DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 18 is 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. It is not clear what the metes and bounds are of the phrase “corporate personality information”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyle (US 20220318315 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wyle discloses an information processing device, comprising: (Wyle teaches a system for document matching for text extraction, see Abstract)
a control unit, (processor at ¶ 0044)
wherein the control unit acquires a plurality of examination target documents, (Wyle ¶ 0017-0019 teaches a system for processing incoming new reference documents by comparing them to historical documents to capture prior information on document text extraction.)
specifies an examination item as a comparison target from the plurality of acquired examination target documents, specifies examination conditions corresponding to an examination target area of the specified examination item based on examination target information, in which an examination target area is set for each examination item of the examination target documents, and examination condition information, in which examination conditions for the examination target documents are set so as to correspond to the examination target area, (¶ 0017-0021 and Fig. 5 provide an overview of the document examination. ¶ 0022-0035 provide further details of the steps. ¶ 0017 and step 510 teaches that system reviews the historical documents and maps the extractions of first content to similar regions in the new document based upon both visual and text commonalities between documents. ¶ 0023-0028 provide further details. The examination items/text fields in their respective target areas/text field areas in the documents are examined on the basis of the matched historical documents. Each of the target areas/fields is examined on the basis of that area/field corresponding to the matching in the historical documents. They are also examined on the basis of the data conditions for comparison (¶ 0023) and scan enhancement conditions (¶ 0024).)
examines the plurality of examination target documents based on first examination conditions for a preliminary examination, (¶ 0017 and steps 510 and 515 teach a preliminary examination for the new documents by comparing to the historical documents and creating a match score based on the comparison. See ¶ 0029 for more detail on the match score.)
examines the plurality of examination target documents based on second examination conditions for a main examination when the examination according to the first examination conditions is normal, and (When the match score indicates a normal match then main examination is performed based on the extraction at ¶ 0030-0032 (and ¶ 0017 step 525). The system conducts pairwise comparisons between similar regions of interest in the new and historical documents to identify areas of overlap and difference. Comparisons may be conducted by matching headers and corresponding text values between both documents.)
outputs an examination result. (¶ 0034 (and ¶ 0017 step 535) teaches outputting the verified extracted text which is the examination result. ¶ 0035 also teaches outputting a further data verification.)
Wyle does not expressly disclose that all of its above-cited teachings on document comparison and data extraction are expressly disclosed as occurring in the same embodiment. That is, despite the reference being clear that these functions are disclosed, there is no express disclosure that the details are all found in the same embodiment. Instead, the reference presents some of the individual detailed disclosures as according to ‘various embodiments.’ It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the various teachings to provide a single system capable of the variety of tasks which are disclosed. In view of these teachings, this cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 14, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes description information in which presence or absence of a predetermined description in the examination target area is set, and the control unit examines the plurality of examination target documents based on the description information. (¶ 0027 and 0028 teach examining of the presence of absence of identifier descriptions to perform the examination.)
Regarding claim 15, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes first selection information in which one or more examination target documents are selected in association with the examination item, and the control unit examines the plurality of examination target documents based on the first selection information. (¶ 0023 and elsewhere teaches document selection on the basis of data selection information.)
Regarding claim 16, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes second selection information in which a comparison source document and a comparison destination document are selected from the plurality of examination target documents, and the control unit examines the plurality of examination target documents based on the second selection information. (As above, ¶ 0023 and elsewhere teaches document selection of the source and destination pair on the basis of data selection information.)
Regarding claim 17, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes third selection information in which one or more personal information items are selected in association with the examination item, and the control unit examines the plurality of examination target documents based on the third selection information. (As above, ¶ 0023 and elsewhere teaches document selection of the source and destination pair on the basis of personal identification selection information. Also see ¶ 0028)
Regarding claim 18, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes check information including at least one of date information, number-of-digits information, corporate personality information, and seal information that are associated with the examination item, and the control unit examines the plurality of examination target documents based on the check information. (As above, ¶ 0023 and elsewhere teaches document selection of the source and destination pair on the basis of personal identification selection information. Also see ¶ 0028 which teaches selection on corporate personality info such as EIN and SSN. Also see ¶ 0035. ¶ 0026 teaches using seal/logo info.)
Regarding claim 19, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination condition information includes classification information for classifying examination results, and the control unit outputs the classification information. (¶ 0034 teaches classifying the results)
Regarding claim 20, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the control unit sets examination target areas of examination items, in which the same contents are described, so as to correspond to respective examination target documents as comparison targets. (¶ 0030 and elsewhere teaches pairwise comparison between the respective examination target documents.)
Claim 21 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim corresponding to the device of claim 12. ¶ 0045 teaches a computer readable medium. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim 22 is the method claim corresponding to the device of claim 12. The device requires method steps. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyle (US 20220318315 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20210133498 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the examination target information includes correction information for correcting character strings in the examination target area, but not the remaining limitations. (¶ 0035 teaches analysis for verifying and correcting character strings such as name, address, SSN, currency and numbers.)
In the field of document analysis teaches correcting the character strings in the examination target area based on the correction information, and examining the plurality of examination target documents using corrected character strings. (Zhang teaches a system for document analysis and text extraction which includes modifying text on to correct character strings for comparison to the reference document, see ¶ 0003 and 0040-0044.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Wyle’s document analysis with Zhang’s document analysis. Wyle teaches analysis for verifying and correcting character strings such as name, address, SSN, currency and numbers, but does not expressly disclose the actual correction step. Zhang teaches a system for document analysis and text extraction which includes modifying text to correct character strings. Applying Zhang’s teaching here cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement in view of the relevant prior art here. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights