DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 3/13/2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
20210294851
Pars. 42-48
Document segmentation using machine learning
20190087444
Pars. 35-39
Feature based document page image comparisons to determine similarities
20240289356
Pars. 59, 75-86, 89
Detecting scanned document subsections using feature extraction and object detection
20220237230
Pars.51, 110
Similarity based sub-document determination
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uppal et al., Pub. No.: US 20210019512 A1, hereinafter Uppal.
As per claim 1, Uppal discloses a computer-based method of decomposing composite scanned document, the method comprising:
detecting a target composite scanned document, wherein the target composite scanned document is a single digital file comprising sequential pages produced by scanning and digitally merging multiple documents (pars. 3, 4, 18 disclose a composite file with a stream of pages produced by scanning and storing different documents and par. 42 discloses receiving the composite file);
extracting, from the sequential pages of the target composite scanned document, a series of document features (pars. 24, 25, 43, 44 disclose using image processing, text processing, OCR techniques to extract image and text features from each page of the composite file as it is split into individual sequential pages);
iteratively generating a series of sub-documents, wherein each sub-document is generated by iteratively adding a next page from the sequential pages of the target composite scanned document to a series of one or more of the sequential pages preceding the added next page (par. 26 discloses iteratively feeding consecutive pages in to the DNN across all pages of the composite file, progressively identifying page groupings such that pages 1-3 belong to a first document, pages 4-5 belong to a second one and so on; par. 47 discloses that steps 314-320 are repeated for all individual pages of the compositive file);
generating a vector representation for each sub-document of the iteratively generated series of sub-documents based on a set of the extracted series of document features corresponding to the respective sub-document (see rejection above including pars. 39-40);
calculating similarity scores for the sub-documents by comparing the generated vector representations with a knowledgebase of document vectors (pars. 23, 32 disclose document repo 202 has labeled training documents of different types constituting a knowledgebase of document vectors; par. 32 discloses that the DNN learns the best feature representations from the training data which are then compared with consecutive pages to identify whether they belong to the same document (i.e. calculating similarity score); pars. 40, 47 disclose studying the continuity pattern across the document vector to determine whether pages belong to the same or different documents);
clustering the sequential pages of the target composite scanned document based on the calculated similarity scores (pars. 47-48 disclose identifying pages belonging to the same documents based on the continuity pattern determination and merging the pages belonging to the same documents to form grouped page clusters); and
outputting separate files, each including a set of the clustered sequential pages (pars. 27, 48-49 disclose merging clustered pages to form separate individual documents for output (specific sequential pages for invoices, receipts, etc.)).
As per claim 2, Uppal discloses The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the extracted series of document features comprises one or more of page structure features, page textual features, and page layout features (pars. 25, 37, 38, 44).
As per claim 5, Uppal discloses the computer-based method of claim 2, wherein the target composite scanned document has been scanned using optical character recognition, and the page textual features are extracted using natural language processing techniques (pars. 25, 37, 38, 44).
As per claims 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 19, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Foster et al., Pub. No.: US 20060155725 A1, hereinafter Foster.
As per claim 3, Uppal discloses The computer-based method of claim 1. Uppal does not expressly disclose however Foster in the related field of endeavor of document analysis discloses further comprising: generating a plot of the calculated similarity scores (Foster fig.’s 44-46, pars. 422, 475-476); and identifying anchor pages corresponding to local maximum similarity scores in the generated plot (Foster fig.’s 44-46, pars. 422, 475-476). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Foster would have allowed Uppal to generate a plot of similarity scores in a multidimensional similarity space because this helps explain how closely documents match one another (Foster, par. 364).
As per claim 4, Uppal in view of Foster discloses the computer-based method of claim 3, wherein clustering the sequential pages of the target composite scanned document based on the calculated similarity scores further comprises: generating additional clusters of sequential pages, the additional clusters of sequential pages following each respective one of the identified anchor pages (see Uppal as cite din the rejection of claim 1 including pars. 47-48 and Foster as cited in the rejection of claim 3).
As per claims 10, 11, 17 and 18, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Zeng et al., Pub. No.: US 20210374397, hereinafter Zeng.
As per claim 6, Uppal discloses the computer-based method of claim 2. Uppal does not expressly disclose however Zeng in the related field of endeavor of document analysis discloses wherein the page layout features are encoded into concatenated vectors using text-to-vector models (Zeng pars. 46-59, 145). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Zeng would have allowed Uppal to improve the accuracy of document layout analysis based on the character information, semantic information, and spatial location information (Zeng, par. 51 and see Uppal, pars. 38-39).
Analogous claims 13 and 20 are likewise rejected.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Sato, Pub. No.: US 20160366299 A1, hereinafter Sato.
As per claim 7, Uppal discloses the computer-based method of claim 2. Uppal does not expressly disclose however Sato in the related field of endeavor of document analysis discloses wherein the extracted series of document features further include fonts used (Sato par. 25). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Sato would have allowed Uppal to “OCR server 104 may be configured or programmed to receive documents and perform OCR functions on the documents to create OCR text data. For example, a matrix matching algorithm may be used to compare pixels in the image data with pixels of letters in various fonts stored in a data structure on OCR server 104. Alternatively, or additionally, a feature extraction algorithm may be used to compare features in the image data with features of characters in various fonts stored in the data structure on OCR server 104” (Sato par. 25). Claim 14 is likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been considered.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the argument that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application that provides an improvement to a technical field. It is noted that the claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement. That is, the claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
With respect to the prior art rejection, Uppal et al., Pub. No.: US 20210019512 A1, has been applied in response to claim amendments.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights