DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 09/23/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
7. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,561 B2 (hereinafter ‘561), in view of Ho (U.S. Patent No. 9,317,484 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding Claim 1:
Current application
U.S. Patent 12,112,561
Claim 1. A system, comprising: a communication interface configured to receive a file; and a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to:
Claim 1. A system, comprising: a communication interface configured to receive a file; and a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to:
identify a repeating entity from the file, the repeating entity including multiple repeating entity instances that are organized in in accordance with a visual representation or layout when rendered on an interactive user interface display, each repeating entity instance of the repeating entity being associated with a corresponding key-value pair of a plurality of key-value pairs;
extract a plurality of data entities from the file, each entity comprising a key-value pair; identify among the plurality of data entities one or more sets of related entities, each set comprising an occurrence of a defined repeating type of entity set; and
for at least a first repeating entity instance of the repeating entity, enable a user to specify a value of the key value pair of the first repeating entity instance; and
Claim 1 does not expressly recite a user entering or correcting the value of a key-value pair.
store data for each repeating instance of the repeating entity and the corresponding key-value pair.
store data associating the one or more sets of related entities with the file and the defined repeating type of entity set.
9. As shown in the table above, claim 1 of ‘561 contains every element of claim 1 of the current application, however ‘561 does not expressly disclose for at least a first repeating entity instance of the repeating entity, enable a user to specify a value of the key value pair of the first repeating entity instance.
Ho discloses for at least a first repeating entity instance of the repeating entity, enable a user to specify a value of the key value pair of the first repeating entity instance. (Ho: Teaches receiving operator input that changes an extracted data value of a field through a human validation interface. Ho also describes correction of a value and re-evaluation of associated validation rules (Ho: Claim 1; FIGS. 11–12)).
‘561 in view of Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., both are in the same field of document data extraction and validation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ho’s operator input for an extracted value in the system of ‘561 claim 1.
The suggestion/motivation for doing is so that an incorrectly extracted value associated with a repeating instance may be corrected before the value is stored or relied upon during validation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ‘561 with Ho to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Current application
U.S. Patent 12,112,561
Claim 13. A method performed in one or more processors coupled to a communication interface, the method comprising:
Claim 17. A method, comprising:
extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display, each data entity of the plurality comprising a key-value pair;
extracting a plurality of data entities from a file, each entity comprising a key-value pair;
identifying, among the plurality of data entities rendered in the interactive user interface display, one or more sets of related data entities of the tabular content, each set comprising an instance of a repeating entity type that is selectable from the tabular content; and
identifying among the plurality of data entities one or more sets of related entities, each set comprising an occurrence of a defined repeating type of entity set; and
storing data associating the one or more sets of related data entities with the tabular content of the file and the repeating entity type.
storing data associating the one or more sets of related entities with the file and the defined repeating type of entity set.
10. As shown in the table above, claims 17 and 18 of ‘561 recites the extraction, identification, and storage of the related key-value sets. However ‘561 does not expressly disclose extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display.
Ho discloses extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface (Ho: Fig. 3 e.g., ‘document capture system receives multi-page document via a network/communication interface and a data extraction module extracts values from portions of the document’ [0023-0024]), the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display (Ho: ‘the identified fields populate a data entry form at a user interface wherein the operator is able to validate each field’; Fig. 7 shows a table at the bottom of form 710 which gets populated from the extracted data’ [0033-0034]).
‘561 in view of Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., both are in the same field of document data extraction and validation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ho’s operator input to validate extracted values in the system of ‘561 claim 13. The suggestion/motivation for doing is so that an incorrectly extracted value associated with a repeating instance may be corrected before the value is stored or relied upon during validation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ‘561 with Ho to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 20:
Current application
U.S. Patent 12,112,561
Claim 20. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer instructions which, when executed in one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising:
Claim 20. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising computer instructions for:
extracting a plurality of data entities from a file as received via a communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display, each data entity of the plurality comprising a key-value pair;
extracting a plurality of data entities from a file, each entity comprising a key-value pair;
identifying, among the plurality of data entities rendered in the interactive user interface display, one or more sets of related data entities of the tabular content, each set comprising an instance of a repeating entity type that is selectable from the tabular content; and
identifying among the plurality of data entities one or more sets of related entities, each set comprising an occurrence of a defined repeating type of entity set; and
storing data associating the one or more sets of related data entities with the tabular content of the file and the repeating entity type.
storing data associating the one or more sets of related entities with the file and the defined repeating type of entity set.
11. As shown in the table above, claim 20 of ‘561 recites the extraction, identification, and storage of the related key-value sets. However ‘561 does not expressly disclose extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display.
Ho discloses extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface (Ho: Fig. 3 e.g., ‘document capture system receives multi-page document via a network/communication interface and a data extraction module extracts values from portions of the document’ [0023-0024]), the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display (Ho: ‘the identified fields populate a data entry form at a user interface wherein the operator is able to validate each field’; Fig. 7 shows a table at the bottom of form 710 which gets populated from the extracted data’ [0033-0034]).
‘561 in view of Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., both are in the same field of document data extraction and validation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ho’s operator input to validate extracted values in the system of ‘561 claim 13. The suggestion/motivation for doing is so that an incorrectly extracted value associated with a repeating instance may be corrected before the value is stored or relied upon during validation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ‘561 with Ho to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
12. Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claims 2-3 of US ‘561.
13. Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US ‘561.
14. Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of US ‘561.
15. Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claims 14-16 of US ‘561.
16. Claim 6 of the current application does not correspond to any claim of US ‘561.
17. Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US ‘561.
18. Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of US ‘561.
19. Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of US ‘561.
20. Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of US ‘561.
21. Claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of US ‘561.
22. Claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 12-13 of US ‘561.
23. Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 18 of US ‘561.
23. Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of US ‘561.
21. Claim 16 of the current application does not correspond to any claim of US ‘561.
22. Claim 17 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US ‘561.
23. Claim 18 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of US ‘561.
23. Claim 19 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of US ‘561.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under nonstatutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action.
25. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1:
The prior art of record fails to disclose nor suggest in the claimed combinations a system, comprising: a communication interface configured to receive a file; and a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to: identify a repeating entity from the file, the repeating entity including multiple repeating entity instances that are organized in in accordance with a visual representation or layout when rendered on an interactive user interface display, each repeating entity instance of the repeating entity being associated with a corresponding key-value pair of a plurality of key-value pairs; for at least a first repeating entity instance of the repeating entity, enable a user to specify a value of the key value pair of the first repeating entity instance; and store data for each repeating instance of the repeating entity and the corresponding key-value pair.
Regarding Claim 13:
The prior art of record fails to disclose nor suggest in the claimed combinations a method performed in one or more processors coupled to a communication interface, the method comprising: extract a plurality of data entities from file a file received via the communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display, each data entity of the plurality comprising a key-value pair; identifying, among the plurality of data entities rendered in the interactive user interface display, one or more sets of related data entities of the tabular content, each set comprising an instance of a repeating entity type that is selectable from the tabular content; and storing data associating the one or more sets of related data entities with the tabular content of the file and the repeating entity type.
Regarding Claim 20:
The prior art of record fails to disclose nor suggest in the claimed combinations a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer instructions which, when executed in one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations comprising: extracting a plurality of data entities from a file as received via a communication interface, the plurality of data entities being organized in tabular content and rendered in an interactive user interface display, each data entity of the plurality comprising a key-value pair; identifying, among the plurality of data entities rendered in the interactive user interface display, one or more sets of related data entities of the tabular content, each set comprising an instance of a repeating entity type that is selectable from the tabular content; and storing data associating the one or more sets of related data entities with the tabular content of the file and the repeating entity type.
26. Claims 2-11 and 14-19 depend from allowable claims 1 and 13 and, by virtue of their dependency, are also indicated as allowable subject matter.
Relevant Prior Art
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dantressangle et al. describes a method and associated system. Entities within a first data source are identified. For each entity identified within the first data source, attributes of the entity identified within the first data source and/or relationships between the entity identified within the first data source and other entities identified within the first data source are identified. The attributes and/or relationships identified within the first data source are associated with a first entity identified within a data structure. For each entity identified within the first data source, a frequency metric characterizing the entity identified within the first data source is generated. The frequency metric is based on a frequency at which each attribute and/or relationship identified within the first data source is associated with the entity identified within the first data source. A degree of similarity between two entities of the entities is identified, by comparing the frequency metrics of the two entities.
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
