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 .
After further consideration of the amendments, the prior 35 § USC 101, 35 USC § 112 rejections are withdrawn and the prior art rejections are also withdrawn. (However the amendments have changed the scope of the invention, which have necessitated new grounds of rejection explained below).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 5-13 and 16-23 are 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites the following:
“determining structural information for the table by detecting locations of text in the table, comprising …” ( this limitation references several steps of ‘creating’, ‘detecting’, determining’, and ‘associating’, and yet none of these steps actually reference the term “locations of text”). Thus it is indefinite for how locations of text are determined since the term is not referenced within the steps for determining structural information. The examiner will assume for purposes of examination that the ‘locations of text’ are identified and associated for each ‘respective bounding box that has been associated to the respective intersection bounding box’, and if this is what the applicant is intending, then the examiner suggests the applicant consider coupling the term ‘locations of text’ to occur in a specific limitation to make clear the step/limitation that is responsible for detecting ‘locations of text’.
“Creating vertical lines and horizontal lines along a periphery of each bounding box”; which is indefinite because it references the term ‘bounding box’ but does not tie this bounding box to an earlier occurrences of ‘bounding boxes’, and thus ‘each bounding box’ may or may not be coupled to the earlier ‘bounding boxes’. The examiner will assume for purposes of examination , that ‘each bounding box’ is intended to be coupled to the earlier referenced bounding boxes, and if so, the examiner suggests the applicant consider clarifying the limitation to “Creating vertical lines and horizontal lines along a periphery of each bounding box from the bounding boxes”.
“detecting non-overlapping vertical boxes and non-overlapping horizontal boxes in the table”; which is an indefinite limitation because it is not clear which ‘boxes’ are being referenced in the claim since the only boxes mentioned earlier were ‘bounding box’. Yet in contrast, the specification explains in paragraph 0045: “initially, as shown in block 700, non-overlapping horizontal boxes and non-overlapping vertical boxes are determined based on the horizontal lines and the vertical lines”. Thus, the claim limitation is indefinite since it is not consistent with the specification. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the applicant intended “Detecting non-overlapping vertical boxes and non-overlapping horizontal boxes from boxes formed by the created vertical and horizontal lines”, and if this is what the applicant is intending, then the examiner suggests the applicant consider this proposed limitation.
“Determining an amount of an area of a respective bounding box , that is within an area of a respective vertical box and respective horizontal box”, which is an indefinite limitation because it appears to reference ‘respective bounding box’ in isolation (independent of earlier mentioned bounding boxes and earlier mentioned non-overlapping vertical and horizontal boxes), which is different than how the specification explains the area (paragraph 0045: “non-overlapping horizontal boxes and non-overlapping vertical boxes are determined based on the horizontal lines and the vertical lines”, paragraph 0046: After block 700, the method iteratively analyzes each text bounding box with respect to a particular intersection box. An intersection box is a box that is defined by one of a non- overlapping horizontal box and one of a non-overlapping vertical box” and paragraph 0049: “ When the interaction between the respective text bounding box and the corresponding intersection box is equal to or greater than the threshold. Thus for purposes of examination the examiner will assume the following “Determining an amount of an area of a respective bounding box (fail to link to earlier bounding box) from the bounding boxes, that is within an area of a respective vertical box and respective horizontal box from the non-overlapping vertical and horizontal boxes”, and if this is what the applicant is intending, then the examiner suggests the applicant consider this limitation.
“Extracting the text from the table based on the structural information”, is indefinite because the earlier step establishes determining structural information by detecting locations of the text in the table”, but the claim never sets/assigns what is the structural information (the output structural data is not created and only determination can be interpreted as a process of rather than an assignment). For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the applicant intended that the associated respective bounding box is determined as structural information , although if the structural information is something else then the examiner suggest the applicant clarify what is considered AS the structural information in the claim.
With regards to claims that depend upon claim 1 (claims 5-9 and 21-23), they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 since they rely on the subject matter of claim 1 and do not further resolve the issue(s) of claim 1.
With regards to claim 10, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims that depend upon claim 10 (claims 11-13 and 16), they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 10 since they rely on the subject matter of claim 10 and do not further resolve the issue(s) of claim 10.
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1.
With regards to claims that depend upon claim 17 (claims 18-20), they are rejected under similar rationale as claim 17 since they rely on the subject matter of claim 17 and do not further resolve the issue(s) of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agrawal et al (US 2022/0067365, published: Dec. 28, 2020, filed: Dec. 28, 2020).
With regards to claim 10, Agrawal et al teaches a method, comprising: receiving a document; determining if the document is similar to one of a plurality of reference documents; based on a determination that the document is similar to the one of the plurality of reference documents, reconstructing the document into a first file format based on the text in the document and the reference document (Fig. 19, paragraphs 0057, 0114-0138: a specific document is checked to see if it is similar to a reference document type through classification and if recognized to be similar to a reference document type, extracting information from the document based on the reference document type (interpreted also as a type of template (file) that includes associated positioned /structure information )).
; and
based on a determination that the document is not similar to the one of the plurality of reference documents: detecting a table in the document; detecting text in the table; determining structural information for the table by detecting locations of the text in the table, comprising: creating, with an object detection process, bounding boxes around the text: creating vertical lines and horizontal lines along a periphery of each bounding box: detecting non-overlapping vertical boxes and non-overlapping horizontal boxes in the table: determining an amount of an area of a respective bounding box that is within an area of a respective intersection box, the intersection box defined by an intersection of a respective vertical box and a respective horizontal box: and associating the respective bounding box to the respective intersection box when the amount of the area of the respective bounding box that is within the area of the respective intersection box is greater than a threshold; extracting the text from the table based on the structural information; converting the document into a first file format, wherein the first file format is a structured file format and the document in the first file format is language independent reconstructing the document into a second file format, wherein the table is reconstructed based on the text extracted from the table and the structural information; and outputting the document (This grouping of limitations are all associated with a contingent limitation of when the document is determined not similar to the one of the plurality of reference documents, and based upon applicant’s amendments, art is no longer applied. It is noted that the BRI of this claim having contingent limitations requires only steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed when condition(s) are not met/satisfied. In this situation, when the document IS determined to BE similar, these grouping of limitations are not performed).
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) 11- 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al (US 2022/0067365, published: Dec. 28, 2020, filed: Dec. 28, 2020) in view of Sirangimoorthy et al (US Application: US 2021/0248303, published: Aug. 12, 2021, filed: Feb. 7, 2020).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 10, Agrawal et al teaches wherein determining if the document is similar to one of a plurality of reference documents comprises: … extracting the text from the document to create a template of the document; and performing a classification process using the template of the document and the plurality of reference documents , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 10, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Agrawal et al does not expressly teach creating bounding boxes around the text in the document.
Yet Sirangimoorthy et al teaches creating bounding boxes around the text in the document (paragraph 0023: the source document can include elements such as a table with cell(s) elements which are spatially detected and assigned with created ‘bounding box(es)’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Agrawal et al’s ability to analyze content of a document using classification to extract and create a template data, such that the analysis would have included bounding box recognition as part of a document’s analysis, as taught by Sirangimoorthy et al. The combination would have made it easier to interpret and extract information (from documents) (paragraph 0003 of Sirangimoorthy et al).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 10, Agrawal et al teaches comprising: after reconstructing the document into the first file format based on the text in the document and the reference document, displaying the document in a user interface on a display; receiving, via the user interface, an edit to the document; and storing the edited document (paragraph 0048 of Agrawal, the document may be edited in a user interface after the template is created).
With regards to claim 13, which depends on claim 10, the limitation “ wherein outputting the document comprises at least one of: transmitting the document to a computing device; displaying the document on a display device; or storing the document in a memory” is associated with a contingent limitation recited in claim 10 of “based on a determination that the document is not similar to the one of the plurality of reference documents” in claim 10. As explained in the rejection of claim 10, under the interpretation of a condition when the document IS determined to BE similar, this limitation is amongst the grouping of limitations occurring/recited in claim 10 (which include “outputting the document”) that are not performed. As explained in the rejection of claim 10, Agrawal et al teaches the limitations associated with a contingent when the document is determined to be similar.
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 10, the limitation of “wherein detecting the text in the table comprises detecting, using an optical character recognition process, the text in the document” is associated with a contingent limitation recited in claim 10 of “based on a determination that the document is not similar to the one of the plurality of reference documents”. As explained in the rejection of claim 10, under the interpretation of a condition when the document IS determined to BE similar, this limitation is amongst the grouping of limitations occurring/recited in claim 10 (which include “detecting text in the table”) that are not performed. As explained in the rejection of claim 10, Agrawal et al teaches the limitations associated with a contingent when the document is determined to be similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered.
With regards to applicants arguments concerning prior 35 § USC 101, 112 and 103 rejections, those arguments are now moot in view of those rejections being withdrawn. However new 35 USC 112 rejections regarding the pending claims are introduced as necessitated by applicant’s amendments. The examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the new 35 USC 112 rejections for an explanation.
In the interest of expediting the prosecution of the application and resolving remaining rejections, the examiner recommends the applicant contact for an interview to go over the suggestions provided in the 35 USC 112 rejections 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 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
Prosecution Insights