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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s):
Independent Claim(s):
Amended Claim(s):
Cancelled Claim(s):
1–7, 9–18 and 20
1, 12 and 20
1, 5– 7, 12, 16–18 and 20
8 and 19
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on 05/11/2026.
In view of applicant Arguments/Remarks and amendment filed on 05/11/2026 with respect to independent claims 1, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C 101, claim rejection has been fully considered and the arguments are found to be persuasive (See Page(s) 9 and 10), therefore the claim rejection with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
In view of applicant Arguments/Remarks and amendment filed on 05/11/2026 with respect to independent claims 1, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C 103, claim rejection has been fully considered and the arguments are found to be persuasive (See Page(s) 10–13), therefore the claim rejection with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 12 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 12 and 20, the phrase "wherein the fingerprints comprise image hashing of the layout blocks" and the phrase “wherein the fingerprints are an image hashing of a full image of the single document” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the fingerprint represent an image hash of the full image or the layout block of the graph structure. Is the document matching working based on the fingerprints of the layout blocks or the full image or both. If based on both the Examiner recommends amending the claims to either say “other fingerprints” or “another fingerprint” to distinguish that there is are two type of fingerprints. For the purpose of examination the Examiner is interpreting there being fingerprints for the layout blocks and a separate fingerprint to represent the full document image. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–11 and 13–18 are rejected for failing to remedy the ambiguity of their respective independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20 would be allowable upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The following is an examiner’s statement for reason for allowance: the present invention is directed to a Document Image Template Matching.
Claims 1–7, 9–18 and 20 are allowed. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 2–7 and 9–11 depend on claim 1. Claims 13–18 depend on claim 12.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are allowed as applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 05/11/2026 are persuasive on pages 8–13. Further Applicant’s Reply includes substantive claim amendments that have differentiated the claimed invention from the cited prior art. Upon completing an updated prior art search and considering the combination of limitations as presented as a whole for the claim, the feature highlighted below are considered an improvement over the prior art and have not been found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by a combination of prior art.
Independent Claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 recites, inter alia the uniquely distinct features as shown in the excerpt below:
[1] “A computer-implemented method of improving template matching in a document-image, the method comprising:
merging, by one or more processors, a document comprising multiple pages into a single document image;
processing, by the one or more processors, the single document image to identify structural elements and textual content comprising the structural elements;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the structural elements of the single document image to other structural elements of a group of document templates stored in a database and based on the comparing, identifying a subset of the group of documents templates with a threshold number of similarities to the single document image;
generating, by the one or more processors, from the single document image, a graph structure representing the document, wherein the graph structure comprises visual information and connections related to the structural elements and concepts comprising the textual content, wherein generating the graph structure representing the document, comprises:
processing, by the one or more processors, layout blocks comprising the single document image; and
calculating, by the one or more processors, fingerprints for the layout blocks, wherein the fingerprints comprise image hashing of the layout blocks, wherein the visual information of the graph structure comprises the fingerprints of the layout blocks, and wherein the fingerprints are an image hashing of a full image of the single document; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, based on comparing the graph structure to the subset of the group of documents templates, a document template that is a closest match to the document”, as recited by independent claim 1, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
[12] “A computer system for improving template matching in a document-image, the computer system comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method, said method comprising:
merging, by the one or more processors, a document comprising multiple pages into a single document image;
processing, by the one or more processors, the single document image to identify structural elements and textual content comprising the structural elements;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the structural elements of the single document image to other structural elements of a group of document templates stored in a database and based on the comparing, identifying a subset of the group of documents templates with a threshold number of similarities to the single document image;
generating, by the one or more processors, from the single document image, a graph structure representing the document, wherein the graph structure comprises visual information and connections related to the structural elements and concepts comprising the textual content, wherein generating the graph structure representing the document, comprises:
processing, by the one or more processors, layout blocks comprising the single document image; and
calculating, by the one or more processors, fingerprints for the layout blocks, wherein the fingerprints comprise image hashing of the layout blocks, wherein the visual information of the graph structure comprises the fingerprints of the layout blocks, and wherein the fingerprints are an image hashing of a full image of the single document; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, based on comparing the graph structure to the subset of the group of documents templates, a document template that is a closest match to the document”, as recited by independent claim 12, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
[20] “A computer program product for improving template matching in a document-image, the computer program product comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media readable by at least one processing circuit to perform a method comprising:
merging, by the one or more processors, a document comprising multiple pages into a single document image;
processing, by the one or more processors, the document image to identify structural elements and textual content comprising the structural elements;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the structural elements of the single document image to structural elements of a group of document templates stored in a database and based on the comparing, identifying a subset of the group of documents templates with a threshold number of similarities to the single document image;
generating, by the one or more processors, from the single document image, a graph structure representing the document, wherein the graph structure comprises visual information and connections related to the structural elements and concepts comprising the textual content, wherein generating the graph structure representing the document, comprises:
processing, by the one or more processors, layout blocks comprising the single document image; and
calculating, by the one or more processors, fingerprints for the layout blocks, wherein the fingerprints comprise image hashing of the layout blocks, wherein the visual information of the graph structure comprises the fingerprints of the layout blocks, and wherein the fingerprints are an image hashing of a full image of the single document; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, based on comparing the graph structure to the subset of the group of documents templates, a document template that is a closest match to the document”, as recited by independent claim 20, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
These features, considered in combination with the remainder of the claim’s limitations are not fairly disclosed, thought or suggested by the cited prior art. Specifically, the closest prior art (Previously cited), Rastogi et al. (US 20220284215 A1), Uppal et al. (US 20210019512 A1), Rings et al. (US 20210042343 A1), Dennis et al. (US 20220261144 A1), Wheaton et al. (US 20210110527 A1), and Sanderson (US 20200272788 A1), fails to either anticipate or render obvious the above underlined limitations. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record. It follows that claims 2–7, 9–11 and 13–18 are then inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. (US 20040013302 A1) teaches a document processing system for use in identifying a segmented document includes a data store of layout graph models that are classified and/or labeled. A matching module makes a determination of a match between a layout graph sample for the segmented document and a particular layout graph model. The matching module uses a correlator to generate an identified, segmented document that is classified and/or labeled based on the segmented document, the layout graph model, and the determination of a match. But does not have a graph that has the layout block with image hash representation.
Meunier et al. (US 20140101456 A1) teaches a method and system for document processing allow a service provider to process a document without having access the textual content of the document. The system includes memory which receives an encoded source document from an associated client system. The encoded source document includes structural information and encoded content information. The encoded content information includes a plurality of encoded tokens generated by individually encoding each of a plurality of text tokens of the source document. The structural information includes location information for each of the plurality of text tokens. A processing module processes the encoded document to generate a modified document, without decoding the encoded tokens. A transmission module transmits the modified document to an associated client system whereby the client system is able to generate a transformed document based on the modified document and the plurality of text tokens. But does not have a graph that has the layout block with image hash representation.
Khattar (US 20160103831 A1) teaches techniques are provided for automatically detecting homologies between documents based on structural characteristics. Various statistics relating to the COS structure of a PDF document are compiled. The statistics are input into a rolling hash function to generate a digital fingerprint of the document. Fingerprints from two similar documents will have small edit distances between them, and can therefore be classified similarly or provided as results to a fingerprint-based search. For example, an unclassified document may be classified in the same class as a representative document where the fingerprints of the two documents have a small edit distance between them. Since the structure of the document is used instead of the text content or renderings, it is possible to operate on encrypted documents. Further, representative elements of a particular class of documents can be selected for comparison against a target document for improved resolution of the results. But does not have a graph that has the layout block with image hash representation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/DION J SATCHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights