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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 identifies the uniquely distinct features inter alia “wherein the classifying includes classifying the plurality of document data into a plurality of classification destinations corresponding to the plurality of merge rules, and wherein the merging includes merging two or more document data classified into each of the plurality of classification destinations to generate the same number of merged document data as the number of the plurality of classification destinations.” In particular, the concept of having a plurality of merge rules wherein each rules corresponds classification destinations, of which each rule, and therefore destination, has to be fulfilled in association with the additional limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koutrika (US 2016/0299891).
Regarding Claim 1, Koutrika teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a program which, when executed by one or more processors (Paragraph 47), causes the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of document data from a memory that stores the plurality of document data (Paragraphs 33, 53 and 54, wherein a document is segmented to be classified);
classifying the plurality of document data based on a merge rule (Paragraphs 53-56, wherein the document segments are then classified and determined if there is a potential merger); and
merging two or more document data classified to generate merged document data (Paragraphs 67-75, wherein the blocks are merged when it is determined to be appropriate).
Regarding Claim 15, Koutrika teaches a document-data merging system (Paragraph 37) comprising:
a server (Element 104, wherein there is a document matching server); and
an information processing apparatus communicably connected with the server via a network (Element 108 and paragraph 29, wherein there is a data store),
wherein the server includes server circuitry configured to:
acquire a plurality of document data from a memory that stores the plurality of document data (Paragraphs 33, 53 and 54, wherein a document is segmented to be classified);
classify the plurality of document data based on a merge rule; and merge two or more document data classified to generate merged document data (Paragraphs 53-56, wherein the document segments are then classified and determined if there is a potential merger), and
wherein the information processing apparatus includes apparatus circuitry configured to receive the merged document data from the server (Paragraphs 33 and 67-75, wherein the blocks are merged when it is determined to be appropriate).
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koutrika (US 2016/0299891) in view of Beller (US 2020/0265114).
Regarding Claim 2, Koutrika does not teach receiving identification information of one or more tasks to which the plurality of document data are related; and
registering the merged document data in another memory in association with the identification information of the task related to two or more document data to be merged.
Beller does teach receiving identification information of one or more tasks to which the plurality of document data are related (Paragraph 45, wherein the documents can be organized by bins); and
registering the merged document data in another memory in association with the identification information of the task related to two or more document data to be merged (Paragraph 45, wherein the bins can be merged).
Koutrika and Beller are combinable because they deal with merging of document data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Koutrika with the teachings of Beller for the purpose of improving named entity disambiguation precision (Beller: Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Koutrika does not teach wherein the merge rule is a search key used for searching the document data for information to be referred to.
Beller does teach wherein the merge rule is a search key used for searching the document data for information to be referred to (Paragraphs 20 and 21, wherein the named entity is the search parameter, search key).
Koutrika and Beller are combinable because they deal with merging of document data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Koutrika with the teachings of Beller for the purpose of improving named entity disambiguation precision (Beller: Paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koutrika (US 2016/0299891) in view of Beller (US 2020/0265114) further in view of Champion (US 2008/0235579).
Regarding Claim 4, Koutrika in view of Beller does not teach wherein the information to be referred to in the document data is a file name of the document data.
Champion does teach wherein the information to be referred to in the document data is a file name of the document data (Paragraph 30, wherein the documents are referred to by file name).
Koutrika and Champion are combinable because they deal with merging of document data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Koutrika with the teachings of Champion for the purpose of allowing for automated referencing for merged documents (Champion: Paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koutrika (US 2016/0299891) in view of Solheim (US 2013/0103702).
Regarding Claim 13, Koutrika does not teach wherein the classifying includes classifying the plurality of document data every time a predetermined time elapses.
Solheim does teach wherein the classifying includes classifying the plurality of document data every time a predetermined time elapses (Paragraphs 12-14, wherein the document data for the merged documents is updated at an update cycle).
Koutrika and Solheim are combinable because they deal with merging of document data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Koutrika with the teachings of Solheim for the purpose of providing an efficient partial update mechanism (Solheim: Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Koutrika does not teach wherein the classifying includes classifying the plurality of document data when a predetermined timing arrives.
Solheim does teach wherein the classifying includes classifying the plurality of document data when a predetermined timing arrives (Paragraphs 12-14, 40, 49, and 50 wherein the document data for the merged documents is updated at an update cycle).
Koutrika and Solheim are combinable because they deal with merging of document data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Koutrika with the teachings of Solheim for the purpose of providing an efficient partial update mechanism (Solheim: Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited references of A, C, E, F, H, and I all relate to merging properties for documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights