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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 4/13/26, the Applicant amended Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, 15, 17, 19, 20, canceled Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, and argued Claims previously rejected in the Office Action 1/12/26. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are pending examination.
In light of the Applicants amendments and remarks, the objections to the specification has been withdrawn.
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 12/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a confidence value for each character of each words in the recognized text”, “obtain valid data by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain a first set of comparison data comprising one or more words for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain first matching information by comparing each word in the first valid data with comparison data”, “identify first comparison data that matches the first valid data from among the obtained comparison data”, and “output additional information through the display 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 a confidence value for each character of each words in the recognized text”, “obtain valid data by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain a first set of comparison data comprising one or more words for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain first matching information by comparing each word in the first valid data with comparison data”, “identify first comparison data that matches the first 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, remove special characters and determine which title matches the recognized text.
The limitations “obtain valid data from the recognized text”, “obtain a confidence value for each character of each words in the recognized text” and “output additional information through the display 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”, “obtain a confidence value for each character of each words in the recognized text” and “output additional information through the display 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 “obtain valid data by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain a first set of comparison data comprising one or more words for each title of a plurality of titles in a title list by removing special characters and numeric characters”, “obtain first matching information by comparing each word in the first valid data with comparison data”, “identify first comparison data that matches the first 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”, “obtain a confidence value for each character of each words in the recognized text” and “output additional information through 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, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 15, 17 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, in further view of Yellapragada et al., United States Patent Publication 20180025222 (hereinafter “Yellapragada”) and Gilling et al., United States Patent Publication 20190121904 (hereinafter “Gilling”).
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 wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic device 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 a first set of comparison data comprising one or more words 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 first comparison data that matches the first valid data from among the comparison data based on the first matching information (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
output additional information through the display based on the title corresponding to the first 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 first valid data (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.
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
obtain a confidence value for each character of a word in the recognized text, wherein 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.
obtain first matching information by comparing each word of the one or more words included in the first valid data with the first comparison data, wherein the predetermine symbol is considered as matching all characters of the first set of comparison data. (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.
Newcomer, Sudakov and Yellapragada 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, Sudakov and Yellapragada to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claim 2:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain 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,
obtain a second set of 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
obtain second matching information indicating a matching degree between the second valid data and the second set of 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 second comparison data that matches the second valid data, based on the second matching information (see paragraphs [0041] and [0042]). Newcomer teaches identifying the corresponding match based on the matching data.
Claim 5:
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
wherein the at least instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain the confidence value for each character of the word in the recognized text based on an average confidence value of the characters of the word in the recognized text being greater than or equal to a reference average value (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 7:
Newcomer discloses:
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain the second valid data (see paragraphs [0040]-[0042]). Newcomer teaches obtaining the first valid title data,
Newcomer, Sudakov and Yellapragada fail to expressly disclose normalizing the recognized text.
Gilling discloses:
by removing the special characters and the numeric characters included in the recognized text, converting the 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 the 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, Sudakov and Yellapragada 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, Sudakov and Yellapragada 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, Sudakov and Yellapragada to include transforming the text for further processing and recognition for the purpose of efficiently extracting information from text, as recited by Gilling.
Claim 9:
Newcomer and Sudakov fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yellapragada discloses:
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
remove at least one predetermined character sequence from the recognized text, and obtain the first 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 11, 12, 15, 17:
Although Claims 11, 12, 15 and 17 are method claims, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as the device of Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 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 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomer, in view of Sudakov, Yellapragada and Gilling, in further view of Yu, United States Patent Publication 20180343501.
Claim 10:
Newcomer discloses:
a communication circuit,
wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, causes the electronic device to:
identify the title corresponding to the first 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 title to a server through the communication circuit (see paragraph [0025], [0045] and [0052]). Newcomer teaches transmitting the title to be associated with the recognized text
receive the additional information 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, Sudakov, Yellapragada and Gilling fail to expressly disclose determining a confidence score for each character.
Yu discloses:
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, Sudakov, Yellapragada and Gilling 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to the Specification:
Applicant argues The specification is objected to on the basis that the title is not sufficiently descriptive. In view of the enclosed amendments, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the title be withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees and the objection is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues This solution materially improves text recognition accuracy by accounting for frequently misrecognized or indiscernible characters and by optimizing the comparison process through consistent preprocessing. The process enables accurate identification and contextual presentation of content titles, even when those titles are visually rendered and lack associated title information. The Specification repeatedly emphasizes that such improvements go beyond conventional recognition systems, which are prone to failure when confronted with low confidence characters, irregular spacing, or distorted fonts. The claims, as a whole, integrates any
alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is therefore patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong II of the Alice/Mayo framework.
The Examiner disagrees.
The invention uses a computer to perform the abstract idea faster but it is still an abstract idea. The claims are not performed any function that advances technology. The claims do not explicitly claim performing function that are an advancement to the technology. The claims obtain information and perform functions that can be performed in the human mind. Thus, the Examiner suggest further amending the claims to perform functions that are improve the technology. The claims claim a none invention that is performed by a human but uses a computer to be performed faster. Thus, the 35 USC 101 rejection remains.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
The Applicant is not
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of reference do not teach or suggest performing similar processing operation on database entries as Claim 1, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The Applicant did not provide any specific arguments regard the cited references. The Applicant simply states that the combination of prior art do not teach the limitation of the claims.
The Examiner disagrees. See the above rejections of the claims. Thus, the cited references do teach the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 6/27/26
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights