Information Processing Apparatus Selective Verification Routing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing data entry systems incur unnecessary manual verification costs due to incorrect routing of inputs with high recognition probabilities, leading to wasteful manual input when the recognition result from a character recognizer is correct but not utilized, as the system relies solely on recognition probability for determining the number of persons required for verification.

Innovation Solution

An information processing apparatus that routes inputs based on the checking result between the character recognizer's output and a person's input, using a first checking unit to verify the recognition result, and selectively involving a third person only when necessary, thereby reducing manual verification hours by utilizing the recognition result even when the probability is low.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If the system routes inputs based solely on recognition probability, then the automation level is improved, but the reliability deteriorates due to incorrect routing of high-probability inputs that require verification

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation of routing decisionVSAvoidaccuracy of routing decision
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a checking unit as an intermediary component that verifies recognition results before final routing decisions are made. The checking unit acts as a mediator between the recognition unit and the routing logic, validating whether high-probability recognition results are truly correct before automating the routing process, thus preventing erroneous automated decisions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where the checking unit's verification results are fed back into the routing decision process. The routing is adjusted based on the checking outcome: if the recognition result is verified as correct, automated routing proceeds; if incorrect, manual verification is triggered. This feedback loop resolves the contradiction by using verification information to improve routing reliability while maintaining automation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If manual verification is performed for all low-probability inputs, then the reliability is improved, but the loss of time increases due to unnecessary verification of correct low-probability inputs

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of final outputVSAvoidmanual verification time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of performing manual verification on all low-probability inputs (excessive action), the system applies partial verification only to those cases where the checking unit determines the recognition result is incorrect. This selective approach avoids unnecessary verification time for correct low-probability inputs while still ensuring reliability for problematic cases.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The checking unit provides feedback information about the correctness of recognition results, which is used to conditionally trigger manual verification. This feedback mechanism allows the system to distinguish between correct low-probability inputs (no verification needed) and incorrect ones (verification required), thereby reducing time loss while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Reliability

If the system uses multiple persons for verification, then the reliability is improved, but the productivity decreases due to increased manual input requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of verificationVSAvoiddata entry efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The verification process is segmented into two distinct stages: first, an automated checking unit performs initial verification of recognition results; second, multiple persons perform manual verification only when the checking unit identifies potential errors. This segmentation reduces the overall verification burden and increases productivity by eliminating redundant manual verification for correct inputs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The checking unit serves as an intermediary that filters inputs before they reach the multi-person verification stage. By catching and resolving simple errors at the checking unit level, the system reduces the number of inputs that require multi-person verification, thereby improving productivity while maintaining the reliability benefits of multiple verifiers for problematic cases.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Reliability

If the system performs extensive checking, then the reliability is improved, but the productivity deteriorates due to increased verification overhead

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of routing and verificationVSAvoidoverall processing speed
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs partial checking through the automated checking unit rather than extensive manual verification for all inputs. This partial automated checking provides sufficient reliability for routing decisions while avoiding the productivity loss associated with exhaustive verification of every input, achieving an optimal balance between reliability and productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical verification processes with an automated checking unit that uses computational methods to verify recognition results. This substitution of mechanical (manual) verification with automated computational checking improves processing speed and productivity while maintaining or enhancing reliability through consistent automated validation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS10817756B2Information processing apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium
Publication Date: 2020.10.27 FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION CORP
  • US10817756B2 patent drawing
  • US10817756B2 patent drawing
  • US10817756B2 patent drawing

AI summary

An information processing apparatus includes a determination, first, second and third receiving, and first and second checking units, and a controller. When a determination result matches a first determination result, the first checking unit outputs a matching determination result as the final output. The second checking unit checks the first determination result against a second. The first and second determination results are respectively received by the first and second receiving units. When the first determination result matches the second, the second checking unit outputs the matching determination result as the final output. When the input information is received, the controller operates the determination, first receiving, and first checking units. When it is determined that the determination result does not match the first determination result, the controller operates selectively one of a unit set and the third receiving unit. The unit set is constituted by the second receiving and checking units.