DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 February 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been 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, 8-9, 16, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to comparing tables without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) converting each of a plurality of cells, computing an edit distance matrix, computing an optimal transport distance matrix, and generating an output. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a mental process (receiving, calculating), and a mathematical process (computing and/or calculating), The examiner notes, “generating an output” is not the same as displaying output. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1, recites the following: A computer-implemented method for comparing tables, comprising: receiving a first table and a second table into a table evaluation system; converting each of a plurality of cells of the first table and the second table into a two-dimensional point with a cell weight related to a size of the cell; computing an edit distance matrix between the cells of the first table and the cells of the second table, the edit distance matrix being obtained based on contents of cells; computing an optimal transport distance matrix between the cells of the first table and the cells of the second table by using the two-dimensional point and the cell weight for each of the plurality of cells; and generating an output indicating a correspondence between the cells of the first table and the cells of the second table by using the edit distance matrix and the optimal transport distance matrix.
Claim 1, step 2A (prong one) : asks the question does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?. Yes, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. The claim is directed toward a mental process (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results)and a mathematic process. Mathematical formulas or processes are a judicial exception..
Step 2A (prong two): The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites the following:
The computer-implemented method according to claim 5, wherein the evaluation metric is a numerical value within a range from zero to one.
Claim 8, step 1 (prong one) : Dependent claim is directed toward an abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of “a numerical value within a range from zero to one”. The claim is directed toward a mental process (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results)and a mathematic process. Mathematical formulas or processes are a judicial exception..
Step 1: The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites the following: The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein each of the cell weights is further related to an importance of each of the plurality of cells.
Claim 9, step 2A (prong one) : Dependent claim is directed toward an abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of “the cell weights is further related to an importance of each of the plurality of cells.”. The claim is directed toward a mental process (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results)and a mathematic process. Mathematical formulas or processes are a judicial exception..
Step 2A (prong two): The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16, recites the following:
A computer-implemented method for evaluating a table structure recognition model comprising, comprising: receiving a prediction table into a table structure recognition evaluation system by using the table structure recognition model; receiving a ground truth table representing a ground truth of the prediction table; converting each of a plurality of cells of the prediction table and the ground truth table into a two-dimensional point with a cell weight related to a size of the cell; computing an edit distance matrix between the cells of the prediction table and the cells of the ground truth table, the edit distance matrix being obtained based on contents of cells; computing an optimal transport distance matrix between the cells of the prediction table and the cells of the ground truth table by using the two-dimensional point and the cell weight for each of the plurality of cells; and generating an output indicating a correspondence between the cells of the prediction table and the cells of the ground truth table by using the edit distance matrix and the optimal transport distance matrix.
Claim 16, step 2A (prong one) : asks the question does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?. Yes, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea. The claim is directed toward a mental process (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results)and a mathematic process. Mathematical formulas or processes are a judicial exception..
Step 2A (prong two): The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to more than the judicial exception.
The limitations of independent claims 21 and 25 are similar in scope to independent claim 16; therefore it is rejected under the same grounds.
The limitations of claim 24 parallels claim 1; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights