DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 3/16/26. Claims 2-5,8,10-12,18-21,24,26-28,34-37,40,42-44 and 50-70 are pending in this Office Action.
Applicant files terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection. Accordingly, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/16/26 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues: “Thus, independent claim 2 does not recite subject matter categorized as mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.”(Applicant argument at page 11)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Except for the recitation of a memory and processor, there is nothing in the claim 2 that prevents the these limitations from being performed in the human mind.
The limitations :
“ mark a region including the identified portion of the data object” (user marks the region with a pen ) ;
“perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region mark a region including the identified portion of the data object; perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region identify: an un-dithered pattern within the marked region, and one or more dithered patterned in one or more neighboring regions relative to the marked region” (user looks through the region);
“determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object” (user identifies object);
“and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object”. (user marks the location )
As can be seen above, these steps can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
Applicant argues: “Some implementations of independent claim 2 provide one or more improvements in the functioning (including implementation, usefulness and performance) of pattern recognition systems including one or more memories and one or more processors”(Applicant’s argument at page 12)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicates above, claim 2 recites a series of steps that can be performed in the human mind. The memory and processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and at best equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).Mere data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 2 therefore is ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/16/26 with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are moot in view of new ground of 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.
Claims 2-5,8,10-12,18-21,24,26-28,3437,40,42-44 and 50-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 2 recites a system (i.e., a “machine”) , which is statutory category
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations :
“ mark a region including the identified portion of the data object” (user marks the region with a pen ) ;
“perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region mark a region including the identified portion of the data object; perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region identify: an un-dithered pattern within the marked region, and one or more dithered patterned in one or more neighboring regions relative to the marked region” (user looks through the region);
“determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object” (user identifies object);
“and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object”. (user marks the location )
As can be seen above, these steps can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 2 recites additional elements of “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“one or more memories; and one or more processors”. The memory and processors are recited at the very high level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of memory and processors amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” the exception. “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the identified portion of the data object of interest is obtained from a user device” . The user device amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” the exception. Even when considered in combination, it does not provide an inventive concept. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest includes one or more of: vector, a waveform, an image, a channel, or logic for defining one or more conditions” which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to provide access to the data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes one or more of: a reference to a location in the data object, a range of data in the data object, statistics associated with the data object, metadata associated with the data object, a location of the data object, or input data with an identification of the data object in the input data ” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the additional limitation of “wherein a graphical user interface is configured to provide definition of logic for identifying one or more of pattern of interest, a portion of the pattern of interest, an exclusion pattern, or one or more associated channels” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest corresponds to a first data channel, and the logic is configured to trigger processing of information associated with a second data channel ” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify metadata elements associated with data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity and is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claims 18:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 18 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) which is statutory category
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations : mark a region including the identified portion of the data object; perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region; determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object: and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object” are mental processes that that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
“ mark a region including the identified portion of the data object” (user marks the region with a pen ) ;
“perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region” (user looks through the region);
“determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object” (user identifies object);
“and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object”. (user marks the location )
As can be seen above, these steps can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 18 recites additional elements of “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“one or more memories; and one or more processors”. The memory and processors are recited at the very high level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, it does not provide an inventive concept. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the identified portion of the data object of interest is obtained from a user device” . The user device amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” the exception. Even when considered in combination, it does not provide an inventive concept. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest includes one or more of: vector, a waveform, an image, a channel, or logic for defining one or more conditions” which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites the additional limitation of “ providing access to the data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes one or more of: a reference to a location in the data object, a range of data in the data object, statistics associated with the data object, metadata associated with the data object, a location of the data object, or input data with an identification of the data object in the input data ” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Claim 26 recites the additional limitation of “wherein a graphical user interface is configured to provide definition of logic for identifying one or more of pattern of interest, a portion of the pattern of interest, an exclusion pattern, or one or more associated channels” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest corresponds to a first data channel, and the logic is configured to trigger processing of information associated with a second data channel ” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify metadata elements associated with data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity and is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Claims 34 :
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. Claim 34 recites computer program product (i.e., an article of manufacture) which is statutory category
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitations : mark a region including the identified portion of the data object; perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region; determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object: and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object” are mental processes that that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
“ mark a region including the identified portion of the data object” (user marks the region with a pen ) ;
“perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region” (user looks through the region);
“determine, based on the dither search, occurrence of the data object” (user identifies object);
“and generate output data indicating the determination of the occurrence of the data object”. (user marks the location )
As can be seen above, these steps can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion including with the help with a pen and paper.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 34 recites additional elements of “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“one or more non-transitory computer readable media ”. The computer media is recited at the very high level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 34 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional element of computer media amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component and at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” the exception. “obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest” is mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 34 is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the identified portion of the data object of interest is obtained from a user device” . The user device amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and at best equivalent of adding the words “apply it” the exception. Even when considered in combination, it does not provide an inventive concept. Claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 36 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest includes one or more of: vector, a waveform, an image, a channel, or logic for defining one or more conditions” which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 36 is not patent eligible.
Claim 37 recites the additional limitation of “ providing access to the data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 37 is not patent eligible.
Claim 40 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes one or more of: a reference to a location in the data object, a range of data in the data object, statistics associated with the data object, metadata associated with the data object, a location of the data object, or input data with an identification of the data object in the input data ” which is pre/post solution activity which is insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 40 is not patent eligible.
Claim 42 recites the additional limitation of “wherein a graphical user interface is configured to provide definition of logic for identifying one or more of pattern of interest, a portion of the pattern of interest, an exclusion pattern, or one or more associated channels” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 42 is not patent eligible.
Claim 43 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the data object of interest corresponds to a first data channel, and the logic is configured to trigger processing of information associated with a second data channel ” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 43 is not patent eligible.
Claim 44 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify metadata elements associated with data object of interest” which is pre/post solution activity and is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 44 is not patent eligible.
Claim 50 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes the data object” which is mental process. Claim 50 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 50 is not patent eligible.
Claim 51 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes an identification of a location in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 51 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 51 is not patent eligible.
Claim 52 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify the portion of the data object of interest” which is mental process. Claim 52 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 52 is not patent eligible.
Claim 53 recites the additional limitation of “obtain, responsive to determining the occurrence of the data object, one or more measurements from the data object, and the output data includes the one or more measurements” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 53 is not patent eligible.
Claim 54 recites the additional limitation of “determine, based on the one or more measurements, one or more characteristics of the data object, and the output data includes the one or more characteristics” which is mental process. Claim 54 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 54 is not patent eligible.
Claim 55 recites the additional limitation of “record the output data in a database” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 55 is not patent eligible.
Claim 56 recites the additional limitation of “identify a dithered pattern in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 56 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 56 is not patent eligible.
Claim 57 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes the data object” which is mental process. Claim 50 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 57 is not patent eligible.
Claim 58 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes an identification of a location in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 51 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 58 is not patent eligible.
Claim 59 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify the portion of the data object of interest” which is mental process. Claim 59 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 59 is not patent eligible.
Claim 60 recites the additional limitation of “obtain, responsive to determining the occurrence of the data object, one or more measurements from the data object, and the output data includes the one or more measurements” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 60 is not patent eligible.
Claim 61 recites the additional limitation of “determine, based on the one or more measurements, one or more characteristics of the data object, and the output data includes the one or more characteristics” which is mental process. Claim 54 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 61 is not patent eligible.
Claim 62 recites the additional limitation of “record the output data in a database” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 62 is not patent eligible.
Claim 63 recites the additional limitation of “identify a dithered pattern in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 56 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 63 is not patent eligible.
Claim 64 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes the data object” which is mental process. Claim 50 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 64 is not patent eligible.
Claim 65 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the output data includes an identification of a location in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 51 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 65 is not patent eligible.
Claim 66 recites the additional limitation of “wherein the logic is configured to identify the portion of the data object of interest” which is mental process. Claim 66 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 66 is not patent eligible.
Claim 67 recites the additional limitation of “obtain, responsive to determining the occurrence of the data object, one or more measurements from the data object, and the output data includes the one or more measurements” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept. Claim 67 is not patent eligible.
Claim 68 recites the additional limitation of “determine, based on the one or more measurements, one or more characteristics of the data object, and the output data includes the one or more characteristics” which is mental process. Claim 54 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 68 is not patent eligible.
Claim 69 recites the additional limitation of “record the output data in a database” which is pre/post solution activity which is considered insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore does not does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 69 is not patent eligible.
Claim 70 recites the additional limitation of “identify a dithered pattern in the neighborhood of the marked region” which is mental process. Claim 56 does not does not include additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 70 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 2-5,8,10-12,18-21,24,26-28,3437,40,42-44 and 50-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2015/0339345 A1, hereinafter “Last”) , and further in view of Khawand et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2012/0106852 A1, hereinafter “Khawand”)
As to claim 2, Last teaches a system, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors implementing logic configured to:
obtain an identified portion of a data object of interest; mark a region including the identified portion of the data object; (Last par [0061] teaches user selects an extract 109 from the diagram. The extract serves as a basis for the search pattern)
[perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region to identify: an un-dithered pattern within the marked region, and one or more dithered patterned in one or more neighboring regions relative to the marked region]; determine, [based on the dither search], occurrence of the data object and output data indicating the determination of the one or more occurrence the data object. (Last par [0066] teaches the hit or hits may be output and if desired, prioritized)
Last fails to expressly teach perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region to identify: an un-dithered pattern within the marked region, and one or more dithered patterned in one or more neighboring regions relative to the marked region.
However, Khawand teaches perform a dither search in a neighborhood of the marked region to identify: an un-dithered pattern within the marked region, and one or more dithered patterned in one or more neighboring regions relative to the marked region. (Khawand par [0055] teaches the system can search for matches at nearby pixels locations , then gradually expanding the search area to match pixel or blocks of pixels in burst images)
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Last and Khawand to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to improve search pattern.
As to claim 3, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the identified portion of the data object of interest is obtained from a user device . (Last par [0046] teaches the search pattern may be entered or modified by data points and / or in form of free hand drawing)
As to claim 4, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the data object of interest includes one or more of: a vector, a waveform, an image, a channel, or logic for defining one or more conditions. (Last Fig.1A and par [0058] teaches user is provided with a search pattern that may be graphically defined or selected in graphical form and modified as needed)
As to claim 5, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the logic is configured to provide access to the data object of interest. (Last Fig.1A and par [0058] teaches user is provided with a search pattern that may be graphically defined or selected in graphical form and modified as needed)
As to claim 8, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the output data includes one or more of: a reference to a location in the data object, a range of data in the data object, statistics associated with the data object, metadata associated with the data object , a location of the data object, or input data with an identification of the data object in the input data. (Last par [0074] teaches the hits are displayed, The groups of hits may optionally be displayed. A distribution of the found hits is displayed in the relevant or predefined dimensions)
As to claim 10, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein a graphical user interface is configured to provide definition of logic for identifying one or more of: a pattern of interest, a portion of the pattern of interest, an exclusion pattern, or one or more associated channels. (Last Fig.1A and par [0058] teaches user is provided with a search pattern that may be graphically defined or selected in graphical form and modified as needed)
As to claim 11, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the data object of interest corresponds to a first data channel, and the logic is configured to trigger processing of information associated with a second data channel (Last par [0067] teaches if a hit has been found, a predefined action is carried out in such as an alarm is triggered).
As to claim 12, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the logic is configured to identify metadata elements associated with the data object of interest. (Last par [0081] teaches the search patterns may involve spacetime data of a geodatabase)
As to claim 51, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the output data includes an identification of a location in the neighborhood of the marked region. (Last par [0074] teaches ranking of the hits may be displayed as a heat map)
As to claim 52, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the logic is configured to identify the portion of the data object of interest. (Last par [0051] teaches the properties of the search pattern may be extracted)
As to claim 53, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein: the logic is configured to obtain, responsive to determining the occurrence of the data object, one or more measurements from the data object, and the output data includes the one or more measurements. (Last par [0074] teaches the hits are displayed, The groups of hits may optionally be displayed
As to claim 54, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 53, wherein: the logic is configured to determine, based on the one or more measurements, one or more characteristics of the data object, and the output data includes the one or more characteristics. (Last par [0051] teaches the properties of the search pattern may be extracted)
As to claim 55, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2, wherein the logic is configured to record the output data in a database.(Last par [0074] teaches groups or clusters of hits may be displayed)
As to claim 56, Last and Khawand teach the system of claim 2 but fail to teach wherein the logic is configured to identify a dithered pattern in the neighborhood of the marked region. (Khawand par [0055] teaches the system can search for matches at nearby pixels locations , then gradually expanding the search area to match pixel or blocks of pixels in burst images)
Claims 18-21,24,26-28 and 57-63 merely recite a method performed by the system of claims 2-5,8,10-12 and 50-56 respectively. Accordingly, Last and Khawand teach every limitation of claims 18-21,24,26-28 and 57-63 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 2-5,8,10-12 and 50-56 respectively.
Claims 34-37,40,42-44 and 64-70 merely recite a computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer program instructions executed by the system of claims 2-5,8,10-12 and 50-56 respectively. Accordingly, Last and Khawand teach every limitation of claims 34-37,40,42-44 and 64-70 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 2-5,8,10-12 and 50-56 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights