Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued based on the Director Squires’s lead and Examiner did not consider how the claimed embodiments improved the functioning of the computer system. The applicant cited the specification at 0005 that discusses the document analysis and processing, but the specification fails show how this improved the functioning of the computer of technology. Further, the Applicant cites 0006-0018 discuss content in images by an artificial intelligence model, particularly context represented in structed information. Moreover, this is claimed do broadly it is not even clear what exactly an artificial intelligence model or context represented in structed information. Applicant argued that claimed methodology functions by facilitating comprehension without relying on extensive training, performing robustly across diverse applications as well as types and forms of input information and avoiding reliance on upfront assumptions about eh nature of the input. Even if it was adequately reflected in the claim, Examiner is not sure this is an improvement to the computer/technology. As opposed to an improved abstract idea. These decisions and a detailed explanation of how examiners should evaluate this consideration are provided in the MPEP 2106.05(a). In short, first the specification should evaluate to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Second, if the Application sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflect the disclosed improvement. That is the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification It is important to node, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, The improvement can be provide by one or more additional elements (see the discussion of Diamond v Diehr, 450 UsS. 174.187. and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). The improvement needs to come from the additional element, not the abstract ideas alone. The claims recites as a mental process, i.e., operation is an entirely abstract mental process- and even if that is an improved mental process or better ordering as tasks, it is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. Examiner suggests the Applicant amendment the current the claims and minimal recitation of any non-abstract additional elements. Furthermore, the Applicant argued that hardware aspects have been integrated into each claim to ensure that the steps performed are not performed in the human mind”. Examiner asserts that “building, by computer” is just high-level recitation of generic computer component and functions and represent mere instruction to apply to a computer as in MPEP 2106.05 (f) which does not provide integration into a practical application. In page 12, Applicant’s arguments the limitations recite the additional element of “identifying, by the computer, a plurality of text elements within the one or more document…depicted in the one or more document images”. Any assertion that the invention somehow improve to operation of a computer or a technology field involves an evaluation, is still not an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Merly performing a task can be done mentally with greater speed and efficiency that previously achieved does not render a claim patent eligible. The Federal Circuity has consistent held that “the increased speed and efficiency resulting from use of computers (with no improved computer techniques) do not themselves create eligibility.” See, for instance the recent Recentive v. Fox Federal Circuit Decision, citing Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting argument that “humans could not mentally engage in the ‘same claimed process’ because they could not perform ‘nanosecond comparisons’ and aggregate ‘result values with huge numbers of polls and members’”).(Examiner suggests to overcome rejection in rejection).
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.
With respect to claim 33, the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 33 recites "computer readable medium" and the specification fails to define what the readable medium is. The specification define “a storage medium such a physical computer readable medium. Further, computer readable storage or signal medium but there are nowhere in the specification define “computer readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009
Claims 2-7 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
At step 1:
Claims 2-7 and 23-33 are directed to a “automated transformation of information from images to textual representations, and application” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At step 2A, Prong One:
The claim 2 recites the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas:
“identifying a plurality of text elements within the one or more document images” recites a mental process as identifying or listing a plurality of text elements within the one or more document images.
“building a plurality of text segments based at least in part on the plurality of text elements” recites a mental process as building or writing a plurality of text segments based at least in part on the plurality of text elements.
“building a plurality of text blocks based at least in part on the plurality of text segments” recites the mental process building or writing a plurality of text blocks based at least in part on the plurality of text segments.
“wherein each of the plurality of text elements independently comprises one or more connected components represented in the one or more document images; and wherein each of the plurality of text elements independently correspond to one or more physical marking on a physical document depicted in the one or more document images.” Is directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as listing each of the plurality of text elements independently connected components represented in the one or more document images; and linking each of the plurality of text elements independently correspond to one or more physical marking on a physical document depicted in the one or more document images. In order to avoid rejection, Describe a specific, practical application of the text element identification or mapping (e.g., a method for automatically detecting and linking text components to their physical counterparts in a document for OCR, document verification, or archiving); Include additional elements that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application
The claims 3 and 33 recite the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas:
“identifying a plurality of text elements within the one or more document images” recites a mental process as identifying or listing a plurality of text elements within the one or more document images.
“building a plurality of text segments based at least in part on the plurality of text elements” recites a mental process as building or writing a plurality of text segments based at least in part on the plurality of text elements.
“building a plurality of text blocks based at least in part on the plurality of text segments” recites the mental process building or writing a plurality of text blocks based at least in part on the plurality of text segments
“wherein the plurality of text segments each independently comprise an ordered plurality of some or all of the text elements; and wherein each ordered plurality of the some or all of the text elements are independently associated with one another in the one or more document images” is directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as listing the plurality of text segments each independently and listing an ordered plurality of some or all of the text elements; and wherein each ordered plurality of the some or all of the text elements are independently associated with one another in the one or more document images. In order to avoid rejection, Describe a specific, practical application of the text element identification or mapping (e.g., a method for automatically detecting and linking text components to their physical counterparts in a document for OCR, document verification, or archiving); Include additional elements that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
The claim 4 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as combination of two or more of the plurality of text segments that meet a predetermined set of geometric criteria and/or a predetermined set of visual criteria.
The claim 5 recites the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as building or writing one or more text columns based at least in part on the plurality of text blocks.
The claim 6 recites the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as predetermined set of text blocks that meet: a predetermined set of geometric criteria (look same shape, etc.,); a predetermined set of visual criteria (look the set visual criteria); a predetermined set of semantic criteria; or any combination of the predetermined set of geometric criteria, the predetermined set of visual criteria, and the predetermined set of semantic criteria.
The claims 7 and 30 recite the following limitation directed to an abstract ideas. It is mental process such as wherein listing the plurality of text elements within the one or more document images, creating the plurality of text segments based at least in part on the plurality of text elements, building the plurality of text blocks based at least in part on the plurality of text segments, and building the one or more text columns based at least in part on the plurality of text blocks each independently utilize one or more predefined parameters selected from the group consisting of: a "Containing Percentage" parameter, a "Vertical Element Threshold" parameter, a "Vertical Distance Threshold" parameter, a "Horizontal Intersection Threshold" parameter, a "Vertical Distance Threshold for Columns" parameter, a "Horizontal Intersection Threshold for Columns" parameter, a "Horizontal Distance Threshold" parameter, a "Join Overlapping Text Blocks" parameter, a "Join Nested and/or Overlapping Columns" parameter, and combinations thereof.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the text segments are built using a machine learning model trained using a dataset that includes the one or more physical marking, text associated with the one or more physical marking, and a relationship between the text and the one or more physical marking.”. Machine learning and data training are “mental processes” (things a human mind could do) or mathematical concepts and data organization is the abstract idea category of methods of organizing human activity .The claim merely starting text segment are built using a dataset lacks the specific programing instruction (the how) required to escape the abstract idea group.
Claim 24 recites “comprising training the machine learning model using the dataset.”. it is abstract idea can be “mental process”.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the one or more physical marking on the physical document depicted in the one or more document images includes one or more physical marks made by a human using a writing implement”. data organization is the abstract idea category of methods of organizing human activity .The claim merely starting text segment are built using a dataset lacks the specific programing instruction (the how) required to escape the abstract idea group.
Claim 26 recites ”comprising detecting one or more optical marks in the one or more document images based on a pixel density of the respective optical mark, the optical marks in the one or more images corresponding to the one or more physical marking in the physical document.” Is is abstract idea such a generic idea of “detecting marks in images” without a specific, non abstract implementation. Courts have help that abstract ideas such as “deteting marks in images” are not patent eligible unless tired to a particular technological application. In order to avoid rejection, the claim should specify how the pixel density is measured and compared (e.g., thresholding, machine learning model, statistical analysis) or describe integration into a tangible system (e.e., document scanner, OCR/OMR pipeline or cloud-based form processing service). Or show a concrete, non-abstract result.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the plurality of text blocks each independently comprise a combination of two or more of the plurality of text segments that meet a predetermined set of geometric criteria and/or a predetermined set of visual criteria.” Is directed abstract and can be “mental process”.
Claim 28 recites “wherein the plurality of text blocks each independently comprise a combination of two or more of the plurality of text segments that meet a predetermined set of geometric criteria and/or a predetermined set of visual criteria” is direct to abstract ideas such arrange the data. It can be “mental process”.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the one or more text columns each independently comprise a predetermined set of text blocks that meet:a predetermined set of geometric criteria; a predetermined set of visual criteria; a predetermined set of semantic criteria; or any combination of the predetermined set of geometric criteria, the predetermined set of visual criteria, and the predetermined set of semantic criteria.” Is directed abstract ideas such a generic idea of “redetermined set of text blocks that meet: a predetermined set of geometric criteria, etc.
Claim 31 recites “, wherein the text segments are built, by the computer, using a machine learning model trained using a dataset of labeled documents.” .”. Machine learning and data training are “mental processes” (things a human mind could do) or mathematical concepts and data organization is the abstract idea category of methods of organizing human activity .
Claim 32 recites “comprising training the machine learning model using the dataset” is directed to abstract ideas. Machine learning and data training are “mental processes” (things a human mind could do) or mathematical concepts and data organization is the abstract idea category of methods of organizing human activity.
At step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims recite the following additional elements:
That the content management system includes “computer” which are high level recitation of generic computer component s and functions and represent mere instruction to apply to a computer as in MPEP 2106.05 (f) which does not provide integration into a practical application.
At step 2B
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a generic computer and mere field of use are carried over and to not provide significantly more. A computer-implemented method for segmenting text depicted within one or more document images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 23-26 would be allowed with contingent upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claim 2 that including the allowed subject matter contingent in claim 2 that Examiner indicated in previous office action.
Claims 3, 27-33 would be allowed with contingent upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 since the claim 3 that including the allowed subject matter contingent in claim 3 that Examiner indicated in previous office action
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 HUNG T VY whose telephone number is (571)272-1954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571)272-4078. 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.
/HUNG T VY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 August 9, 2026
