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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 11/11/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Non-Final.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for U.S.C. §112(a) paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024, 10/16/2025, and 11/25/2025 were filed before the mailing date of a first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing a document without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 20 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1, 19, and 20.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; (Step 1: YES); Claim 19 is directed to an article of manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention; (Step 1: YES); and Claim 20 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 20 is directed to a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a type of a document based on at least one of an interactive object field, a library of known document titles, known document types, known user-inputted object fields, entities or users; creating, by the one or more processors, a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters, and wherein the object field is configured to be enabled as the electronic field that accepts the electronic data input; storing, by the one or more processors, an association of the hash, the metadata and the type of document in a knowledge database; creating, by the one or more processors, a new hash for a new document; comparing, by the one or more processors, the hash with the new hash; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has similar locations of the combination of object fields and is a similar type of document as the document based on the comparing. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a document (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk of document data being compromised and/or errors occurring while processing various documents; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of documents between users and/or entities involved in a transaction, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The computer device limitations, e.g., one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, and knowledge database do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, and knowledge database, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, and knowledge database are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be extended to the other independent claims, claims 1 and 19; and hence claims 1 and 19 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-18 are directed to a method, which recites steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a document. Specifically, dependent claims 2-18 are directed to a method, reciting a series of steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a document, which is mitigating risk of document data being compromised and/or errors occurring while processing various documents; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing of documents between users and/or entities involved in a transaction, which is a commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-18 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, and knowledge database are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements, one or more processors, one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, and knowledge database, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-18 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1; and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-18 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, claims 2-18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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 AlA. 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,175,785. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, and 14-20. See chart below:
Instant Application 18/943,477
US Patent 12,175,785
For ease of comprehension, below contains only relevant and redacted claim language from the allowed patented application.
Claims 1, 19, and 20.
A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, a type of a document based on at least one of an interactive object field, a library of known document titles, known document types, known user-inputted object fields, entities or users;
creating, by the one or more processors, a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters, and wherein the object field is configured to be enabled as the electronic field that accepts the electronic data input;
storing, by the one or more processors, an association of the hash, the metadata and the type of document in a knowledge database;
creating, by the one or more processors, a new hash for a new document;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the hash with the new hash; and
determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has similar locations of the combination of object fields and is a similar type of document as the document based on the comparing.
Claim 1.
A method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, a type of the image document based on at least one of the interactive object field, a library of known document titles, known document types, known user-inputted object fields, entities or users;
creating, by the one or more processors, a hash from the metadata about the combination of object fields and the type of image document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters, and wherein the object field is configured to be enabled as the electronic field that accepts the electronic data input;
storing, by the one or more processors, an association of the hash, the metadata and the type of image document in a knowledge database;
creating, by the one or more processors, a new hash for a new image document;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the hash with the new hash; and
determining, by the one or more processors, that the new image document has similar locations of the combination of object fields and is a similar type of image document as the image document based on the comparing.
Claim 2.
further comprising: creating, by the one or more processors, a unique key based on the hash;
finding, by the one or more processors, the document based on the unique key;
updating, by the one or more processors, the document and the metadata based on the unique key.
Claim 2.
further comprising: creating, by the one or more processors, a unique key based on the hash; finding, by the one or more processors, the image document based on the unique key;
updating, by the one or more processors, the image document and the metadata based on the unique key.
Claim 3.
further comprising recording a user action to change the locations of the combination of object fields, in response to a false positive about the determining that the new document having similar locations of the combination of object fields and being the similar type of document.
Claim 3.
further comprising recording a user action to change the locations of the combination of object fields, in response to a false positive about the determining that the new image document having similar locations of the combination of object fields and being the similar type of image document.
Claim 4.
further comprising performing, by the one or more processors, a canonicalization process of the combination of object fields, the known document titles, the known document types, the known user-inputted object fields, the entities and the users, wherein the canonicalization process converts data that involves more than one representation into a standard approved format to help ensure that data conforms to canonical rules.
Claim 4.
further comprising performing, by the one or more processors, a canonicalization process of the combination of object fields, the known document titles, the known document types, the known user-inputted object fields, the entities and the users, wherein the canonicalization process converts data that involves more than one representation into a standard approved format to help ensure that data conforms to canonical rules.
Claim 5.
wherein the determining the metadata about the document includes determining a type of the document based on at least one of a title of the document, location of text in at least a portion of the document, font of text in at least a portion of the document, footer in the document, number of pages of the document, words in certain locations or a library of known document titles.
Claim 6.
wherein the determining the metadata about the image document includes determining a type of the image document based on at least one of a title of the image document, location of text in at least a portion of the image document, font of text in at least a portion of the image document, footer in the image document, number of pages of the image document, words in certain locations or a library of known document titles.
Claim 6.
wherein the title of the document is determined based on at least one of a location of a first word, a font of a second word or a size of a third word.
Claim 7.
wherein the title of the image document is determined based on at least one of a location of a first word, a font of a second word or a size of a third word.
Claim 7.
wherein the metadata includes at least one of page numbers associated with at least some pages of the document or a description of different sections of the document.
Claim 8.
wherein the metadata includes at least one of page numbers associated with at least some pages of the image document or a description of different sections of the image document.
Claim 8.
further comprising acquiring, by the one or more processors, page number data about the document at least one of: in response to the document containing multiple pages; or
by reviewing at least one of patterns of the page number data, common locations for page numbers, locations for a word page or a format of the page number data, in response to the document containing multiple pages.
Claim 9.
further comprising acquiring, by the one or more processors, page number data about the image document, in response to the image document containing multiple pages.
Claim 10.
further comprising acquiring, by the one or more processors, page number data about the image document by reviewing at least one of patterns of the page number data, common locations for page numbers, locations for a word page or a format of the page number data, in response to the image document containing multiple pages.
Claim 9.
wherein the creating at least one of the hash or the new hash comprises standardizing the object fields using a canonicalization process.
Claim 14.
wherein the creating at least one of the hash or the new hash comprises standardizing the object fields using a canonicalization process.
Claim 10.
further comprising creating a unique key from at least one of the hash or the new hash.
Claim 15.
further comprising creating a unique key from at least one of the hash or the new hash.
Claim 11.
further comprising incorporating, by the one or more processors, the hash into a QR code that is associated with the document.
Claim 16.
further comprising incorporating, by the one or more processors, the hash into a QR code that is associated with the image document.
Claim 12.
further comprising saving, by the one or more processors and in the knowledge database, at least one of data associated with a false positive about an object field, an action associated with the false positive, a location of the false positive or document metadata.
Claim 17.
further comprising saving, by the one or more processors and in the knowledge database, at least one of data associated with a false positive about an object field, an action associated with the false positive, a location of the false positive or image document metadata.
Claim 13.
further comprising removing, by the one or more processors, at least one of: an object field associated with a false positive from the new document, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database;
or an object field associated with a false positive from the new document after a threshold number of false positives are discovered in the documents, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
Claim 18.
further comprising removing, by the one or more processors, an object field associated with a false positive from the new image document, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
Claim 19.
further comprising removing, by the one or more processors, an object field associated with a false positive from the new image document after a threshold number of false positives are discovered in the image documents, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
Claim 14.
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors and to a user, information about an object field associated with a false positive, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
Claim 20.
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors and to a user, information about an object field associated with a false positive, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
Claim 15.
further comprising at least one of adding or adjusting, by the one or more processors, an object field in the new document, based on at least one of the object field being added or adjusted in the document in the knowledge database.
Claim 21.
further comprising at least one of adding or adjusting, by the one or more processors, an object field in the new image document, based on at least one of the object field being added or adjusted in the image document in the knowledge database.
Claim 16.
further comprising associating, by the one or more processors, a QR code with the document, wherein the QR code identifies at least one of requirements for the document or a packet that includes the document.
Claim 22.
further comprising associating, by the one or more processors, a QR code with the image document, wherein the QR code identifies at least one of requirements for the image document or a packet that includes the image document.
Claim 17.
further comprising at least one of: converting, by the one or more processors, the document to a new type of document, based on a type of the document;
requesting, by the one or more processors, a service based on the metadata associated with the document; or
adjusting, by the one or more processors, the type of the document for an entity based on the users association with the entity.
Claim 23.
further comprising converting, by the one or more processors, the image document to a new type of image document, based on a type of the image document.
Claim 24.
further comprising requesting, by the one or more processors, a service based on the metadata associated with the image document.
Claim 5.
further comprising adjusting, by the one or more processors, the type of the image document for an entity based on the users association with the entity.
Claim 18.
further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, an existence and location of the object field in the document;
creating, by the one or more processors, a tag with metadata about a type of the tag and the object field, wherein the metadata includes data about executing the document in the object field;
associating, by the one or more processors, the tag with the object field, wherein the tag at least one of indicates that the document requires a notary, displays questions about the document, displays information about the document or displays areas on the document where a signature is required; and
converting, by the one or more processors using the metadata, the object field to the interactive object field to allow interaction with the object field.
Claim 1.
determining, by the one or more processors, an existence and location of an object field in the image document, based on the keywords, the type of the object and the object, wherein the object field is configured to be enabled as an electronic field that accepts electronic data input;
creating, by the one or more processors, a tag with metadata about a type of the tag and the location of the object field, wherein the metadata includes data about executing the image document at the location in the object field;
associating, by the one or more processors, the tag with the object field, wherein the tag at least one of indicates that the image document requires a notary, displays questions about the image document, displays information about the image document or displays areas on the image document where a signature is required;
enabling, by the one or more processors using the metadata, interaction with the object field, wherein the enabling converts the object field to an interactive object field to allow the interaction
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 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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038538A1; hereinafter “Silverbrook‘538”), in view of King (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0183246 A1; hereinafter “King”), and further in view of Silverbrook (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0302197 A1; hereinafter “Silverbrook'197”).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 20:
Silverbrook‘538 further teaches:
A method comprising: (Silverbrook‘538, See, Para. 469-470);
An article of manufacture including one or more non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage mediums having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Silverbrook‘538, See, Para. 469-470; Abstract);
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories configured to communicate with the one or more processors, the one or more tangible, non-transitory memories having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Silverbrook‘538, See, Para. 469-470; Abstract);
determining, by one or more processors, a type of a document based on at least one of an interactive object field, a library of known document titles, known document types, known user-inputted object fields, entities or users; (Silverbrook‘538, This page ID has sufficient precision to distinguish between a very large number of netpages. (See, Para.128); For each section, the reader optionally specifies its sized... or numerically (i.e. as a limit on Its number of pages), and the desired proportion of advertising., either quantitatively... or numerically (See, Para. 110, 295, 408); Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360); The application... first obtains a document ID 51 for each document form an ID server 12. It then sends each document structure, including its document ID and page descriptions, to the page server 10 responsible for the document's newly allocated ID (See, Para. 408); The one or more processors750.... are integrated in a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470));
creating, by the one or more processors, [a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters], and (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360, 408, 469-470));
wherein the object field is configured to be enabled as the electronic field that accepts the electronic data input; (Silverbrook‘538, This page ID has sufficient precision to distinguish between a very large number of netpages. (See, Para.128); For each section, the reader optionally specifies its sized... or numerically (i.e. as a limit on Its number of pages), and the desired proportion of advertising., either quantitatively... or numerically (See, Para. 110, 295, 408); Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360); The application... first obtains a document ID 51 for each document form an ID server 12. It then sends each document structure, including its document ID and page descriptions, to the page server 10 responsible for the document's newly allocated ID (See, Para. 408); The one or more processors750.... are integrated in a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470));
storing, by the one or more processors, an association of the hash, [the metadata] and the type of document in a knowledge database; (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360, 408, 469-470); It transmits the secret ID and the public key securely to the netpage registration server. The server compares the secret ID against the printer's secret ID recorded in its database, and accepts the registration if the IDs match; (See, Para. 365, 408, 469-470));
creating, by the one or more processors, a new hash for a new document; (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360); The application... first obtains a document ID 51 for each document form an ID server 12. It then sends each document structure, including its document ID and page descriptions, to the page server 10 responsible for the document's newly allocated ID (See, Para. 408); The one or more processors750.... are integrated in a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470));
comparing, by the one or more processors, the hash with the new hash; and (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360); The application... first obtains a document ID 51 for each document form an ID server 12. It then sends each document structure, including its document ID and page descriptions, to the page server 10 responsible for the document's newly allocated ID (See, Para. 408); The one or more processors750.... are integrated in a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470));
determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has [similar locations of the combination of object fields] and is a similar type of document as the document based on the comparing. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360); It transmits the secret ID and the public key securely to the netpage registration server. The server compares the secret ID against the printer's secret ID recorded in its database, and accepts the registration if the IDs match. (See, Para. 365); The application... first obtains a document ID 51 for each document form an ID server 12. It then sends each document structure, including its document ID and page descriptions, to the page server 10 responsible for the document's newly allocated ID (See, Para. 408); The one or more processors750.... are Integrated In a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teach creating, by the one or more processors, [a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters]; storing, by the one or more processors, an association of the hash, [the metadata] and the type of document in a knowledge database; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has [similar locations of the combination of object fields].
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
the metadata; (King, New and upcoming file systems and their associated databases often have the ability to store a variety of metadata associated with each file. Traditionally, this metadata has included such things as the ID of the user who created the file, the dates of creation, last modification, and last use. Newer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. (See, Para. 291)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291).
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach creating, by the one or more processors, [a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters]; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has [similar locations of the combination of object fields].
However, Silverbrook'197 further teaches the following limitations:
creating, by the one or more processors, [a hash from metadata about a combination of object fields and a type of document, wherein the hash converts the metadata into an output string with a fixed number of characters]; (Silverbrook'197, A netpage consists of a printed page... Insensibly tagged with references to an online description of the page... It also describes the input elements on the page, including buttons, hyperlinks and Input fields. (See, Para.415); The raster image processor (RIP) consists of one or more standard DSPs 757 running in parallel (See, Para. 564); The netpage consists of graphic data 2 printed using visible Ink, and coded data 3 printed as a collection of tags 4 using invisible Ink. The corresponding page description 5, stored on the netpage network, describes the Individual elements. of the netpage. In particular It describes the type and spatial extent (zone) of each interactive element (i.e. text field or button in the example), to allow the netpage: system to correctly Interpret Input via the netpage. (See, Para. 399); Extracted content can Include both the visual layout and the document markup (possibly converted to some standard format such as html) (See, Para. 700); The fixed target structure allow a sensing device such as the netpage pen to detect the tag and infer its three-dimensional orientation relative to the sensor. (See, Para. 429); hyperlinked group 866 Is a group element 838 which has an associated hyperlink, as show...When input occurs through any field element In the group, the hyperlink 844 associated with the group is activated. A hyperlinked group can be used to associate hyperlink behavior with a field such as a checkbox. (See, Para. 494, 500); “text written by hand on a netpage is automatically recognized and converted to computer text in the netpage system, allowing forms to be filled in. In other embodiments, signatures recorded on a netpage are automatically verified, allowing e-commerce transactions to be securely authorized. In other embodiments” see para 398 and “A text field has an associated text value 882, as shown in FIG. 23. Any digital ink captured in a text field's zone is automatically converted to text via online handwriting recognition, and the text is assigned to the field's value.” See para. 518);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the new document has [similar locations of the combination of object fields]. (Silverbrook'197, A netpage consists of a printed page... Insensibly tagged with references to an online description of the page... It also describes the input elements on the page, including buttons, hyperlinks and Input fields. (See, Para.415); The raster image processor (RIP) consists of one or more standard DSPs 757 running in parallel (See, Para. 564); The process consists of determining... whether the field 18 & checkbox and... whether the digital Ink represents a checkmark, and if so assigning ... a true value to the field value... alternatively, determining ... whether the field is a signature field and if so verifying... the digital Ink as the signature of the pen's owner, with the help of the appropriate registration server, creating... a digital signature of the contents of the corresponding form, also with the help of the registration server and using the pan owner's private signature key relating to the corresponding application... to the field value. (See, Para. 500, 529)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 2:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising: creating, by the one or more processors, a unique key based on the hash; finding, by the one or more processors, the document based on the unique key; updating, by the one or more processors, the document and [the metadata] based on the unique key. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key. Anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to that particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. If the signature is appended to the message, then the recipient of the message can verify both that the message is genuine and that it has not been altered in transit. (See, Para. 360); A document instance 831 corresponds to a formatted document 834. It consists of a set of page instances 830, each of which correspond to a page description 5 of the formatted document. Each page instance 830 describes a single unique printed netpage 2, and records the page ID 50 of the netpage. (See, Para. 176); The page ID is similar to the page number. The page data is located using a tag, which has a corresponding location. (See, Para. 134, 184)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teach metadata.
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
updating, by the one or more processors, the document and [the metadata] based on the unique key; (King, New and upcoming file systems and their associated databases often have the ability to store a variety of metadata associated with each file. Traditionally, this metadata has included such things as the ID of the user who created the file, the dates of creation, last modification, and last use. Newer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. (See, Para. 291)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291).
Regarding Claim 3:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising recording a user action to change the locations of [the combination of object fields], in response to a false positive about the determining that the new document having [similar locations of the combination of object fields] and being the similar type of document. (Silverbrook‘538, Dragging may also be used to apply a command at a location... It may be used to apply a command to an object, for example to delete the object. (See, Para. 469, 470, 493); public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key. Anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to that particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. If the signature is appended to the message, then the recipient of the message can verify both that the message is genuine and that it has not been altered in transit. (See, Para. 360); A document instance 831 corresponds to a formatted document 834. It consists of a set of page instances 830, each of which correspond to a page description 5 of the formatted document. Each page instance 830 describes a single unique printed netpage 2, and records the page ID 50 of the netpage. (See, Para. 176); The page ID is similar to the page number. The page data is located using a tag, which has a corresponding location. (See, Para. 134, 184)).
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach the combination of object fields; and similar locations of the combination of object fields .
However, Silverbrook‘197 further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising recording a user action to change the locations of [the combination of object fields], in response to a false positive about the determining that the new document having [similar locations of the combination of object fields] and being the similar type of document. (Silverbrook‘197, Low precision results when documents of low relevance Included in the search results. These are often referred to as false positives (See, Para. 890); Low recall generally results form a mismatch between terms used to describe the source document and terms used to describe target documents (See, Para. 880, 890, 907)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 5:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
wherein the determining [the metadata] about the document includes determining a type of the document based on at least one of a title of the document, location of text in at least a portion of the document, font of text in at least a portion of the document, footer in the document, number of pages of the document, words in certain locations or a library of known document titles. (Silverbrook‘538, This page ID has sufficient precision to distinguish between a very large number of netpages. (See, Para.128); For each section, the reader optionally specifies its sized... or numerically (i.e. as a limit on Its number of pages), and the desired proportion of advertising., either quantitatively... or numerically (See, Para. 110, 295, 408); The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teaches metadata.
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the determining [the metadata] about the document includes determining a type of the document based on at least one of a title of the document, location of text in at least a portion of the document, font of text in at least a portion of the document, footer in the document, number of pages of the document, words in certain locations or a library of known document titles. (King, New and upcoming file systems and their associated databases often have the ability to store a variety of metadata associated with each file. Traditionally, this metadata has included such things as the ID of the user who created the file, the dates of creation, last modification, and last use. Newer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. (See, Para. 291)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291).
Regarding Claim 6:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
[wherein the title of the document is determined] based on at least one of a location of a first word, a font of a second word or a size of a third word. (Silverbrook‘538, In a preferred: form, each tag Identifiers the region in which it appears, and the location of that tag within the region. (See, Para. 134); Each codeword can either contain a single bit indicating whether it Is the first codeword, or two bits Indicating which codeword it is. (See, Para. 162)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teaches wherein the title of the document is determined.
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
[wherein the title of the document is determined] based on at least one of a location of a first word, a font of a second word or a size of a third word. (King, For example, the user reads some representative portion of a document... e.g., document identifier, title, etc. (See, Para. 931)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291).
Regarding Claim 7:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
wherein [the metadata] includes at least one of page numbers associated with at least some pages of the document or a description of different sections of the document. (Silverbrook‘538, Each reference to the page description is encoded in a printed tag. (See, Para.129); In a preferred form, each tag identifier the region in which it appears, and the location of the tag within the region. (See, Para.110, 128, 134); The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teaches metadata.
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
wherein [the metadata] includes at least one of page numbers associated with at least some pages of the document or a description of different sections of the document. (King, New and upcoming file systems and their associated databases often have the ability to store a variety of metadata associated with each file. Traditionally, this metadata has included such things as the ID of the user who created the file, the dates of creation, last modification, and last use. Newer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. (See, Para. 291)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291).
Regarding Claim 8:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising acquiring, by the one or more processors, page number data about the document at least one of: in response to the document containing multiple pages; or by reviewing at least one of patterns of the page number data, common locations for page numbers, locations for a word page or a format of the page number data, in response to the document containing multiple pages. (Silverbrook‘538, The netpage network includes any number of page servers, each handling a subset of page Instances. (See, Para. 182, 295, 468); A document instance 831 corresponds to a formatted document 834. It consists of a set of page instances 830, each of which correspond to a page description 5 of the formatted document. Each page instance 830 describes a single unique printed netpage 2, and records the page ID 50 of the netpage. (See, Para. 176); The page ID is similar to the page number. The page data is located using a tag, which has a corresponding location. (See, Para. 134, 184)).
Regarding Claim 10:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising creating a unique key from at least one of the hash or the new hash. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key. Anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to that particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. If the signature is appended to the message, then the recipient of the message can verify both that the message is genuine and that it has not been altered in transit. (See, Para. 360)).
Regarding Claim 12:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising saving, by the one or more processors and in the knowledge database, [at least one of data associated with a false positive about an object field, an action associated with the false positive, a location of the false positive or document metadata]. (Silverbrook‘538, The printer controller's flash memory 658 holds the software for both the one or more processors750 and the DSPs 757, as well as configuration data. This is copied to main memory 657 at boot time; The one or more processors750.... are integrated in a single controller ASIC 656.” - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470). (See, Para. 500, 529)).
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach at least one of data associated with a false positive about an object field, an action associated with the false positive, a location of the false positive or document metadata.
However, Silverbrook‘197 further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising saving, by the one or more processors and in the knowledge database, [at least one of data associated with a false positive about an object field, an action associated with the false positive, a location of the false positive or document metadata]. (Silverbrook‘197, Low precision results when documents of low relevance Included in the search results. These are often referred to as false positives (See, Para. 890); Low recall generally results form a mismatch between terms used to describe the source document and terms used to describe target documents (See, Para. 907)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 13:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising removing, by the one or more processors, at least one of: [an object field associated with a false positive from the new document, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]; or [an object field associated with a false positive from the new document] after a threshold number of false positives are discovered in the documents, [based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]. (Silverbrook‘538, Dragging may also be used to apply a command at a location... It may be used to apply a command to an object, for example to delete the object. (See, Para. 469, 470, 493); Dragging may also be used to apply a command at a location... It may be used to apply a command to an object, for example to delete the object. (See, Para. 469, 470, 493); The center of the range Is then chosen as the binary threshold for the image 21.7; (See, Para. 148)).
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach an object field associated with a false positive from the new document, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database; or an object field associated with a false positive from the new document; and based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
However, Silverbrook‘197 further teaches the following limitations:
further comprising removing, by the one or more processors, at least one of: [an object field associated with a false positive from the new document, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]; or [an object field associated with a false positive from the new document] after a threshold number of false positives are discovered in the documents, [based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]. (Silverbrook‘197, Low precision results when documents of low relevance Included in the search results. These are often referred to as false positives (See, Para. 890); Low recall generally results form a mismatch between terms used to describe the source document and terms used to describe target documents (See, Para. 880, 890, 907)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 14:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors and to a user, [information about an object field associated with a false positive, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]. (Silverbrook‘538, The results of the search is either displayed on the user's desktop or mobile computer.... (See, Para. 469, 470, 528)).
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach information about an object field associated with a false positive, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database.
However, Silverbrook‘197 further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising providing, by the one or more processors and to a user, [information about an object field associated with a false positive, based on data associated with the false positive from the knowledge database]. (Silverbrook‘197, The results of the search is either displayed on the user's desktop or mobile computer... all according to the user's configured preference.” (See, Para. 611); Low precision results when documents of low relevance Included in the search results. These are often referred to as false positives (See, Para. 890); Low recall generally results form a mismatch between terms used to describe the source document and terms used to describe target documents (See, Para. 880, 890, 907)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 15:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising at least one of adding or adjusting, by the one or more processors, an object field in the new document, based on at least one of the object field being added or adjusted in the document in the knowledge database. (Silverbrook‘538, Thus, given a region ID, a tag ID and a pen transform, the rag ap can be retrieved, the tag ID can be translated... and the tag-relative pen location can be added to the tag location to yield an absolute pen location within the region.”; para [0169] - "The tag-relative location of the pen Is added to this tag location to yield the location of the pen within the region.” - The tag data may have added location data using the pen. (See, Para.166); The printer controller's flash memory 658 holds the software for both the one or more processors750 and the DSPs 757, as well as configuration data. This is copied to main memory 657 at boot time (See, Para. 469-470)).
Regarding Claim 17:
Silverbrook‘538 teaches:
further comprising at least one of: converting, by the one or more processors, the document to a new type of document, based on a type of the document; requesting, by the one or more processors, a service based on [the metadata] associated with the document; or adjusting, by the one or more processors, the type of the document for an entity based on the users association with the entity. (Silverbrook‘538, A netpage formatting server is a special instance of a netpage publication server. The netpage formatting server has knowledge of various internet document formats, including Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF), and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). - The system may have a formatting server that Is able to process the document In various formats (See, Para. 355); Netpages are the foundation on which a netpage network is built. They provide a paper-based user Interface to published Information and interactive services. (See, Para. 11, 126, 469-470); The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538 does not specifically teaches metadata.
However, King further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising requesting, by the one or more processors, a service based on the metadata associated with the document. (King, New and upcoming file systems and their associated databases often have the ability to store a variety of metadata associated with each file. Traditionally, this metadata has included such things as the ID of the user who created the file, the dates of creation, last modification, and last use. Newer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. (See, Para. 291)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 with the features of King’s system because “paper documents have an enduring appeal, as can be seen by the proliferation of paper documents in the computer age. It has never been easier to print and publish paper documents than it is today. Paper documents prevail even though electronic documents are easier to duplicate, transmit, search and edit.” “Fewer file systems allow such extra information as keywords, image characteristics, document sources and user comments to be stored, and in some systems this metadata can be arbitrarily extended. File systems can therefore be used to store information that would be useful in implementing the current system. For example, the date when a given document was last printed can be stored by the file system, as can details about which text from it has been captured from paper using the described system, and when and by whom.” (King, Para. 5 and 291) .
Regarding Claim 18:
Silverbrook‘538 and King do not specifically teach further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, an existence and location of the object field in the document; creating, by the one or more processors, a tag with metadata about a type of the tag and the object field, wherein the metadata includes data about executing the document in the object field; associating, by the one or more processors, the tag with the object field, wherein the tag at least one of indicates that the document requires a notary, displays questions about the document, displays information about the document or displays areas on the document where a signature is required; and converting, by the one or more processors using the metadata, the object field to the interactive object field to allow interaction with the object field.
However, Silverbrook‘197 further teaches the following limitations:
further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, an existence and location of the object field in the document; (Silverbrook‘197, The corresponding page description 5, stored on the netpage network, describes the individual elements. of the netpage. In particular it describes the type and spatial extent (zone) of each interactive element (i.e. text field or button in the example), to allow the netpage: system to correctly interpret input via the netpage; (See, Para. 399); The fixed target structure allow a sensing device such as the netpage pen to detect the tag and infer its three-dimensional orientation relative to the sensor; (See, Para. 429); There are two kinds of input elements in a netpage description: hyperlinks and form fields. input through a form field can also trigger the activation of an associated hyperlink. The system may recognize or detect the input fields of the document. The fields and hyperlinks may be identified by the tags obtained from the scanned document. (See, Para. 494); A hyperlinked group 866 is a group element 838 which has an associated hyperlink, as shown in FIG. 18. When input occurs through any field element in the group, the hyperlink 844 associated with the group is activated; A hyperlinked group can be used to associate hyperlink behavior with a field such as a checkbox. It can also be used, in conjunction with the “submit delta” attribute of a form hyperlink, to provide continuous input to an application. It can therefore be used to support a “blackboard” interaction model, i.e. where input is captured and therefore shared as soon as it occurs. The process consists of determining... whether the field 18 & checkbox and... whether the digital Ink represents a checkmark, and if so assigning... a true value to the field value... alternatively, determining... whether the field is a signature field and if so verifying... the digital Ink as the signature of the pen's owner, with the help of the appropriate registration server, creating... digital signature of the contents of the corresponding form, also with the help of the registration server and using the pan owner's private signature key relating to the corresponding application... to the field value. (See, Para. 500, 529));
creating, by the one or more processors, a tag with metadata about a type of the tag and the object field, wherein the metadata includes data about executing the document in the object field; (Silverbrook‘197, A netpage consists of a printed page... Insensibly tagged with references to an online description of the page... It also describes the input elements on the page, including buttons, hyperlinks and Input fields. (See, Para. 415); The raster Image processor (RIP) consists of one or more standard DSPs 757 running in parallel- - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, 564));
associating, by the one or more processors, the tag with the object field, wherein the tag at least one of indicates that the document requires a notary, displays questions about the document, displays information about the document or displays areas on the document where a signature is required; and (Silverbrook‘197, A netpage consists of a printed page... Insensibly tagged with references to an online description of the page... It also describes the input elements on the page, including buttons, hyperlinks and Input fields. (See, Para. 415 and 564); As illustrated in FIG.90, an entity 1180 has various details 1192 such as name, contact details, etc. (See, Para. 887); After identifying the primary search terms a set of context terms is Identified to help improve query precision; - The summary specifies that the context terms may be keywords and the names of users. (See, Para. 914); The process consists of determining... whether the field 18 & checkbox and... whether the digital Ink represents a checkmark, and if so assigning... a true value to the field value... alternatively, determining... whether the field is a signature field and if so verifying... the digital Ink as the signature of the pen's owner, with the help of the appropriate registration server, creating... a digital signature of the contents of the corresponding form, also with the help of the registration server and using the pan owner's private signature key relating to the corresponding application... to the field value. - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 500, 529));
converting, by the one or more processors using the metadata, the object field to the interactive object field to allow interaction with the object field. (Silverbrook‘197, text written by hand on a netpage is automatically recognized and converted to computer text in the netpage system, allowing forms to be filled in. In other embodiments, signatures recorded on a netpage are automatically verified, allowing e-commerce transactions to be securely authorized. In other embodiments, text on a netpage may be clicked or gestured to initiate a search based on keywords indicated by the user. (See, Para. 398-99, 428-29); Extracted content can Include both the visual layout and the document markup (possibly converted to some standard format such as html”, (See, Para. 700); it describes the type and spatial extent (zone) of each interactive element (i.e. text field or button in the example), to allow the netpage: system to correctly interpret input via the netpage; (See, Para. 399); The fixed target structure allow a sensing device such as the netpage pen to detect the tag and infer its three-dimensional orientation relative to the sensor; (See, Para. 429); There are two kinds of input elements in a netpage description: hyperlinks and form fields. input through a form field can also trigger the activation of an associated hyperlink. The system may recognize or detect the input fields of the document. The fields and hyperlinks may be identified by the tags obtained from the scanned document. - The descriptions mentioned are similar to metadata, as they are descriptive data pertaining to the document (See, Para. 494)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538 and King with the features of Silverbrook‘197’s system because this system “enhance the functionality of the above-described system. Enhanced functionality would encourage greater use of the system and, hence, generate increased revenue streams for system providers, provide users with useful information from every interaction with the substrate, irrespective of whether the user has interacted with a specific interactive element (e.g. hyperlink) on the substrate, and provide users with greater control over what type of information they receive when interacting with a printed substrate.” (Silverbrook‘197, Para. 7-9).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038538A1 hereinafter “Silverbrook‘538”), in view of King (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0183246 A1; hereinafter “King”), further in view of US 2011/0302197 A1 to Silverbrook et al. (hereinafter Silverbrook'197), and further in view of Momma (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0265593A1 hereinafter “Momma”).
Claim 4:
Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 do not specifically teach further comprising performing, by the one or more processors, a canonicalization process of the combination of object fields, the known document titles, the known document types, the known user-inputted object fields, the entities and the users, wherein the canonicalization process converts data that involves more than one representation into a standard approved format to help ensure that data conforms to canonical rules.
However, Momma further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising performing, by the one or more processors, a canonicalization process of the combination of object fields, the known document titles, the known document types, the known user-inputted object fields, the entities and the users, wherein the canonicalization process converts data that involves more than one representation into a standard approved format to help ensure that data conforms to canonical rules. (Momma, The document verification service 110 Includes a sent and retrieved document retaining portion 111... a document canonicalization portion 113...%. The verification process controlling portion 115 determines that a change that influences the verification result is made to the electronic document, when the information obtained by performing a given calculation on the electronic document at the time when the electronic document is verified most recently is different from the information obtained by performing the given calculation on such input electronic document. The afore-described given calculation includes a preprocessing. The preprocessing includes the canonicalization process. The canonicalization process is executed on the document canonicalization portion 113. The canonicalization process is a process that absorbs the fluctuations of description generated by the processes (such as addition of space or linefeed mark, conversion of character code, or the like) unrelated to the original functions of the individual programs. By implementing the canonicalization process on the document, it is possible to produce the documents that should be considered identical to have an identical notation. This facilitates the determination of identity. The document verifying portion 114 is provided for verifying the document. So, when the electronic document is a structured document, the document verifying portion 114 verifies to learn whether the structured document satisfies the condition defined by a given document schema (See, Para. 134-143)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 with the features of Momma’s system because this system “determines whether a change that influences a verification result is made to at least one of an electronic document and a given condition, after it is verified whether or not the electronic document that has been input satisfies the given condition; and an outputting portion that outputs the verification result after it is verified whether or not the electronic document satisfies the given condition, if it is determined that the change is made to at least one of the electronic document and the given condition, or outputs a result of a time when it is verified whether or not the electronic document satisfies the given condition most recently, if it is determined that the change is not made.” (Momma, Para. 8).
Claim 9:
Silverbrook’538 further teaches:
wherein the creating at least one of the hash or the new hash comprises [standardizing the object fields using a canonicalization process]. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360, 408, 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 do not specifically teach standardizing the object fields using a canonicalization process.
However, Momma further teaches the following limitation:
wherein the creating at least one of the hash or the new hash comprises [standardizing the object fields using a canonicalization process]. (Momma, The document verification service 110 Includes a sent and retrieved document retaining portion 111... a document canonicalization portion 113...%. (See, Para. 134, 137)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 with the features of Momma’s system because this system “determines whether a change that influences a verification result is made to at least one of an electronic document and a given condition, after it is verified whether or not the electronic document that has been input satisfies the given condition; and an outputting portion that outputs the verification result after it is verified whether or not the electronic document satisfies the given condition, if it is determined that the change is made to at least one of the electronic document and the given condition, or outputs a result of a time when it is verified whether or not the electronic document satisfies the given condition most recently, if it is determined that the change is not made.” (Momma, Para. 8).
Claim 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverbrook (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0038538A1 hereinafter “Silverbrook‘538”), in view of King (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0183246 A1; hereinafter “King”), further in view of US 2011/0302197 A1 to Silverbrook et al. (hereinafter Silverbrook'197), and further in view of Cernautan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0370528A1 hereinafter “Cernautan”).
Claim 11:
Silverbrook’538 further teaches:
further comprising incorporating, by the one or more processors, the hash into [a QR code]that is associated with the document. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360, 408, 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 do not specifically teach a QR code.
However, Cernautan further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising incorporating, by the one or more processors, the hash into [a QR code]that is associated with the document. (Cernautan, The machine-readable code sub-section 411 may contain a machine-readable multidimensional code (e.g., a QR code) In which a numeric identifier may be embedded that uniquely identifies the document. (See, Para. 90)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 with the features of Cernautan’s system because this system “provide[s] a tool for digitizing signatures. The embodiments improve the overall speed of the digitizing process and the quality of the image that represents a digitized version of a wet ink signature while using a built-in camera of an electronic device, such as smart phone or a tablet computer. For this, a printed unsigned document may contain a special printed marker, such as a QR code or the like. When an entity can control the printed document (e.g. its content and layout) that needs to be signed, the same entity can obtain a digitized version of a wet ink signature in a fast, reliable, and highly accurate way via commonly available hardware the user may already own, such as a smartphone or tablet that has a built-in camera. In an example, the embodiments may be used when an entity (such as a company) needs consent signatures from a large volume of users on documents that the same entity controls. The embodiments allow collecting these signatures from multiple people with minimal effort and costs.” (Cernautan, Para. 87).
Claim 16:
Silverbrook’538 further teaches:
further comprising associating, by the one or more processors, [a QR code with the document], [wherein the QR code identifies at least one of requirements for the document or a packet that includes the document]. (Silverbrook‘538, Public-key cryptography can be used to create a digital signature. The holder of the private key can create a known hash of a message and then encrypt the hash using the private key anyone can then verify that the encrypted hash constitutes the “signature” of the holder of the private key with respect to the particular message by decrypting the encrypted hash using the public key and verifying the hash against the message. (See, Para. 360, 408, 469-470)).
Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 do not specifically teach a QR code with the document, wherein the QR code identifies at least one of requirements for the document or a packet that includes the document.
However, Cernautan further teaches the following limitation:
further comprising associating, by the one or more processors, [a QR code with the document], [wherein the QR code identifies at least one of requirements for the document or a packet that includes the document]. (Cernautan, The machine-readable code sub-section 411 may contain a machine-readable multidimensional code (e.g., a QR code) In which a numeric identifier may be embedded that uniquely identifies the document. (See, Para. 90); For example, employed communications networks or links can include... wireless communications networks... Packet Data Networks (PDNs)...” - The system may Identify the document using a QR code. The system may utilize a packet network containing the documents (See, Para. 80, 87,156)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified Silverbrook‘538, King, and Silverbrook'197 with the features of Cernautan’s system because this system “provide[s] a tool for digitizing signatures. The embodiments improve the overall speed of the digitizing process and the quality of the image that represents a digitized version of a wet ink signature while using a built-in camera of an electronic device, such as smart phone or a tablet computer. For this, a printed unsigned document may contain a special printed marker, such as a QR code or the like. When an entity can control the printed document (e.g. its content and layout) that needs to be signed, the same entity can obtain a digitized version of a wet ink signature in a fast, reliable, and highly accurate way via commonly available hardware the user may already own, such as a smartphone or tablet that has a built-in camera. In an example, the embodiments may be used when an entity (such as a company) needs consent signatures from a large volume of users on documents that the same entity controls. The embodiments allow collecting these signatures from multiple people with minimal effort and costs.” (Cernautan, Para. 87).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is the following:
Cernautan (U.S. Patent Pub. No. US-2019/0370528-A1) “Digitizing handwritten signatures”
Maze (U.S. Patent No. US-2010/0325102-A1) “System and method for managing electronic documents in a litigation context”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693