Detailed Action
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 .
Claims 1-3, and 5-7 are pending for examination. Claims 1, and 5 are independent.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 06/29/2025. As
directed by the amendments claims 1-2, and 5-6 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103:
In response to the Examiner's observation during the interview that the claim language may be interpreted as merely describing 'random noise,' the Applicant respectfully clarifies that the claimed system employs specific, structured randomization techniques as described in paragraph [0031] of the specification. These include block randomization, biased coin methods, and response-adaptive approaches-all used to generate original fake digital content that conforms to algorithmic constraints and is evaluable against specific semantic rule sets. This approach ensures that the generated content is neither arbitrary nor trivial but engineered to systematically challenge ML/AI systems. Additionally, support for standard randomization approaches may be found in the specification including but not limited to paragraph [0031] of the application as filed:
A variety of standard randomization approaches may be used,
including but not limited to any one of the following techniques (or a combination of multiple techniques, with or without element repetition, and with or without sequencing); simple, replacement, block, permuted block, biased coin, minimization, stratified,
covariate adaptive, and response adaptive. In application and testing of the various randomization techniques subject blinding may be used (in an attempt to avoid various biases including observer bias and confirmation bias, amongst others).
Furthermore, support for the creation of original fake digital content to satisfy at least one set of rules may be found in the specification including but not limited to paragraph [0009] of the application as filed: […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims do not specify a “structured randomization technique”, instead the claims simply recite “at least one standard randomization approach for the random colorization of individual image pixels”, without any specific details as to what steps are involved for the standard randomization approach. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language is simply describing random colorization of individual image pixels.
The claim as recited does not disclose any feature or elements tied to a machine learning model. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., machine learning) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. These arguments are towards limitations that are not disclosed in the claim language.
Applicant further argues:
Both Nomura and Yoshida propose physical, hardware-level modifications to a color filter array which optically interacts with the incoming light from physical objects (sensor level transformations of real physical world images - color filtering the capture of physical scenes). These modifications are physical not digital - the modifications are to how the light is captured - rather than the random colorization of individual pixels. While the array has randomized arrangement of the individual filters - the randomization is limited to ensure a balance of specific colors. Furthermore, both of the processes described are to produce more accurate images of items in the physical world (reducing or avoiding optical artifacts such as moire patterns and other errors), rather than creating images that are not based on actual physical objects. Nomura and Yoshida aim to reduce optical artifacts in captured images by preserving realism, the present invention deliberately is separate from reality generating content that challenges and improves the performance of ML/AI models.
Additionally, neither Nomura nor Yoshida individually nor in combination teach the creation of non-reality based fake digital content. They also do not teach a semantic and rule based evaluation loop. Furthermore, no rationale has been provided as to why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine references directed to physical hardware image processing with a system for digital content creation and iterative ML/AI-based analysis.
Neither Nomura nor Yoshida individually nor in combination teach the creation of nonreality based original fake digital content. The claimed system achieves an improvement in original fake digital content creation and analysis, which is non-obvious over the cited prior art. Accordingly, the claimed invention reflects distinct technological and functional characteristics compared to the cited references, satisfying both structural and functional distinctions under МPЕР 2143 and the Graham factors. Thus, the Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 1-3 and claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on Nomura in view of Yoshida should be withdrawn for these reasons.
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language describes creating fake digital content by random colorization of individual image pixels. Nomura discloses an algorithm (see fig 7 and 11-12) for creating an array or pattern (i.e. digital content) that comprises randomly coloring individual image pixels. Nomura also describes in Para 0132-0314 and Fig 12, generating white noise (i.e. fake digital content) by randomized coloring of image pixels.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 and 5 recite "implemented as software instructions stored on a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor". The specification has support for non-transitory computer . Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 and 6 recite "at least one set of created original fake digital content". This limitation appears to be describing the. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, and 5-7 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.
Claim 1 lines 12-13 recite “at least one standard randomization approach for the random colorization of individual image pixels”. It is unclear what exactly the “one standard randomization approach” is and what steps are followed to execute this kind of approach.
For purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the approach as random colorization of individual image pixels.
Claim 1 recites “the system comprising: at least one processor […] implemented as software instructions stored on a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor”, in lines 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 14-15. The claim describes at least on processor while also stating “a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor” for multiple steps. It is unclear if these are all the same mediums and processors or separate mediums and processors.
For purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the limitations as describing the same medium and processor.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the random colorization" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 5 also recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is also rejected under 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the original fake digital content generation and evaluation processes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 also recites a similar limitation and is also rejected under 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-3, and 6-7 do not resolve the 112(b) rejection from
independent claims 1 and 5 and are also rejected under 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura (US 2007/0296841 A1, hereinafter "Nomura") in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2007/0019086 A1, hereinafter "Yoshida").
Regarding Claim 1
Nomura discloses: A system for generating original fake digital content in order to improve the creation and recognition of original fake digital content ([Fig 1] discloses a system.), the system comprising:
at least one fake digital content rules engine, configured to ([Para 0057, 0067-0068 and Fig 1] describes RR’/BB’ random array generation units (i.e., fake digital content rules engine).) establish at least one set of fake digital content rules based on at least one of original fake digital content title, content, or subject matter ([Para 0081-0090, Fig 8, and Fig 11] describes a processing procedure (i.e., set of fake digital content rules) based on the regular array and pixel locations (i.e., based on content).);
at least one original fake digital content engine, configured to create at least one set of created original fake digital content that is not manipulated true digital content nor is it based on depictions of reality but by at least one standard randomization approach for the random colorization of individual image pixels ([Para 0070, 0112, 0131-0133, Fig 1-2, and Fig 11-12] describe array compositing unit (i.e., original fake digital content engine) to generate a color filter pattern S10 (i.e., created original fake digital content) based on random colorization of individual image pixels. Fig 12 also describes creating white noise image (i.e. fake digital content) by random colorization of image pixels);
Nomura does not explicitly disclose: at least one processor with software instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to execute: at least one recognition and analysis engine, implemented as software instructions stored on a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor, configured to analyze the at least one set of created original fake digital content to determine if the original fake digital content satisfies at least one set of rules for the fake digital content.
However, Yoshida discloses in the same field of endeavor: at least one processor with software instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to execute: at least one recognition and analysis engine, implemented as software instructions stored on a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor, configured to ([Para 0045 and Fig 2]) analyze the at least one set of created original fake digital content to determine if the original fake digital content satisfies at least one set of rules for the fake digital content. ([Para 0036, 0065-0067 and Fig 1] Para 0036 states “By such construction, use of the color image pickup device especially which satisfying a predetermined color coding array restricting conditions makes it in effect possible to keep a degradation in resolution from occurring even if an isolated pixel defect exists.” Examiner interprets satisfying a restricting condition as analyzing the random array (i.e., fake digital content) to minimally match a criteria.)
Nomura and Yoshida are both analogous art to the present invention because both are from the same field of endeavor directed to randomized color arrays.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method for generating a random array pattern, disclosed by Nomura with the method for predetermined array restricting conditions, disclosed by Yoshida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to secure a predetermined image quality performance (Para 0021, Yoshida).
Regarding Claim 2
Nomura in view of Yoshida discloses: The system according to claim 1, wherein the original fake digital content generation and evaluation processes may be performed iteratively until at least one set of created original fake digital content satisfies the at least one set of fake digital content rules. ([Para 0113-0122 and Fig 11], Nomura describes an iterative processing procedure to generate the random array until all conditions are satisfied (i.e., satisfies the fake digital content rules).).
Regarding Claim 3
Nomura in view of Yoshida discloses: The system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one original fake digital content engine may create at least one additional original fake digital content set ([Para 0067, 0077, 0081] Yoshida describe multiple generated randomized arrays (i.e., additional fake content).) by iteratively randomly colorizing at least one individual pixel of the original fake digital content ([Para 0070, 0112, Fig 1-2, and Fig 11-13], Nomura describe generate a color filter pattern S10 (i.e., created original fake digital content) based on iteratively random colorization of individual pixels (i.e. colors RR’ and BB’ random arrays).)
Regarding Claim 5
Nomura in view of Yoshida discloses: (Claim 5 is a method claim that corresponds to claim 1 and the rest of the limitations are rejected on the same ground)
Regarding Claim 6
(Claim 6 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claim 2.)
Regarding Claim 7
(Claim 7 recites analogous limitations to claim 3 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claim 3.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nomura et al. (US 20070216785 A1) also describes random colored arrays (abstract). Singh et al. (US 20110142339 A1) describes randomized color arrays (Fig 1).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TEWODROS E MENGISTU whose telephone number is (571)270-7714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, ABDULLAH KAWSAR can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/T.E.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2127
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127