov to outputting additional information related to the recognized text/content for the purpose of efficiently recognizing content and identifying content of interest, as recited by Yu.
Claim 19:
Although Claim 19 is a method claim, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIONNA M BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-7259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
/TIONNA M BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 12/17/25