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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 6/10/2026.
Claims 1-7 and 13-20 are pending. Claims 8-12 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/10/2026.
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 1-7 and 13-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the computer-readable storage medium could include a transitory signal. The specification does not preclude transitory signals by way of explicit definition.
Claim 1-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – Mental Processes) without significantly more. Claim 1-7 and 13-19 are used as an example.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a process, therefore the answer is “YES”- A method is disclosed.
With regard to (2A), Prong One, “YES”. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental processes without significantly more.
In claim 1, the steps of “determining a first candidate date string from a document”, “determining that the first candidate date string corresponds with two or more valid dates”, “determining a document date value of the document”, “determining a relevant date range based on the document date value”, “determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range” and “responsive to determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range, determining the at least one of the two or more valid dates as an inferred date for the first candidate date string”, are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. The steps can be carried out in a user’s mind such as observation, estimation and judgment with standard tools. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human armed with something such as an imaging system, a pen and paper. These steps are using identified image data to resolve date ambiguity within a specified range. The steps are examined in more detail below:
The step of “determining a first candidate date string from a document” determines a date string from a document. A human mind can perceive the ate string from a document.
The step of “determining that the first candidate date string corresponds with two or more valid dates” can be carried out in a user’s mind when observing the document.
The step of “determining a document date value of the document” can be carried out in a user’s mind when observing the document.
The step of “determining a relevant date range based on the document date value” determines a date range based on the identified document date value. A human mind can estimate the date range by using the identified document date value.
The steps of “determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range” and “responsive to determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range, determining the at least one of the two or more valid dates as an inferred date for the first candidate date string” determine valid date(s) based on the date range. A human mind can estimate the valid date(s) by using the date range.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two, NO. The instant claim does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of “determining a first candidate date string from a document”, “determining that the first candidate date string corresponds with two or more valid dates”, “determining a document date value of the document”, “determining a relevant date range based on the document date value”, “determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range” and “responsive to determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the relevant date range, determining the at least one of the two or more valid dates as an inferred date for the first candidate date string”, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application beyond what could be accomplished with a generic computing/imaging system and generic readily available calculator, pen, and paper to accomplish the steps.
There are no the additional elements other than the abstract idea in the claim.
Similarly, under (2B), the limitation fails to amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 defines the document date value as a date of issuance of the document, this is mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 3 determines the relevant date range by extending over a fixed period from a start date, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 4 adds limitations of a component (relevant date range) of the document date value, this is mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 5 adds the limitation of providing the inferred date for the date string as an output, this is output recited at a high level of generality and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 6 adds the limitation of determining that valid dates fall within the date range and determining the two or more valid dates as a set of inferred dates for the date string, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 7 adds the limitation of providing the set of inferred dates for the date string as an output, this is output recited at a high level of generality and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 13 adds the limitation of determining document data indicative of the document date value of the document and determining the document date value is based on the document data, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 14 adds the limitation of determining the document data from previously processed documents, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 15 defines the document data scope using specific examples, this is mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 16 adds the limitation of determining date parsing metadata and determining the document date value of the document is based on received document data and the date parsing metadata, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 17 defines the date parsing metadata scope using specific examples, this is mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Claim 18 adds the limitation of determining a second date string from the document, determining that the second date string corresponds with an unique date and responsive to determining that the second date string corresponds with an unique date, determining the unique date as an inferred date for the second date string, this is a mental process and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable. The additional element(s), “A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory comprising computer executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations” is/are high level of generality, and these amount to generic computer processing components and fail to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 19, are applicable.
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 and 13-17 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 3 recites “the relevant date range extends over a fixed period of time from a start date to the date of issuance of the document.” A "fixed period of time" implies a constant duration, but anchoring its end to an unpredictable "date of issuance" makes that duration variable. Because the range between the start date and the issuance date shifts with each document, the period cannot logically be considered fixed. The entire limitation becomes much clearer if the end of the period is not anchored to “the date of issuance of the document.”
Claim 13 recites “determining document data indicative of the document date value of the document, wherein determining the document date value is based on the document data”. The limitations are circular and unclear. The claim requires determining "document data" based on a "document date value," but then simultaneously requires determining that same "document date value" based on the "document data." Because the logic creates an infinite loop of antecedent dependency where neither the "data" nor the "value" can be established first, the boundaries of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-7, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill et al. (U.S Publication No. 2007/0094246) (hereafter, "Dill") in view of SHIMIZU et al. (U.S Publication No. 2020/0250266) (hereafter, "SHIMIZU").
Regarding claim 1, Dill teaches a method comprising ([0001] The present invention generally relates to text analysis of electronic documents. More specifically, the present invention relates to identifying dates in electronic documents in which dates occur in various formats): determining a first candidate date string from a document ([0055] FIG. 4 illustrates a method 400 of the extended matching module 205 of system 10. System 10 selects a document for processing (step 405). The date module 215 scans the selected document for one or more occurrences of a date in numeric format or a date comprising a month name in alphabetic format in either full form or abbreviated form (step 410); [0017] A date matching module of the present system processes free-form text in documents to identify and locate some or all of the dates in the documents using extended regular expression matching to capture various date formats); determining that the first candidate date string corresponds with two or more valid dates ([0060] Ambiguities arise both with numeric date (e.g., 11.10.2004) and alphanumeric date (e.g., 02 October 04) in that the day, month, or year may not be easily discerned. The disambiguator 230 checks ranges values of the portions of the date to reduce ambiguity; [0061] A page may comprise date 9.10.2004; this date can be either October 9, 2004 or September 10, 2004) … determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the … date range; and ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected; The prior art establishes an acceptable time range, any time up to and including the "current crawled date." Dates preceding this crawled date represent the implicit "relevant range," while the future represents an irrelevant range. The prior art system that filters out dates falling outside a valid threshold is functionally performing the exact same logic as a system determining which dates fall inside a valid range. To reject ambiguous dates because they fall outside a boundary (after the crawled date), the system must inherently evaluate the dates to figure out where they sit in relation to the boundary) responsive to determining that at least one of the two or more valid dates falls within the … date range ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected), determining the at least one of the two or more valid dates as an inferred date for the first candidate date string ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected ... If possible interpretations of dates are less than the crawled date, then the date interpretation that is closer to the crawl date is selected. For example, a page crawled in december 2004 lists a date 01 october 04. The disambiguator 230 interprets the date 01 october 04 as 1st October 2004 instead of 4th October 2001).
Dill does not expressly teach … determining a document date value of the document; determining a relevant date range based on the document date value … relevant … relevant.
However, SHIMIZU teaches determining a document date value of the document ([0064] the date of the starting day is determined. The item indicative of the starting day is set as the key character string, and the key value extraction is performed; [0086] in step S120, the character string of the item indicative of the starting day (for example, “day of issue”) corresponding to the designated type of the document is acquired as the key character string based on the starting day item list); determining a relevant date range based on the document date value ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month) Equation (1); [0062] Equation (1) is for determining a deadline calculation rule in which the number of days according to “N months” is added to the date of the starting day; [0057] The deadline expression pattern list 24 is a list of the expression patterns other than the date format of the deadline (refer to FIG. 5); FIG. 5 illustrates the various expression patterns for different date ranges) … the relevant date range ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month); [0057] The deadline expression pattern list 24 is a list of the expression patterns other than the date format of the deadline (refer to FIG. 5)) … the relevant date range ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month); [0057] The deadline expression pattern list 24 is a list of the expression patterns other than the date format of the deadline (refer to FIG. 5)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Dill to incorporate the step/system of determining a specific date value of the document and determining a relevant date range based on the specific date value taught by SHIMIZU.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve date conversion of data parsing ([0006] In a case where a human reads the document, there are many cases where the date is estimated from the value other than the date. However, in character recognition with respect to an image acquired by reading the document, date conversion is not performed; [0007] a program, which is capable of outputting a character string of a date format indicative of a date of a deadline in a case where a character string other than the date format is extracted as a value with respect to an item indicative of the deadline from a result of the character recognition with respect to the image acquired by reading the document). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dill and SHIMIZU to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. SHIMIZU teaches wherein the document date value is a date of issuance of the document ([0064] the date of the starting day is determined. The item indicative of the starting day is set as the key character string, and the key value extraction is performed; [0086] in step S120, the character string of the item indicative of the starting day (for example, “day of issue”) corresponding to the designated type of the document is acquired as the key character string based on the starting day item list).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. SHIMIZU teaches wherein the relevant date range extends over a fixed period of time from a start date to the date of issuance of the document ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month) Equation (1); [0062] Equation (1) is for determining a deadline calculation rule in which the number of days according to “N months” is added to the date of the starting day. In Equation (1), one month is set to 30 days; [0066] the date of the deadline is calculated from the date of the starting day using the determined calculation formula ... in a case where Equation (1) is determined to be the calculation formula, the starting day is determined to be the day of issue, and a date of the day of issue is determined to be Jan. 7, 2019, the date of the deadline Feb. 7, 2019 is calculated).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. SHIMIZU teaches wherein the document date value comprises the relevant date range ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month) Equation (1); [0062] Equation (1) is for determining a deadline calculation rule in which the number of days according to “N months” is added to the date of the starting day; [0092] the character string indicative of the period is converted into the number of days. A date of the deadline is acquired based on the date of the starting day and the number of days).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dill teaches further comprising: providing, as an output, the inferred date for the first candidate date string ([0062] a page crawled in december 2004 lists a date 01 october 04. The disambiguator 230 interprets the date 01 october 04 as 1st October 2004 instead of 4th October 2001; [0064] The canonicalizer 235 takes the month, day, and year determined by the disambiguator 230, and represents the date in a canonicalized form as MMM-dd-yyyy (step 430); [0074] outputting all occurrences of a queried date using the packaging generated by the packaging module 210 (step 310)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dill teaches wherein determining that at least two of the two or more valid dates falls within the … date range ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected; The prior art establishes an acceptable time range, any time up to and including the "current crawled date." Dates preceding this crawled date represent the implicit "relevant range," while the future represents an irrelevant range. The prior art system that filters out dates falling outside a valid threshold is functionally performing the exact same logic as a system determining which dates fall inside a valid range. To reject ambiguous dates because they fall outside a boundary (after the crawled date), the system must inherently evaluate the dates to figure out where they sit in relation to the boundary); and responsive to determining that at least two of the two or more valid dates falls within the … date range ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected), determining the at least two of the two or more valid dates as a set of inferred dates for the first candidate date string ([0062] Disambiguator 230 applies additional rules as desired to further disambiguate a date … Disambiguator 230 further applies additional rules based on dates compared to past/future. For example, if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected ... If possible interpretations of dates are less than the crawled date; Filtering out dates outside a threshold is functionally identical to keeping dates within a valid range. Both approaches determine the exact same set of multiple valid dates).
Dill does not expressly teach … relevant … relevant.
However, SHIMIZU teaches determining a relevant date range ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month) Equation (1); [0062] Equation (1) is for determining a deadline calculation rule in which the number of days according to “N months” is added to the date of the starting day; [0057] The deadline expression pattern list 24 is a list of the expression patterns other than the date format of the deadline (refer to FIG. 5); FIG. 5 illustrates the various expression patterns for different date ranges) … the relevant date range ([0061] deadline = $starting day$ + (N×30±correction of for each month); [0057] The deadline expression pattern list 24 is a list of the expression patterns other than the date format of the deadline (refer to FIG. 5)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Dill to incorporate the step/system of determining a relevant date range based on the specific date value taught by SHIMIZU.
Motivation for this combination has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above. Dill teaches further comprising: providing, as an output, the set of inferred dates for the first candidate date string ([0062] if one interpretation of a date is after the current crawled date for a collection of documents in which the selected document resides, then the interpretation is rejected ... If possible interpretations of dates are less than the crawled date … a page crawled in december 2004 lists a date 01 october 04. The disambiguator 230 interprets the date 01 october 04 as 1st October 2004 instead of 4th October 2001; [0064] The canonicalizer 235 takes the month, day, and year determined by the disambiguator 230, and represents the date in a canonicalized form as MMM-dd-yyyy (step 430); [0074] outputting all occurrences of a queried date using the packaging generated by the packaging module 210 (step 310); [0077] FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary screenshot 500 displaying results of a single query for “all dates in Oct-2004”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above. SHIMIZU teaches further comprising: determining document data indicative of the document date value of the document ([0063] The item indicative of the starting day is acquired from the starting day item list 28 illustrated in FIG. 8 according to the designated type of the document. For example, in a case where the type of the document is the estimation sheet, the day of issue, the preparation day, the estimation day are included in the item indicative of the starting day), wherein determining the document date value is based on the document data ([0057] the starting day item list 28 is a list of an item indicative of the starting day. The item indicative of the starting day is preset according to the type of the document).
With respect to claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
With respect to claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Claim 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill et al. (U.S Publication No. 2007/0094246) (hereafter, "Dill") in view of SHIMIZU et al. (U.S Publication No. 2020/0250266) (hereafter, "SHIMIZU") and further in view of Cooksey et al. (U.S Publication No. 2022/0391994) (hereafter, "Cooksey").
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. The combination of Dill and SHIMIZU does not expressly teach wherein the document data is determined from previously processed documents.
However, Cooksey teaches wherein the document data is determined from previously processed documents ([0015] System and method 100 include a document processing engine 210 used to automate and perform a number of functions on the captured images of financial documents ... The document processing engine 210 further performs optical character recognition (OCR) to convert the images 508 to text files ... The processing engine 210 uses machine learning (ML) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) to extract certain information from the processed images or text files. The document processing engine 210 also automatically analyzes the images and classifies the document types (e.g., invoices, bills of lading, rate sheets, proof of delivery, lumpers, receipts, purchase orders, bank statements, and driver settlement statements), so that the user doesn't have to specify the document types when uploading or sending the images).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Dill and SHIMIZU to incorporate the step/system of determining the document data by using machine learning which relies on a model built by training an algorithm on previously processed documents taught by Cooksey.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve date conversion of data parsing ([0027] If the user is using the annotator user interface instead, it will parse the information and attempt to make it adhere to the desired data structure; [0030] the document processing engine 210 is able to automatically analyze the enhanced images, convert the images to text files, and recognize and classify the types of financial documents being processed). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dill and SHIMIZU with Cooksey to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU with Cooksey teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. Cooksey teaches wherein the document data comprises one or more of: a document type; a document title; a document issuance date; a document creation date; a document date range; an indication of an entity that created the document; and/or an indication of one or more entities associated with the document ([0015] System and method 100 include a document processing engine 210 used to automate and perform a number of functions on the captured images of financial documents ... The document processing engine 210 further performs optical character recognition (OCR) to convert the images 508 to text files ... The processing engine 210 uses machine learning (ML) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) to extract certain information from the processed images or text files. The document processing engine 210 also automatically analyzes the images and classifies the document types (e.g., invoices, bills of lading, rate sheets, proof of delivery, lumpers, receipts, purchase orders, bank statements, and driver settlement statements), so that the user doesn't have to specify the document types when uploading or sending the images).
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dill et al. (U.S Publication No. 2007/0094246) (hereafter, "Dill") in view of SHIMIZU et al. (U.S Publication No. 2020/0250266) (hereafter, "SHIMIZU") and further in view of Phan et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,321,519) (hereafter, "Phan").
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above. The combination of Dill and SHIMIZU does not expressly teach further comprising: determining date parsing metadata; and wherein determining the document date value of the document is based on received document data and the date parsing metadata.
However, Phan teaches further comprising: determining date parsing metadata; and (column 8, lines 39-45 & 52-55, The time period text string may be dates and/or date ranges in the user data and may be in one of a variety of date formats. For example, the dates may include month names (e.g., January-March), abbreviated month names (e.g., Jan.-Mar.), one and two digit months with a four-digit year (e.g., 1/2015-3/2015), one and two digit months with a two-digit year (1/15-3/15), full dates (1/1/2015-3/1/2015) … The data verification service 150 may utilize string search algorithms to process the text string in the user data and determine one or more dates and/or date ranges that match one of the predetermined date patterns) wherein determining the document date value of the document is based on received document data and the date parsing metadata (column 8, lines 35-39, at block 304, the data verification service 150 determines the time period based on the user data. For example, the data verification service 150 may determine the time period based on a time period text string in the user data; column 7, lines 64-66, At block 302 of the illustrative method 300, the data verification service 150 accesses user data associated with a user; column 8, lines 7-13, such a UI may include a UI element for enabling the user to designate the type of the document (e.g., CV, résumé, a web page, or other document), and based on the type of the document designated using the UI element, the data verification service 150 may apply different data parsing rules for different document types).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Dill and SHIMIZU to incorporate the step/system of identifying date formats (matching text strings to predetermined formatting patterns) and determining the time period from the date formats and document types taught by Phan.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve data parsing for the accuracy of the data entry (column 2, lines 31-33 & 46-49, Such an improved data parsing and verification system can eliminate or reduce the need to type into electronic forms ... The improved data parsing and verification system can also improve the accuracy of the data entered into the electronic form by verifying the data against a database of known information). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predicted results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dill and SHIMIZU with Phan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU with Phan teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above. Phan teaches wherein the date parsing metadata comprises: year clarity; a date element order; an indication of characters that have been removed from the first candidate date string and/or one or more further candidate date strings; a set of date formats; and/or a confidence rating (column 8, lines 39-45 & 52-55, The time period text string may be dates and/or date ranges in the user data and may be in one of a variety of date formats. For example, the dates may include month names (e.g., January-March), abbreviated month names (e.g., Jan.-Mar.), one and two digit months with a four-digit year (e.g., 1/2015-3/2015), one and two digit months with a two-digit year (1/15-3/15), full dates (1/1/2015-3/1/2015) … The data verification service 150 may utilize string search algorithms to process the text string in the user data and determine one or more dates and/or date ranges that match one of the predetermined date patterns).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dill and SHIMIZU teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Dill teaches further comprising: determining a second candidate date string from the document ([0055] FIG. 4 illustrates a method 400 of the extended matching module 205 of system 10. System 10 selects a document for processing (step 405). The date module 215 scans the selected document for one or more occurrences of a date in numeric format or a date comprising a month name in alphabetic format in either full form or abbreviated form (step 410); [0017] A date matching module of the present system processes free-form text in documents to identify and locate some or all of the dates in the documents using extended regular expression matching to capture various date formats).
Dill does not expressly teach determining that the second candidate date string corresponds with a valid and unique date; and responsive to determining that the second candidate date string corresponds with a valid and unique date, determining the valid and unique date as an inferred date for the second candidate date string.
However, Phan teaches determining that the second candidate date string corresponds with a valid and unique date (column 8, lines 58-66, Depending on the format of the dates in the user data (e.g., 2-digit month and 2-digit year), there may be some ambiguity as to which portion of a given date is the month, year, or day (e.g., 01/03/02). In such cases, other dates in the user data may be able to be used to resolve the ambiguity. For example, if the ambiguous date “01/03/02” is followed by “−30/11/02,” the data verification service 150 may determine that “01/03/02-30/11/02” is equivalent to “Mar. 1, 2002-Nov. 30, 2002.”); and responsive to determining that the second candidate date string corresponds with a valid and unique date, determining the valid and unique date as an inferred date for the second candidate date string (column 8, lines 58-66, Depending on the format of the dates in the user data (e.g., 2-digit month and 2-digit year), there may be some ambiguity as to which portion of a given date is the month, year, or day (e.g., 01/03/02). In such cases, other dates in the user data may be able to be used to resolve the ambiguity. For example, if the ambiguous date “01/03/02” is followed by “−30/11/02,” the data verification service 150 may determine that “01/03/02-30/11/02” is equivalent to “Mar. 1, 2002-Nov. 30, 2002.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device and method of Dill and SHIMIZU to incorporate the step/system of determining a correct and unique date for ambiguous date string based on context taught by Phan.
Motivation for this combination has been stated in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan S. Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/DANIEL C CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights