Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed 02/16/2025 which is a Continuation of application no. 18786527, filed 07/28/2024 which further claims foreign priority to Australian application no. 2023210538, filed 07/31/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2025, and 08/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 02/16/2025 are accepted.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method including:
accessing a set of input paragraphs, wherein each input paragraph is associated with one or more format attributes, and wherein the one or more format attributes of each input paragraph includes a font size attribute;
generating an ordered set of input paragraph identifiers, wherein each input paragraph identifier identifies an input paragraph of the set of input paragraphs, and wherein the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers is ordered based on the font size attributes associated with each input paragraph; and
progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers into a set of input paragraph subgroups, wherein the progressive subdividing is based on the one or more format attributes of the one or more input paragraphs and on completion each input paragraph subgroup defines a different text hierarchy level.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform a method including: generating mentally with aid of pen/paper an ordered set of input paragraph identifiers, wherein each input paragraph identifier identifies an input paragraph of the set of input paragraphs, and wherein the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers is ordered based on the font size attributes associated with each input paragraph (e.g. mentally observing/organizing data); and progressively subdividing, mentally with aid of pen/paper, the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers into a set of input paragraph subgroups, wherein the progressive subdividing is based on the one or more format attributes of the one or more input paragraphs and on completion each input paragraph subgroup defines a different text hierarchy level.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer implemented method including: accessing a set of input paragraphs, wherein each input paragraph is associated with one or more format attributes, and wherein the one or more format attributes of each input paragraph includes a font size attribute”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer implemented method including: accessing a set of input paragraphs, wherein each input paragraph is associated with one or more format attributes, and wherein the one or more format attributes of each input paragraph includes a font size attribute”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 11 and 16 are system/medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 11 and 16 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above, are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 11, and 16. In particular, claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 describe mental steps with aid of paper/pen to perform first-in-order subdivision/grouping based on font size, second-in-order subdivision/grouping based on format type, third-in-order subdivision/grouping based on second format type, fourth-in-order subdivision/grouping based third format type, and fifth-in-order subdivision/grouping based on fourth format type, as well as additional elements of format type being list indentation, second format type being underline, and fourth format type being bold are mere data gathering steps which does not impose meaningful limitation to abstract idea (Per prong 2, Step 2A, and Step 2B) and same analysis and conclusion apply as noted for claims 1, 11, and 16.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lazarevic (US 20130191389 A1, referred herein after as D1).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A computer implemented method including, (D1, abstract).
accessing a set of input paragraphs, (D1, 0019 discloses accessing/receiving/analyzing a document having paragraphs/text).
wherein each input paragraph is associated with one or more format attributes, and wherein the one or more format attributes of each input paragraph includes a font size attribute; (D1, 0019-0022 discloses accessing/receiving/analyzing a document having paragraphs/text determining associated formats of the paragraphs/text, where determined formats include font size attributes among others).
generating an ordered set of input paragraph identifiers, (D1, figure 3A and accompanying text, 0027-0031 discloses determining various formatting data (e.g. font type, size, etc.) and generating various clusters having identified property).
wherein each input paragraph identifier identifies an input paragraph of the set of input paragraphs, (figure 3A and accompanying text, 0027-0031, 0049 discloses determining various formatting data (e.g. font type, size, etc.) of paragraphs and generating various clusters corresponding to the identified property, and thereafter placing various paragraphs in their corresponding clusters.).
and wherein the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers is ordered based on the font size attributes associated with each input paragraph, (D1, figure 3A and accompanying text, 0027-0031, 0049 discloses determining various formatting data (e.g. font type, size, etc.) of paragraphs and generating various clusters corresponding to the identified property, and thereafter placing various paragraphs in their corresponding clusters, where clusters maybe ordered/sorted based on font size (e.g. see figure 4, step 440)).
and progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers into a set of input paragraph subgroups, wherein the progressive subdividing is based on the one or more format attributes of the one or more input paragraphs, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses clusters are further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs.).
and on completion each input paragraph subgroup defines a different text hierarchy level, (D1, figure 4, 0049 determines headings/child heading/subheadings).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers includes performing a first-in-order subdivision in which the ordered set of input paragraphs are grouped into subgroups based on font size, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses cluster based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs, wherein formatting parameter maybe font size among other formatting parameters.).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers includes performing a second-in-order subdivision, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses cluster based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs, wherein formatting parameter maybe font size among other formatting parameters.).
and the second-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the first-in-order subdivision based on a first format type, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses clusters based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs, wherein formatting parameter maybe font size among other formatting parameters.).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the first format type is list indentation, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses formatting type line/list indentation.).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers includes performing a third-in-order subdivision, and the third-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the second-in- order subdivision based on a second format type, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses clusters based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs including subdividing clusters based on i) font, ii) font effects, iii) outline numbering, and the like which reads on third-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the second-in-order (e.g. after dividing based on font size, further dividing by font effects, and thereafter further dividing based on outline numbering/and the like) subdivision based on a second format type ).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the second format type is underline, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses formatting type/effect maybe of the underlined type.).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers includes performing a fourth-in-order subdivision; and the fourth-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the third-in-order subdivision based on a third format type, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0046, 0048-0049 discloses clusters based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based on a second formatting property of cluster/paragraphs including subdividing clusters based on i) font, ii) font effects, iii) outline numbering, and the like which reads on the fourth-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the third-in-order subdivision based on a third format type (e.g. after dividing based on font size, further dividing by font effects, and thereafter further dividing based on outline numbering/and the like)).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein: progressively subdividing the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers includes performing a fifth-in-order subdivision; and the fifth-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the fourth-in-order subdivision based on a fourth format type, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0046, 0048-0049 discloses clusters based on various format parameters and having clusters further subdivided based formatting property of cluster/paragraphs including subdividing clusters based on i) font, ii) font effects, iii) outline numbering, and the like which reads on the fifth-in-order subdivision includes subdividing the subgroups of input paragraph identifiers that are in the ordered set of input paragraph identifiers following the fourth-in-order subdivision based on a fourth format type (e.g. after dividing based on font size, further dividing by font effects, and thereafter further dividing based on outline numbering/and the like/any number of paragraph features)).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the fourth format type is bold, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses various formatting type/effect used to divide/subdivide clusters/paragraphs/text including bold formatting type.).
As per claims 11-20:
Claims 11-20 are system and medium claims corresponding to method claims 1-5 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1-5.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarevic (US 20130191389 A1, referred herein after as D1) in view of official notice.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the third format type is…, (D1, figure 3A-4, 0020, 0027-0033, 0048-0049 discloses various formatting type/effect used to divide/subdivide clusters/paragraphs/text).
D1 (0020) disclose plurality of formatting types; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - all-caps.
However, the examine takes official notice that all-caps formatting type was notoriously well known before effective filing of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include all-caps formatting type. This would have been obvious with predicable results of additionally using all-caps formatting as parameter to divide/subdivide paragraphs as known the art and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
System And Method For Identifying Document Structure And Associated Metainformation And Facilitating Appropriate Processing
DOCUMENT ID
US 20090276378 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2009-11-05
Abstract
A system and method for processing documents by utilizing the textual content and layout of the documents, including visual indicators, to more efficiently and reliably process the documents across various document types. The system and method identifies visually distinguishable elements within the document, such as section and sub-section boundary indicators, to mark, divide and label the boundaries and content type such that the sections are more clearly identifiable and easily processed. The system and method uses known elements, including section heading types, keywords, section type classifiers, sub-section heading constructs, stop words, and the like to adaptively identify and process a broad range of document types. The system and method continually refines and updates these known elements and allows users to discover and define new elements for further refinement and updating.
MODEL-BASED METHOD OF DOCUMENT LOGICAL STRUCTURE RECOGNITION IN OCR SYSTEMS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20090087094 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2009-04-02
Abstract
In one embodiment, the invention provides a method for determining a logical structure of a document. The method comprises generating at least one document hypothesis for the whole document; for each document hypothesis, verifying said document hypothesis including (a) generating at least one block hypothesis for each block in the document based on the document hypothesis; and (b) selecting a best block hypothesis for each block; selecting as a best document hypothesis the document hypothesis that has the best degree of correspondence with the selected best block hypotheses for the document; and forming the document based on the best document hypothesis.
Document Structure Identifier
DOCUMENT ID
US 20040006742 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2004-01-08
Abstract
A method of automated document structure identification based on visual cues is disclosed herein. The two dimensional layout of the document is analyzed to discern visual cues related to the structure of the document, and the text of the document is tokenized so that similarly structured elements are treated similarly. The method can be applied in the generation of extensible mark-up language files, natural language parsing and search engine ranking mechanisms.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194