DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling on 8/26/2024.
The application has claims 1-18 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited references filed 2/02/2026 have
been reviewed by the examiner.
This action is made Non-Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 7-9, 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable and anticipated by claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816, 155. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims on the instant application are broader that the claims on patent ‘155. Claim mapping is shown below.
Instant application
Patent No. 11,816,155
1. A method comprising: receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
selecting a candidate document from a set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document and 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents; and
generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between selected interface elements overlaid on the form document and corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document, the mapping further including any interface elements added by the user, not including any interface elements removed by the user, and including any edits made by the user to selected interface elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to field types of each field in each candidate document; and selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. The method of claim 2, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in each candidate document; and wherein selecting the candidate document comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
---------------------------------------------------------------
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; and modifying an overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third-party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
--------------------------------------------------------------
7. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps comprising:
receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
selecting a candidate document from a set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document and 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents;
and generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between selected interface elements overlaid on the form document and corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document, the mapping further including any interface elements added by the user, not including any interface elements removed by the user, and including any edits made by the user to selected interface elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------
8. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to field types of each field in each candidate document; and selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
-----------------------------------------------------------
9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in each candidate document; and
wherein selecting the candidate document comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
--------------------------------------------------------------
11. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the program code, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform further steps comprising: performing a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; and modifying an overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
12. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third-party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
--------------------------------------------------------------
13. A system comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to: receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
selecting a candidate document from a set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document and 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents;
and generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between selected interface elements overlaid on the form document and corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document, the mapping further including any interface elements added by the user, not including any interface elements removed by the user, and including any edits made by the user to selected interface elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------
14. The system of claim 13, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to field types of each field in each candidate document; and
selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
15. The system of claim 14, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in each candidate document; and
wherein selecting the candidate document comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
----------------------------------------------------------------
16. The system of claim 13, further containing instructions that cause the hardware processor to: perform a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; and modify an overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
17. The system of claim 13, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third-party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
1. A method comprising: receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
identifying a set of candidate documents, each candidate document associated with a second set of fields and a set of interface elements, each field of the second set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the candidate document, each interface element of the set of interface elements associated with a field of the second set of fields;
selecting a candidate document from the set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document, 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents, and 3) a comparison of a visual similarity between the form document and each of the set of candidate documents;
providing for display, on a user interface of a user device, the form document and the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document as an overlay on the form document within an interface that allows the user to approve or reject a mapping between each overlaid interface element and a corresponding field of the first set of fields within the form document, to add additional interface elements for overlay on fields of the form document, to remove interface elements from the mapping, and to edit interface elements overlaid on the form document; and
generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between the approved overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document and not including associations between the rejected overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields, the mapping further including any added interface elements, not including any removed interface elements, and including any edits made by the user to interface elements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. The method of claim 2, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and wherein selecting comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; modifying the overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third-party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------
6. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing computer program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform steps comprising:
receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
identifying a set of candidate documents, each candidate document associated with a second set of fields and a set of interface elements, each field of the second set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the candidate document, each interface element of the set of interface elements associated with a field of the second set of fields;
selecting a candidate document from the set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document, 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents, and 3) a comparison of a visual similarity between the form document and each of the set of candidate documents;
providing for display, on a user interface of a user device, the form document and the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document as an overlay on the form document within an interface that allows the user to approve or reject a mapping between each overlaid interface element and a corresponding field of the first set of fields within the form document, to add additional interface elements for overlay on fields of the form document, to remove interface elements from the mapping, and to edit interface elements overlaid on the form document;
and generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between the approved overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document and not including associations between the rejected overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields, the mapping further including any added interface elements, not including any removed interface elements, and including any edits made by the user to interface elements.
