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 .
Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed on 12/11/2025 have been received and made of record.
Claims 1, 5, 9-13, and 18-20 have been amended.
The Outstanding USC 101 rejection has remained based on improper objected dependent claim 5 incorporations.
Claims 1-20 remained pending.
An Examiner proposed amendments was initiated on 01/26/2026 to possibly move prosecution, please refer to the PTOL-413.
Please refer to the action below.
Examiner Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicants’ arguments of 12/11/2025, corresponding to pages 8-9 correlating to independent claims 1 and 12 citing “Claim 1 has been amended in a manner believed to obviate the rejection. Particularly, claim 1 has been amended to require limitation of indicated allowable claim 5. See NFOA at 7. Applicant agrees with Examiner's admission that "claim 5 includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as it appears to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Said claim is not directed to an abstract idea." Accordingly, by amending limitations of claim 5 into independent claim 1, Applicant asserts that claim 1 should now also be deemed to include includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. No new matter is added. Applicant respectfully submits the present amendments to claim 1 overcome the rejection because the amendments further demonstrate how the claimed subject matter includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits the rejection warrants withdrawal. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection, followed by reconsideration and allowance of claim 1 and all claims depending from claim 1. Applicant does not concede that the subject matter encompassed by claim 1 and its dependents as originally presented is anticipated by the art cited in the rejection. Rather, claim 1 was amended solely to facilitate expeditious prosecution thereof, and the right to pursue additional claims, including the subject matter originally encompassed by claim 1 and its dependents, in this or future applications is reserved. Moreover, Applicant does not concede or assent to the Examiner's arguments as applied to claim 1 and any claim depending from claim 1 in the previous communication(s). Rather, the rejection of claim 1 and any claim depending from claim 1 is deemed improper at least by virtue of the reasons set forth herein and/or claim dependency, and Applicant reserves the right to further address the grounds of rejection in this or future actions and/or applications.”; have been considered, however, they are not fully persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully notes although dependent claim 5 as previously cited includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as it appears to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The previous claim imposes meaningful limits language of “at least some of the collection of training document images corresponds to real documents such that training occurs persistently using documents supplied by end users, and the system provides results to end users concurrently with the persistent training” versus solely currently incorporating amendments of “wherein at least some of the collection of training document images corresponds to real documents supplied by end users” into the previously rejected indepddent claim which additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim remained directed to an abstract idea.
Applicants further argues on pages 9-10 regarding indepddent claim 13 that “Claim 13 has been amended in a manner believed to obviate the rejection. Particularly, claim 13 has been amended to require limitation of indicated allowable claim 5. See NFOA at 7. Applicant agrees with Examiner's admission that "claim 5 includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as it appears to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Said claim is not directed to an abstract idea." Accordingly, by amending limitations of claim 5 into independent claim 13, Applicant asserts that claim 13 should now also be deemed to include includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. No new matter is added. Applicant respectfully submits the present amendments to claim 13 overcome the rejection because the amendments further demonstrate how the claimed subject matter includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits the rejection warrants withdrawal. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection, followed by reconsideration and allowance of claim 13 and all claims depending from claim 13. Applicant does not concede that the subject matter encompassed by claim 13 and its dependents as originally presented is anticipated by the art cited in the rejection. Rather, claim 13 was amended solely to facilitate expeditious prosecution thereof, and the right to pursue additional claims, including the subject matter originally encompassed by claim 13 and its dependents, in this or future applications is reserved. Moreover, Applicant does not concede or assent to the Examiner's arguments as applied to claim 13 and any claim depending from claim 13 in the previous communication(s). Rather, the rejection of claim 13 and any claim depending from claim 13 is deemed improper at least by virtue of the reasons set forth herein and/or claim dependency, and Applicant reserves the right to further address the grounds of rejection in this or future actions and/or applications”; have been considered, however, they are not fully persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully further notes, as previously cited above, that although dependent claim 5 as previously cited includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as it appears to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The previous claim imposes meaningful limits language of “at least some of the collection of training document images corresponds to real documents such that training occurs persistently using documents supplied by end users, and the system provides results to end users concurrently with the persistent training” versus solely currently incorporating amendments of “wherein at least some of the collection of training document images corresponds to real documents supplied by end users” into the previously rejected indepddent claim which additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim remained directed to an abstract idea.
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 1-4, and 6-20 remained 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. Independent claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims recite: claim 1 (A system; and a hardware processor); and claim 13 recites (A system; and a computing device). Claim 13 (being the representative claim) further recites similar limitations to those discussed with regards to respective independent claim 1, therefore discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 13 (claim 13 being the representative claim) recites a system comprising: a data store configured to store computer executable instructions; and a computing device in communication with the data store, the computing device, when executing the computer executable instructions, configured to: receive a collection of training document images, wherein at least some of the collection of training document images corresponds to real documents supplied by end users; and use the collection to train a convolution filter having index values and having hyperparameters corresponding to features of filter structure, the hyperparameters comprising at least two of the following: a filter size corresponding to a number of index values in a one- dimensional array; a center expansion comprising an operator for enlarging a center portion beyond a single index value; a multiplier configured to adjust a magnitude of the filter response; a ratio characterizing response difference between center and peripheral values in the one-dimensional array; and a threshold comprising a value below which the system ignores the filter response.
That is other than reciting (in claim 13) a system and a computing device, the claimed invention amounts to mere mathematical calculation processes and mathematical operations (i.e., rules or instructions) steps that can be performed (Emphasis Added) solely by software per se with no final transformation.
The claim recites the step of “train a convolution filter having index values and having hyperparameters corresponding to features of filter structure, the hyperparameters comprising at least two of the following: a filter size corresponding to a number of index values in a one- dimensional array; a center expansion comprising an operator for enlarging a center portion beyond a single index value; a multiplier configured to adjust the magnitude of the filter response; a ratio characterizing response difference between center and peripheral values in the one-dimensional array; and a threshold comprising a value below which the system may ignore the filter response”.
In this claim, the at least established filter and/or convolution filter having index values and having hyperparameters corresponding to features of filter structure further involves mathematical operations. Therefore, the claim recites said mathematical operations for convolving said filter with data in at least one of the training document images to create a processed image and evaluate said processed image to identify table structure which are clearly based on at least mathematical formula, equation, and mathematical calculation.
Thus, the claim recites mathematical operations as well as a mathematical calculation, both of which fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. As explained in the MPEP, when a claim recites multiple abstract ideas that fall in the same or different groupings, examiners should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea, rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. As the steps (b) and (c) fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 13 recites the additional elements of “use the collection to train a convolution filter having index values and having hyperparameters corresponding to features of filter structure”. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer component for context-based graph convolutional lossless compression system for scene graph data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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, the additional element of “use the collection to train a convolution filter having index values and having hyperparameters corresponding to features of filter structure” to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are further rejected and their 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. Those claims as well are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 includes additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application as it appears to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Said claim is not directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, these above additional generic hardware elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer‐implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding generic hardware elements are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional generic hardware elements taken into consideration individually and in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, BENNY TIEU can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 002/03/2026