DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine (claim 1).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving image data for a plurality of transactions to classify a record pertaining to a specific transaction by;
receive, from the,…, of a user of the network service, image data comprising an image of a record;
execute image processing,…, on the image to identify a set of information items that are, at least partially, not determinable from the record;
execute augmentation,…, to process the record by (i) accessing a
transaction database to identify a plurality of transactions made by the user, (ii) identifying a matching transaction from the plurality of transactions that pertains to the record, and (iii) resolving the set of information items using the matching transaction; and
classify the record in a user account of the user based on the set of information items.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles as well as commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving image data for a plurality of transactions to classify a record pertaining to a specific transaction).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “processor,” “logic,” “device,” and “memory” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraphs [0014] and [0098] of the specification).
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidtler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,345,981) (hereinafter “Schmidtler”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidtler discloses a memory storing instructions;
one or more processors executing the instructions, causing the computer
system to: receive, from the computing device of a user of the network service, image data comprising an image of a record. Schmidtler states that “The program environment in which a present embodiment of the invention is executed illustratively incorporates one or more general-purpose computers or special-purpose devices such facsimile machines and hand-held computers. Details of such devices (e.g., processor, memory, data storage, input and output devices) are well known and are omitted for the sake of clarity.” (See col. 16, ll. 48-54). Schmidtler states that “As shown in operation 102, optical character recognition (OCR) is performed on a scanned image of a first document, which may be a paper document used as part of an overall transaction. The first document may include any physical representation of handwritten, typewritten or printed text. For example, the first document may include an invoice, a receipt, a bill, a sales order document, an insurance claim document, etc. In another example, the first document may include an explanation of benefits document, a medical insurance document, etc.” (See col. 5, ll. 15-24). Schmidtler discloses executing image processing logic on the image to identify a set of information items that are, at least partially, not determinable from the record and executing augmentation logic to process the record by (i) accessing a transaction database to identify a plurality of transactions made by the user, (ii) identifying a matching transaction from the plurality of transactions that pertains to the record, and (iii) resolving the set of information items using the matching transaction. Schmidtler states that “In one exemplary embodiment, any fields that potentially match between the first document and the complementary document are selected as potential fields for generating hypotheses. Additionally, a single field may have multiple potential corresponding hypotheses. Once all potentially matching fields have been determined, a structure of the first document and/or the complementary document is determined and the fields are grouped into logical order. For example, the fields may be grouped in a “nearest neighbor” manner. In another example, the fields may be grouped as a description, a quality, a price, a total, etc. Further, the predefined business rules are then used to confirm the validity of the fields. For example, a predefined business rule may confirm that an individual amount field multiplied by an individual cost field equals a total cost field. In this way, accurate hypotheses may be generated using little reconstruction or extraction.” (See col. 7, ll. 14-29). Schmidtler states that “In one embodiment, an automatic business transaction validation process allows an automatic transaction validation level that comes close to EDI without the need of manually defining standardized document forms. This is achieved by going beyond the sequential process of information extraction, followed by data normalization and then comparison to the receiver's database as described above. The new process utilizes all information available simultaneously to validate the transaction. The different sources of information are the received document, the receiver's expectation of the transaction as stored in his database, and business rules pertaining to the specific transaction. The new process simultaneously analyzes the information from these sources and uses the complementary information to validate the interaction.” (See col. 3, ll. 23-36). Schmidtler discloses classifying the record in a user account of the user based on the set of information items. Schmidtler states that “Also, the purchase order for the given invoice retrieved in operation 216 as well as the scanned and OCRed invoice are processed utilizing an integrated matching and extraction algorithm 220 which performs integrated iterative invoice validation. In one embodiment, line item information may be automatically identified and validated from the scanned and OCRed invoice by the integrated matching and extraction algorithm 220. For example, unit price, quantity, description of line item, and line item price, in addition to a subtotal charge, a tax charge, a shipping and handling charge, and a total price may be automatically identified and validated from the invoice. In another example, a statistical extractor may be run over the invoice. The statistical extractor may provide information about extracted data such as the unit price, quantity, description, line item price, etc.” (See col. 10, ll. 14-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696