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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 07/08/2024 (four sets) and 11/05/2025 were reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 10-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyeon et al. (KR 2022-0133434 – IDS – for mapping purposes, please refer to the attached machine translation of this document) in view of Sunhee et al. (KR 102629133” – IDS - – for mapping purposes, please refer to the attached machine translation of this document).
Consider Claim 1, Hyeon discloses “A method comprising: obtaining a plurality of text blocks and metadata associated with the plurality of text blocks” (Hyeon, Page 6, of 18, 10th and 11th paragraphs, where the image 1000 is received, text and text boxes are specified, and a text detection model trained to detect each character and a position of the text is disclosed, the position of the text is interpreted as the metadata), “wherein the metadata indicates a respective position of each of the plurality of text blocks within a document” (Hyeon, Page 6 of 18, 11th paragraph, the disclosure of the text detection model); determining, via a machine learning model based on the metadata, a mapping between a plurality of fields and a subset of the plurality of text blocks” (Hyeon, Page 6 of 18, 11th and 12th paragraphs, the disclosure of the task of the text detection model:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Page 9 of 18, paragraphs 1-4 disclose:
PNG
media_image2.png
274
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
), “wherein the plurality of fields includes at least one repeated set of fields” (Hyeon, Page 5/18, first paragraph, where treatment of repeated fields is disclosed). Hyeon is not relied on to disclose “generating a graphical user interface indicating the mapping; receiving an input directed to at least one field, of the plurality of fields, of the graphical user interface; and updating the mapping based on the at least one field.” However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Sunhee discloses “generating a graphical user interface indicating the mapping” (Sunhee discloses its user interface provides an input and output interface to the user by using a graphical user interface ,GUI); “receiving an input directed to at least one field, of the plurality of fields, of the graphical user interface; and updating the mapping based on the at least one field” (Sunhee, Page 6 of 9, wherein it is disclosed:
PNG
media_image3.png
220
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
selective extraction and edition is interpreted as updating and mapping based on the at least one field).
Accordingly, before the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hyeon with the teachings of Sunhee to generate a GUI and receiving input (rule) to update and further map the text field. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Hyeon and Sunhee elements according to known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and the results of this combination were predictable. Accordingly, the combination of Hyeon and Sunhee discloses the invention of Claim 1.
Consider Claim 2, the combination of Hyeon and Sunhee discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the text blocks and metadata comprises performing optical character recognition on an image of the document” (Hyeon, Page 4 of 18, 7th-11th paragraphs disclose use of OCR of image 1000).
Consider Claim 8, the combination of Hyeon and Sunhee discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein generating the graphical user interface indicating the mapping comprises generating a graphical user interface indicating the mapping overlaid on an indication of the document” (Hyeon, Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), where fields of texts are overlaid on the document).
Claims 9, 10, and 14 recite a computer-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the steps of the methods recited in Claims 1, 2, and 8, respectively. Therefore, the recited instructions of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in their corresponding method claims. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Hyeon and Sunhee references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims. Finally, the combination of Hyeon and Sunhee discloses use of a computer-readable medium (see for example, Hyeon, Page 15 of 18, 5th paragraph).
Claims 15 16, and 20 systems with elements corresponding to the steps of the methods recited in Claims 1, 2, and 8, respectively. Therefore, the recited elements of these claims are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in their corresponding method claims. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Hyeon and Sunhee references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims. Finally, the combination of Hyeon and Sunhee discloses use of a device with a processor (see for example, Hyeon, Page 15 of 18, 7th paragraph) and a memory (see for example, Hyeon, Page 15 of 18, 4th paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 11-13, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in these claims in conjunction with the claims, from which they depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Lewis et al. (US 2020/0175268) and Ragnarsdottir et al. (US 2024/0403546).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