----------------------------------------------------------------
7. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
----------------------------------------------------------------
8. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 7, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and
wherein selecting comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
---------------------------------------------------------------
9. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein the program code, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform further steps comprising: performing a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; modifying the overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
10. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third- party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------
11. A system comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to: receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document;
identifying a set of candidate documents, each candidate document associated with a second set of fields and a set of interface elements, each field of the second set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the candidate document, each interface element of the set of interface elements associated with a field of the second set of fields;
selecting a candidate document from the set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and the form document, 2) a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents, and 3) a comparison of a visual similarity between the form document and each of the set of candidate documents;
providing for display, on a user interface of a user device, the form document and the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document as an overlay on the form document within an interface that allows the user to approve or reject a mapping between each overlaid interface element and a corresponding field of the first set of fields within the form document, to add additional interface elements for overlay on fields of the form document, to remove interface elements from the mapping, and to edit interface elements overlaid on the form document;
and generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between the approved overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document and not including associations between the rejected overlaid interface elements and the corresponding fields of the first set of fields, the mapping further including any added interface elements, not including any removed interface elements, and including any edits made by the user to interface elements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
12. The system of claim 11, wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and
selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
----------------------------------------------------------------
13. The system of claim 12, wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in the second set of fields associated with each candidate document; and
wherein selecting comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common and in a common position with the form document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14. The system of claim 11, further containing instructions that cause the hardware processor to: perform a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; modify the overlay of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity, wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third- party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities.
Claims 4, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816, 155 in view of Ceneviva et al. (US 20170286389).
In regards to claim 4, 10 and 18, Pat '155 teaches all elements of claim 1, 7 and 13, but doesn't specifically teach further comprising modifying the form document based on the generated mapping to produce a modified form document.
Ceneviva teaches further comprising modifying the form document based on the generated mapping to produce a modified form document (see para 26-36, 38, 43-44; system provides means for a user to edit document fields. It further allows a user to confirm a mapping e.g. the drag, and provides the interface overlay allowing the user to further configure and input data and modifies the document and stores the modified form document producing a new document).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Ceneviva to with Pat '155, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the modification of form documents and provide the modified form document to the user for further use.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dua et al. (US 20190065455), in view of Ceneviva et al. (US 20170286389), in view of Arnold et al. (US 20080195586) and Rogers et al. (US 20110119574).
In regards to claims (1, 7 and 13), Dua teaches a method comprising: selecting a candidate document from a set of candidate documents based on 1) a similarity between the candidate document and form document fields (see para 11-18, 21-22, 24 identifying pre-existing forms with associated form objects with data to identify what type of object and location of the form document objects. Having field objects associated with interface elements. On para 11-12: selecting pre-existing documents to suggest fields based on known information (e.g. type of form, using field information from the pre-existing form in relation to the fields of the form that the user is working on) used to trigger the use of the pre-exiting form to create or generate a form).
Dua teaches creating a form with form objects having associated form object information (see para 20), but doesn’t specifically teach receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document; selected interface elements overlaid on the form.
Ceneviva teaches receiving a form document including a first set of fields, each field of the first set of fields associated with a field type and field position within the form document (see least para 29-30; receiving a digital form in pdf format, with fields and locations); selected interface elements overlaid on the form (see para 29-32; provides the user with form document and interface elements that when overlaid are mapped and configured).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Ceneviva to modify the teachings of Dua, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the creation and editing of digital form documents from paper, image or standard form documents described in Ceneviva (abstract and at least para 29-31).
Dua doesn't specifically teach a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents.
Arnold teaches a similarity between a user that provided the form document and users associated with the set of candidate documents (see para 6, 17-18, 23, 25: teaches using context
information to provide documents to a user. Part of the context information is user data).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Arnold to modify the teachings of Dua, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the display of documents which are closely related to the user based on context data including user data (see para 17).
Dua doesn’t specifically teach generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between selected elements on the form document and corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document, the mapping further including any interface elements added by the user, not including any interface elements removed by the user, and including any edits made by the user to selected interface elements.
Rogers teaches generating a mapping between the selected candidate document and the form document, the mapping comprising associations between selected elements on the form document and corresponding fields of the first set of fields within the form document, the mapping further including any interface elements added by the user, not including any interface elements removed by the user, and including any edits made by the user to selected interface elements (see at least para 9, 16, 18: teaches field mappings and predictive mapping of fields. Further teaches concept for providing means and allowing a user to confirm or reject (clear) field mappings, thus confirming mappings of those accepted by the user and clearing ones not desired by the user to continue the form creation/modification with the users’ choices (users edits)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Rogers to modify the teachings of Dua as modified by Ceneviva, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the acceptance or validation of field mapping by a user, thus expediting the creation of the digital form.
In regards to claims (2, 8 and 14), Dua teaches wherein selecting the candidate document comprises: comparing the field type of each field in the first set of fields to field types of each field in each candidate document (see On para 13-14, 59; comparing and matching field);
However, Dua doesn’t specifically mention selecting the candidate document associated with a greatest number of fields in common with the form document.
Dua does teach on para 11-12 selecting pre-existing documents to suggest fields based on known information (e.g. type of form, using field information from the pre-existing form in relation to the fields of the form that the user is working on).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings including the type of form, to yield the predictable result of selecting and using a form of the same type having relation from those pre-existing form to the one been worked on, since it would have provided the closest form based on type and with its associated fields as taught in para 11-12.
In regards to claims (4, 10 and 18), Dua doesn't specifically teach further comprising modifying the form document based on the generated mapping to produce a modified form document.
Ceneviva teaches further comprising modifying the form document based on the generated mapping to produce a modified form document (see para 26-36, 38, 43-44; system provides means for a user to edit document fields. It further allows a user to confirm a mapping e.g. the drag, and provides the interface overlay allowing the user to further configure and input data and modifies the document and stores the modified form document producing a new document).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Ceneviva to the teachings of Dua, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the modification of form documents and provide the modified form document to the user for further use.
In regards to claims (5, 11 and 16), Dua teaches further comprising: performing a semantic analysis on the field types of each field in the first set of fields and a category of each interface element in the set of interface elements associated with the selected candidate document; and modifying a mapping of the form document based on a result of the semantic analysis (see para 13-17, 59 provides a semantic analysis and automating mapping).
Dua doesn’t specifically mention an overlay.
Ceneviva teaches an overlay (see para 29-32; provides the user with form document and interface elements that when overlaid are mapped and configured with form elements).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Ceneviva to modify the teachings of Dua, since one of skill in the art would be motivated to facilitate the creation and editing of digital form documents from paper, image or standard form documents described in Ceneviva (abstract and at least para 29-31).
In regards to claims (6, 12 and 17), Dua teaches, wherein the form document is associated with a first entity (see para 11, 13-17, 19 teaches entity e.g. form from an organization forms), wherein each candidate document in the set of candidate documents is associated with a third-party entity, and wherein selecting the candidate document further comprises: accessing data associated with the first entity and data associated with each of the third-party entities; performing a similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities; and selecting the candidate document based on a result of the similarity analysis on the data associated with the first entity and the data associated with each of the third-party entities (Dua teaches using information related to entity e.g. author, organization or domains. Also teaches using organization or author information to process and generate the form. Comparing the preexisting form objects to provide the user options that allow the user to add additional fields. See para 11, 13-17, 19).
Claims (3, 9 and 15) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dua, Ceneviva, Arnold and Rogers as applied to claims above, and further in view of Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 20200074169).
In regards to claims (3, 9 and 15), Dua teaches wherein comparing comprises: performing a semantic analysis on the field type of each field in the first set of fields and the field type of each field in each candidate document, and comparing the field position of each field in the first set of fields and the field position of each field in each candidate document (see para 13-17, 59 semantic analysis and comparing form object information);
However, Dua doesn’t specifically mention wherein selecting the candidate document comprises selecting the candidate document with the greatest number of fields in common.
Dua does teach on para 11-12 selecting pre-existing documents to suggest fields based on known information (e.g. type of form, using field information from the pre-existing form in relation to the fields of the form that the user is working on.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use these teachings including the type of form, to yield the predictable result of selecting and using a form of the same type having relation from those pre-existing form to the one been worked on, since it would have provided the closes form based on type and with its associated fields as taught in para 11-12.
Dua doesn’t teach selecting the candidate document with fields in a common position with the form document.
Mukhopadhyay teaches selecting the candidate document with fields in a common position with the form document (see para 14-15, 32-33, 75-77 matching scanned documents with stored document templates based on layout data) .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Mukhopadhyay to modify the teachings of Dua, since one of skill in the art would be motivated since it improves the matching process of Dua, thus it would have provided the closes form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights