DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The dependent claim discloses “A method of claim 1” rather than “The method of claim 1” to be consistent with the other dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12014561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application is a broader version of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12014561. The differences are underlined below.
Current Application
1. A method for processing a document having one or more pages, comprising: receiving a document; recognizing a plurality of content blocks on at least a portion of a page of the document; generating a plurality of bounding boxes based on the plurality of content blocks, each bounding box having coordinates comprising a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and generating a representation of the at least a portion of the page, the representation including the plurality of content blocks, the coordinates of the plurality of vertices of each bounding box and the coordinates of the two endpoints of each search path.
US 12014561 B2
1. A method for processing a document having one or more pages, comprising: receiving an unstructured document; recognizing a plurality of textual blocks on at least a portion of a page of the unstructured document; generating a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box surrounding and corresponding to one of the plurality of textual blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and generating a graph representation of the at least a portion of the page, the graph representation including the plurality of textual blocks, the coordinates of the plurality of vertices of each bounding box and the coordinates of the two endpoints of each search path.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12014561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application is mostly a broader version of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12014561. The differences are underlined below.
Current Application
13. A method for extracting data from a document having one or more pages, comprising: recognizing a plurality of content blocks on at least a portion of a page of the document; generating a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box surrounding and corresponding to one of the plurality of content blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, at least one search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; generating a plurality of target content block pairs, each target content block pair including a title block and at least one corresponding value block; searching along the plurality of search paths to identify at least one of the target content block pairs; and providing an output based on the identified at least one of the target content block pairs.
US 12014561 B2
13. A system for extracting data from a document having one or more pages, comprising: a processor; an input device configured to receive an unstructured document; a machine learning kernel coupled to the processor; a geometric engine coupled to the machine learning kernel and configured to: recognize a plurality of textual blocks on at least a portion of a page of the unstructured document; generate a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box surrounding and corresponding to one of the plurality of textual blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determine a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and generate a graph representation of the at least a portion of the page, the graph representation including the plurality of textual blocks, the coordinates of the plurality of vertices of each bounding box, and the coordinates of the two endpoints of each search path; a descriptive linguistics engine coupled to the machine learning kernel and configured to: generate a plurality of target textual block pairs, each target textual block pair including a title textual block and at least one corresponding value textual block; and search the graph representation, along the plurality of search paths, to identify at least one of the target textual block pairs; and an output device configured to output the identified at least one of the target textual block pairs.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12014561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application is a broader version of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12014561. The differences are underlined below. While claim 17 indicates “processing the document based on the plurality of search paths”, it is noted both clams indicate “processing a document having one or more pages” in the preamble, which indicates the whole claim can be considered processing. Further US 12014561 B2 indicates “generating a graph representation of the at least a portion of the page, the graph representation including the plurality of textual blocks, the coordinates of the plurality of vertices of each bounding box and the coordinates of the two endpoints of each search path” which can be considered a more specific version of the current applications “processing the document based on the plurality of search paths”.
Current Application
17. A method for processing a document having one or more pages, comprising: receiving a document; recognizing a plurality of blocks on at least a portion of a page of the document; generating a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box corresponding to one of the plurality of blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and processing the document based on the plurality of search paths.
US 12014561 B2
1. A method for processing a document having one or more pages, comprising: receiving an unstructured document; recognizing a plurality of textual blocks on at least a portion of a page of the unstructured document; generating a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box surrounding and corresponding to one of the plurality of textual blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and generating a graph representation of the at least a portion of the page, the graph representation including the plurality of textual blocks, the coordinates of the plurality of vertices of each bounding box and the coordinates of the two endpoints of each search path.
Claim Notes - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are NOT rejected under 35 USC 101. Taking the most broad version of the independent claims, claim 17 appears to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant states in the publication of the application: “The geometric analyzer 116 and descriptive linguistics analyzer 118 work together to recognize, extract and associate data from document 102. Generally, geometric analyzer 116 generates a graph representation of document 102 based on geometric characteristics of the document 102, whereas the descriptive linguistics analyzer 118 provides information on what specific information contained in the document are relevant. A graph representation, as used herein, is a mathematical structure used to model pairwise relations between objects. For example, a graph in this context can be made up of vertices (also called nodes or points) which are connected by edges (also called links or lines). Additionally, the descriptive linguistics analyzer 118 may also be used to review the graph representation generated by the geometric analyzer 116 and provide guidance on how to correct or adjust the graph representation, if necessary” ([0043]) and “In situations like this, descriptive linguistics analyzer 118 may be used in cooperation with geometric analyzer 116. This enables context of a document to be used to determine the orientation of a search path 502. Advantageously, this improves the speed of the document scanning and data extraction, which in turn further can save significant computing resources, improve accuracy, and enables a more secure process (because less, if any, human corrective action is required)” ([0071]). Based on the description of “a graph in this context” as being “made up of vertices (also called nodes or points) which are connected by edges (also called links or lines)”, even though claim 17 does not specifically disclose the term “graph representation”, it is believed “generating a plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box corresponding to one of the plurality of blocks and having coordinates of a plurality of vertices; determining a plurality of search paths, each search path having coordinates of two endpoints and connecting at least two bounding boxes; and processing the document based on the plurality of search paths” has the same computational/ computing benefit and therefore amounts to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Decomposing Document Images by Heuristic Search”
PNG
media_image1.png
294
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
420
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“Implementing Semantic Document Search Using a Bounded Random Walk in a Probabilistic Graph”:
PNG
media_image4.png
856
734
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US 20080040384 A1: A maximum search radius value can be maintained to bound the search. The search radius value can be decreased based on bounding box information. The minimum and the maximum distance from a position to each node can be calculated using node bounding boxes. Nodes can be eliminated from consideration based on the maximum search radius value. In one example, nodes whose bounding box has a minimum distance from a position greater than the maximum search radius can be ignored. Object key information for a node can be sufficient to encode a bounding box corner position and extent. In one example, when coordinate information is interlaced, a corner, such as the lower left corner, of the node's bounding box can be determined by de-interlaced coordinates, and the extent of the bounding box for each coordinate can be determined from the make-up of the coordinates..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-5084. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 M-F.
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 M 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.
/MICHELLE M ENTEZARI HAUSMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671