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 response to application 19/061018 filled on 02/24/2025.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12266432. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: referring to MPEP 804 II.B.2. Anticipation Analysis, “The claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) if the claim under examination is anticipated by 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, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim.” Here, claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim(s) since the claims recite substantially similar limitations. Particularly, the entire scope of independent claims of Patent US 9940635 B1 falls within the scope of independent claims of the present application.
The following is a mapping of the claims of the Patent against the claims of the present application:
Present Application
A system to facilitate image document processing for an enterprise, comprising: (a) an incoming image document data store containing electronic records, each record including an image document identifier and an image file along with associated optical character recognition and natural language processing information generated by a cloud-based computing environment for the enterprise; (b) an incoming image document tool, coupled to the incoming image document data store, including: a computer processor for executing program instructions; and a memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the incoming image document tool to:(i) receive, from a user of a remote user device via a distributed communication network, an indication of a selected image document,(ii) retrieve, from the incoming image document data store, information about the selected image document,(iii) based on the retrieved information, automatically map at least some of the associated optical character recognition and natural language processing information for the selected image document to pre-defined document classification fields,(iv) display the mapped information via the remote user device, the display including a population of the pre-defined document classification fields with corresponding optical character recognition and natural language processing information for the selected image document, and (v) automatically assign a workflow to the selected image document in accordance with the mapped information and enterprise logic; and (c) a communication port coupled to the incoming image document tool to facilitate a transmission of data with the remote user device to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via the distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface including an indication of the assigned workflow.
Patent US 9940635 B1
A system to facilitate image document processing for an enterprise, comprising: (a) an incoming image document data store containing electronic records, each record including an image document identifier and an image file along with associated optical character recognition and natural language processing information generated by a cloud-based computing environment for the enterprise; (b) an incoming image document tool, coupled to the incoming image document data store, including: a computer processor for executing program instructions; and a memory, coupled to the computer processor, storing program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the incoming image document tool to:(i) receive, from a user of a remote user device via a distributed communication network, an indication of a selected image document,(ii) retrieve, from the incoming image document data store, information about the selected image document,(iii) based on the retrieved information, automatically map at least some of the associated optical character recognition and natural language processing information for the selected image document to pre-determined document data fields,(iv) display the mapped information via the remote user device, the display including a population of the pre-determined document data fields with corresponding optical character recognition and natural language processing information for the selected image document, (v) receive, from the remote user device, an indication of acceptance of the mapped information, (vi) responsive to the received indication of acceptance, store the mapped information and image file in an enterprise data store, and (vii) automatically assign a workflow to the selected image document in accordance with the mapped information and enterprise logic; and (c) a communication port coupled to the incoming image document tool to facilitate a transmission of data with the remote user device to provide a graphical interactive user interface display via the distributed communication network, the graphical interactive user interface including an indication of the assigned workflow.
Identified differences and rationale as to why that does not amount to a patentable difference.
While the language varies between the claims. There is not a patentable difference because the present claim is anticipated by the patented claim.
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 1-18 are 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.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recite retrieving information, mapping the information, displaying the populate fields, and applying enterprise logic to assign document to an appropriate workflow. These limitations encompass activities that may be practically performed by a person by reviewing document information, entering the information into predetermined categories, applying rules, and determining the appropriate workflow for the document. The claims recite a mental process abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a processor, a computer, a device, a memory, and an interface, which are additional element that is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite the additional elements of receiving data which constitutes insignificant data gathering activity and displaying information which constitutes insignificant post solution activity. These limitations describe tools used to organize, process, and display information. The claims do not specify how the OCR and NLP information is technically combined, how the mapping operation is performed, or any other particular data structure that improves OCR or NLP processing. In addition, automatically assigning a workflow in accordance with the mapped information and enterprise logic merely automates the administrative act of routing a document according to rules. These limitations recite the desired results of document classification and workflow routing rather than a specific technological manner of achieving those results.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Para. 43-44 wherein “The platform 900 comprises a processor 910, such as one or more commercially available Central Processing Units ("CPUs") in the form of one-chip or multi-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication device 920 configured to communicate via a communication network (not shown in FIG. 9). The communication device 920 may be used to communicate, for example, with one or more remote devices. The platform 900 further includes an input device 940 (e.g., a mouse and/or keyboard to enter image information) and an output device 950 (e.g., a computer monitor to display automatically generated image tags, document annotations, alerts, etc.).
[0044] The processor 910 also communicates with a storage device 930. The storage device 930 may comprise any appropriate information storage device, including combinations of magnetic storage devices (e.g., a hard disk drive), optical storage devices, mobile telephones, and/or semiconductor memory devices. The storage device 930 stores a program 912 and/or a medical image tool application 914 for controlling the processor 910. The processor 910 performs instructions of the programs 912, 914, and thereby operates in accordance with any of the embodiments described herein. For example, the processor 910 may receive, from a remote user device, an indication of a selected image document. The processor 910 may then retrieve information about the selected image document and automatically map at least some of the associated optical character recognition and natural language processing information to pre-determined document data fields. The processor 910 may display the mapped information and receive an indication of acceptance.”
Para. 27 wherein “At S210, a computer processor of an incoming image document tool may receive, from a user of a remote user device via a distributed communication network, an indication of a selected image document. For example, a user may select a particular image document from a list of available image documents, search for a particular image document, etc. The image document might comprise, for example, a Portable Document Format ("PDF") file, a bitmap ("BMP") image, etc. The image documents might comprise, for example, medical records that are received via electronic mail, a facsimile machine, a scanner device, etc”
Para. 28 wherein “the mapped information may be displayed via the remote user device and the system may receive, from the remote user device, an indication of acceptance of the mapped information at S250. Responsive to the received indication of acceptance, the system may store the mapped information and image file in an enterprise data store at S260. According to some embodiments, the indication of acceptance of the mapped information includes in some cases at least one adjustment to the mapped information (e.g., a medical provider field might be corrected from "Dr. Jonez" to "Dr. Jones"). In other cases, no adjustment to the mapped information might be made.”
The claims recite the additional element of receiving and transmitting data, which amounts insignificant activity concerning mere data gathering and displaying. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-15 and 17-18 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishioka et al. (US 2023/0298370 A1) teaches processing document images using optical character recognition, automatically extracting predefined documentary items from defined image locations, and displaying the resulting OCR information in different fields. Syeda-Mahmood (US 2022/0108070 A1) teaches applying natural language processing to medical report content to identify findings and associated modifiers and populating fields of structured descriptor data with the resulting NLP information. However, neither reference, alone or in combination, clearly teaches the claimed integrated operation of populating predefined document classification fields with corresponding OCR and NLP information and automatically assigning workflow based on the mapped information and enterprise logic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights