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 .
This final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on: 11/14/2025.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended and Claims 3, 8 and 11 have been cancelled.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smock et al (US Patent: 12260662, issued: Mar. 25, 2025, filed: Jun. 21, 2021) in view of Shin et al (US Application: US 2015/0248382, published: Sep. 3, 2015, filed: Nov. 12, 2013).
Claim(s) 2, 7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smock et al (US Patent: 12260662, issued: Mar. 25, 2025, filed: Jun. 21, 2021) in view of Shin et al (US Application: US 2015/0248382, published: Sep. 3, 2015, filed: Nov. 12, 2013), in view of Dong et al (US Patent: 9348848, issued: May 24, 2016, filed: Apr. 26, 2013).
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(s) 1, 4-6, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smock et al (US Patent: 12260662, issued: Mar. 25, 2025, filed: Jun. 21, 2021) in view of Shin et al (US Application: US 2015/0248382, published: Sep. 3, 2015, filed: Nov. 12, 2013) in view of Burdick et al (US Patent: 11200413, published: Dec. 14, 2021, filed: Jul. 31, 2018).
With regards to claim 1, Smock et al teaches a method (Fig. 14: a computer method using at least a processor and memory is implemented) for transforming tables in a portable document format (PDF) file to a target document, the method comprising:
parsing the PDF file to obtain coordinates (column 5, lines 40-51, column 6, lines 1-41: a PDF file is parsed to obtain coordinate data that are associated with a set of boxes associated with table(s) in the PDF );
obtaining coordinates (column 5, lines 40-51, column 6, lines 1-41: coordinates are obtained for sets of bounding box(es) associated with table(s));
calculating all unit grids according to the coordinates (column 5, lines 40-51 and column 6, lines 1-41: grids such as cell(s) are calculated/identified associated with coordinates of boxes (such as four coordinates per box) are gleaned/identified/calculated);
filling every character respectively into a corresponding unit grid according to character coordinates obtained in parsing the PDF file (column 10, lines 59-64: text (characters) are extracted and inserted grids/cells); and generating the target document (column 8, lines 55-64, column 10, lines 65-67: a document of data in target output format, such as a excel type office document can be generated with the table and table text/character data ).
However, Smock et al does not expressly teach obtain coordinates of start points and end points of all transverse line sections and longitudinal line sections; obtaining coordinates of crosspoints of all line sections and recording coordinates of line sections that form the crosspoints … ; calculating grids according to the coordinates of the crosspoints and the coordinates of the line sections; after the all unit grids are calculated, sequentially identifying connectivity of every unit grid with adjacent unit grids thereof according to whether crosspoints of said every unit grid are overlapped with crosspoints of said adjacent unit grids to divide different table regions, having no overlapped crosspoint , in the PDF file.
Yet Shin et al teaches obtain coordinates of start points and end points of all transverse line sections and longitudinal line sections; obtaining coordinates of crosspoints of all line sections and recording coordinates of line sections that form the crosspoints … ; calculating grids according to the coordinates of the crosspoints and the coordinates of the line sections (Fig 3, Fig 4, Fig 5, paragraph 0039 and 0040: vertical and horizontal line sections are recognized with start and end points and cell range can also be determined by a set of intersections, such as a set of four intersections in Fig. 4 for ((x,y), (x’,y), (x, y’), and (x’,y’). The cell ranges are divided table regions according to intersection connectivity data of a set of cell units of a table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Smock et al’s ability to recognize a set of coordinates for table /cell recognition in a PDF , such that the coordinate recognition would have further included a set of coordinates of line sections and intersections for grids/blocked -areas (such as 4 coordinates per cell)), as taught by Shin et al. The combination would have allowed Smock et al to have implemented a high quality conversion method to translate table and text information from a conventional PDF to a different format.
However the combination does not expressly teach after the all unit grids are calculated, sequentially identifying connectivity of every unit grid with adjacent unit grids thereof according to whether crosspoints of said every unit grid are overlapped with crosspoints of said adjacent unit grids to divide different table regions, having no overlapped crosspoint , in the PDF file.
Yet Burdick et al teaches after the all unit grids are calculated, sequentially identifying connectivity of every unit grid with adjacent unit grids thereof according to whether crosspoints of said every unit grid are overlapped with crosspoints of said adjacent unit grids to divide different table regions, having no overlapped crosspoint , in the PDF file (column 4, lines 1-15 and lines 57-67, column 5, lines 1-15, column 13, lines 1-27: unit grids are identified based on at least intersections/crosspoints/overlaps that have relationships to other adjacent grids (connected) and scored. Based upon the scoring /assessment of grids associated with different table regions are grouped to tables as ‘non-overlapping tables’ (the examiner interprets each non-overlapping table to not have an overlap with another non-overlapping table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Smock et al and Shin’s ability to recognize cells and intersections for tables of a PDF file, such that the connectivity/grouping of grids are identified to identify tables that do not overlap with another, as taught by Burdick et al. The combination would have implemented an accurate way to recognize different/separate tables on a page (Burdick et al, column 1, lines 10-15).
With regards to claim 4. The method as claimed in claim 1, Smock et al teaches wherein the target document is Office Software, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (column 8, lines 55-64, column 10, lines 65-67: a document of data in target output format, such as a excel type office document can be generated with the table and table text/character data ), and rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 1, Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al teaches wherein each of the unit grids is consisted of coordinates of four crosspoints, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Shin et al: Fig 3, Fig 4, paragraph 0039 and 0040: vertical and horizontal line sections are recognized with start and end points and cell range can also be determined by a set of intersections, such as a set of four intersections in Fig. 4 for ((x,y), (x’,y), (x, y’), and (x’,y’)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 6, Smock et al, Shin et al, Burdick et al teaches a device configured to process tables in a PDF file, the device comprising: a non-volatile storage medium, configured to record a computer program; a memory, configured to provide environment for operations of the computer program in the non-volatile storage medium; and a processor, configured to run the computer program to parse the PDF file, record coordinates of start points and end points of all transverse line sections and longitudinal line sections as well as character coordinates into the memory, calculate coordinates of crosspoints of all line sections and coordinates of line sections that form the crosspoints to be stored in the memory, calculate all grid units according to the coordinates of the crosspoints and the coordinates of the line sections, after the all unit grids are calculated, sequentially identifying connectivity of every unit grid with adjacent unit grids thereof according to whether crosspoints of said every unit grid are overlapped with crosspoints of said adjacent unit grids to divide different table regions, having no overlapped crosspoint , in the PDF file; and fill every character respectively into a corresponding unit grid according to the character coordinates, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 9. Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al teaches computer equipment, comprising: a storage device, configured to record a computer program; and a processor, configured to run the computer program recorded in the storage device to perform the method as claimed in claim 1, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 12. The computer equipment as claimed in claim 9, Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al teaches wherein the target document is Office Software, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 13. The computer equipment as claimed in claim 9, Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al wherein each of the unit grids is consisted of coordinates of four crosspoints, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1 (Shin et al: Fig 3, Fig 4, paragraph 0039 and 0040: vertical and horizontal line sections are recognized with start and end points and cell range can also be determined by a set of intersections, such as a set of four intersections in Fig. 4 for ((x,y), (x’,y), (x, y’), and (x’,y’)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smock et al (US Patent: 12260662, issued: Mar. 25, 2025, filed: Jun. 21, 2021) in view of Shin et al (US Application: US 2015/0248382, published: Sep. 3, 2015, filed: Nov. 12, 2013), in view of Burdick et al (US Patent: 11200413, published: Dec. 14, 2021, filed: Jul. 31, 2018) in view of Dong et al (US Patent: 9348848, issued: May 24, 2016, filed: Apr. 26, 2013).
With regards to claim 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al teaches further comprising: transverse line sections … longitudinal line sections, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach combining two transverse line sections into one transverse line section, and combining two longitudinal line sections into one longitudinal line section.
Yet Dong et al teaches combining two transverse line sections into one transverse line section, and combining two longitudinal line sections into one longitudinal line section (column 4, lines 40-67, column 5, lines 25-30: two vertical can be combined to one vertical and two horizontal can be combined to one horizontal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al’s ability to recognize and process horizontal and vertical lines associated with bounding boxes/cells of table(s), such that individual horizontal and vertical lines and be also selectively grouped, as taught by Dong et al. The combination would have allowed Smock et al, Shin et al and Burdick et al to have accurately restored contents of a layout accurately without losing tabular data.
With regards to claim 7. The device as claimed in claim 6, Smock et al, Shin et al, Burdick et al and Dong et al teaches wherein the processor is further configured to combine two transverse line sections into one transverse line section, and combine two longitudinal line sections into one longitudinal line section, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 10. The computer equipment as claimed in claim 9, Smock et al, Shin et al, Burdick et al and Dong et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: combining two transverse line sections into one transverse line section, and combining two longitudinal line sections into one longitudinal line section, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues the newly amended claim language which include at least: ‘after all the unit grids are calculated … to divide different table regions, having no overlapped crosspoint…’. The new amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and now modifies Smock et al and Shin et al with a new reference of Burdick et al. This new combination teaches the newly amended limitations of applicant’s concern and the examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the rejection of claim 1 above for an explanation to how newly amended claim 1 is now rejected.
With regards to claims 6 and 9, the applicant argues that they are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1. However, claim 1 has been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus, this argument is not persuasive.
With regards to claims 4-5 and 12-13, the applicant argues that they are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1 or 9. However, claims 1 and 9 have been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus, this argument is not persuasive.
With regards to claims 2, 7 and 10, the applicant argues that they are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for claim 1, 6 or 9. However, claims 1, 6 and 9 have been shown/explained to be rejected above, and thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 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 WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172