Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al., (US5625711) hereafter Nicholson (single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are shown/disclosed in multiple figures/embodiments and well-known OCR in the background section and in the disclosure).
1. Regarding claim 1, Nicholson discloses a system (figs 1-5c, 7-7b, and 10 shows and discloses a system) for expedited processing of image data obtained through optical character recognition (OCR) processing, the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (figs 1-2 shows and discloses at least one non-transitory storage device (ROM 42); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (processor 36 coupled to the ROM 42 via memory bus), wherein the at least one processor):
receive a first image file obtained by an image capture device (figs 1-2, col 5 lines 21-57 shows and discloses receive by the computer 14 a first image file obtained by an image capture device i.e optical scanner 26/camera 28 generates/creates a bitmap file of the scanned image of the document 32);
perform OCR processing on the first image file to generate an OCR data file, wherein the OCR data file comprises a confidence score (figs 4 step 64, figs 5a-5b, fig 7 steps 126, 128, 132, fig 7a-7b, fig 10 steps 252,254 and col 5 lines 56-66, col 7 lines 1-67, col 11 lines 18 through col 12 lines 23 shows and discloses perform recognition on characters (OCR processing on the image file) to produce component character list with confidence levels (i.e ORC data file with confidence scores (levels) meeting the claim limitations, examiner further notes that recognition or OCR processing as performed on the image file is well-known as disclosed in col 1 lines 22-29 and col 11 lines 49 through col 12 lines 5 “such recognizers are well-known to those skilled in the art” meeting the claim limitations);
based on the confidence score, identify a settlement rail compatible with the OCR data file (figs 7a-7b and 10, col 12 lines 66 through col 13 lines 12 shows and discloses identifying the seventh word label “Open” (i.e identify a settlement rail compatible with the OCR data file) with the highest confidence level of 95 (i.e the seventh entry in the list 170 in fig 7b) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “a settlement rail’ and “identify’ are not required by the current claim);
convert the OCR data file to a format associated with the identified settlement rail (col 13 lines 13-33 discloses storing the labels above threshold (i.e identified settlement rail) in a hybrid data structure in ASCII format (i.e convert the OCR data file (i.e confidence labels list) to a format meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of convert and format are not required by the current claim); and
process the converted OCR data file over the identified settlement rail (figs 4 step 68, 72, and 10 steps 254, 256, col 17 lines 44-65 shows and discloses process (display the hybrid structure i.e the converted OCR data file over the identified settlement rail) the converted OCR data file over the identified settlement rail (i.e the hybrid data structure of identifiable and non-identifiable objects greater than the threshold (i.e the converted/stored in to ASCII format) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “process” are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figures/embodiments are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be an efficient, compact and user-friendly system (col 1 lines 11-22 and col 5 lines 56-66).
2. Regarding claim 2, Nicholson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the confidence score is based on a level of similarity between the OCR data file and a known scenario (fig 7b, col 13 lines 12-22 discloses the confidence score compared above storage threshold 50 (i.e known scenario) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a known scenario are not required by the current claim).
3. Regarding claim 3, Nicholson disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the identified settlement rail is a real-time settlement rail when the confidence score exceeds a first predetermined threshold value (fig 7b shows the confidence value 95 in the list (i.e settlement rail) exceeding the threshold value 50 (i.e predetermined storage threshold) meeting the claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 5, Nicholson discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the identified settlement rail is a time-delayed settlement rail when the confidence score exceeds a second predetermined threshold value, wherein the second predetermined threshold value is lower than the first predetermined threshold value (fig 7b and col 13 lines 12-22 discloses wherein the identified settlement rail is a time-delayed settlement rail when the confidence score (i.e 95 in fig 7B) exceeds a second predetermined threshold value (stored threshold level 50), wherein the second predetermined threshold value is lower than the first predetermined threshold value (i.e 50 is lower than 95 meeting the above claim limitations)).
5. Regarding claim 6, Nicholson discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the format associated with the identified settlement rail is a fixed-width ASCII message (col 13 lines 13-33 discloses wherein the format associated with the identified settlement rail is a fixed-width ASCII message).
6. Claim 9 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Figs 1-2 and Col 7 lines 27-29 discloses ROM 42 (i.e computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable medium comprising code (i.e instructions) followed by microprocessor 36 (i.e computer apparatus) meeting the claim limitations of claim 9.
7. Claim 10 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
8. Claim 11 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
9. Claim 13 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
10. Claim 14 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 6. See the corresponding explanation of claim 6.
11. Claim 17 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1.
12. Regarding claim 18, Nicholson discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the identified settlement rail is a real-time settlement rail when the confidence score exceeds a first predetermined threshold value (fig 7b and col 13 lines 12-22 discloses wherein the identified settlement rail is a real-time settlement rail when the confidence score (i.e 95 in fig 7B) exceeds a first predetermined threshold value (i.e 50) meeting the above claim limitations)).
13. Claim 20 is a corresponding method claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
Claims 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson in view of Mousseau (US20200349639) hereafter Mousseau.
14. Regarding claim 4, Nicholson discloses the system of claim 3. Nicholson discloses the format associated with the identified settlement as seen in claims 1 and 3. Nicholson is silent and fails to disclose wherein the format associated with the identified settlement rail is an ISO 20022 message.
Mousseau disclose wherein the format associated with the identified settlement rail is an ISO 20022 message (paras 0070, 0434-0439 and 0443 wherein the format associated with the identified settlement rail is an ISO 20022 message). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made Mousseau and Nicholson are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and analogous art of handwriting/character input and recognition (disclosed at para 0015). The suggestion/motivation would be an improved, efficient, flexible and high-speed system at paras 0437-0439. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Mousseau in the system of Nicholson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
15. Claim 12 is corresponding computer program product claim of claim 4. See the explanation of claim 4.
16. Claim 19 is corresponding method claim of claim 4. See the explanation of claim 4.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson in view of Stefanov et al., (US11481691) hereafter Stefanov.
17. Regarding claim 8, Nicholson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the confidence score, store the OCR data file in a data repository (figs 1-2, 7b and col 13 lines 13-33 shows and discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: based on the confidence score, store the OCR data file in a data repository (OCR data file as the hybrid data structure in the ROM 42 (memory)) meeting the claim limitations);
and train one or more machine learning engines using the data repository.
Stefanov discloses train one or more machine learning engines using the data repository (col 6 lines 53 through col 7 lines 30 discloses training and improving the accuracy of the model 106 using the data repository (i.e the data record of the confidence scores in the data repository) meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Stefanov and Nicholson are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of text image data processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and accurate system at col 7 lines 26-30. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Stefanov in the system of Nicholson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
18. Claim 16 is a corresponding computer program product claim of claim 8. See the corresponding explanation of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights