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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 11/20/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-5, 7-11 filed on 11/20/2025 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-2, 7-8 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 12 have been previously cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/20/2025 with respect to claims 1-5, 7-11 have been considered:
With regard to 112(b) rejections. The rejections are partially overcome in view of the amendment filed on 11/20/2025; however, new 112 (b) rejection has been raised.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: multiple figure numbers in parentheses create ambiguity and make the claim unclear in this case it obscure the claim meaning and creates problem to understand the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Note: Examiner notes the claims is fragmented between limitation of step a) and the rest of the claim limitations. There is no clear connection or use of the converted (typical) digital images described in step(a) within the subsequent steps of the claim. This disconnect creates ambiguity. For example in step (b) the storing step does not clarify whether it refers to the converted image from step (a) or to newly generated RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic (typical) digital image. Such fragmentation introduces multiple possible interpretations and renders the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Examiner notes the below 112 rejections are few examples of many errors in the claims. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Regarding claim 1,
Claim limitation “processing RGB/binary isomorphic numerical data or metadata of the (typical) digital images”, in step (c), is unclear. The processing does not clarify whether refers to the a first set of numerical data or metadata created in step (b) or is processing a new RGB/binary isomorphic numerical data or metadata. Please clarify.
Claim limitation in step (d), the limitation “determining a well-ordering collection of the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed (typical) digital images from a least-to- the-furthest well-ordered numerical representation of the first set of processed digital images” is unclear. it is not clear whether the “the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed (typical) digital images” refers to the same first set of processed digital images created in step (c) or not also is it the same (typical) image or different. Multiple possible interpretations renders the claim unclear. Please clarify.
Claim limitation in step (e), “determining a well-ordering collection of the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed (typical) digital images from a least-to-the-furthest well- ordered numerical and an algorithmic representation of the digital images, resulting in a second well-ordered set of digital images”, is unclea. It is not clear whether “a well-ordering collection of the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed (typical) digital images” refers to the same first set of processed images created in step (b) or to newly generated processed images, further “algorithmic representation of the digital images,” is not clear to which digital images it is referring to. Multiple possible interpretations renders the claim unclear. Please clarify.
Claim limitation in step (f) “restoring the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed and well-ordered (typical) digital images, resulting in numerical data or metadata” is unclear. It is not clear if the RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed refers to the “first set of processed digital images” created in step (c) or different processed image newly generated. Next it is unclear if “well-ordered (typical) digital images” is the “first well-ordered set of processed digital images” in step (c) or the “second well-ordered set of digital images” in step (e). further “resulting in numerical data or metadata” is unclear, does restoring cause the numerical data or metadata, and if this numerical data or metadata is the “second numerical data or metadata” or same as “first numerical data or metadata” in step (b). Multiple possible interpretations renders the claim unclear. Please clarify.
Further claim limitation in step g), “processing of algorithms from and into RGB/binary-pixel isomorphic processed digital images and well-ordered numerical and algorithmic representation of the digital images based on the numerical data or metadata” is unclear. The limitation “processing of algorithms from and into” is not clear Please clarify. The limitation “well-ordered numerical” is unclear, whether is the first or second well-ordered set of digital images, or is a new numerical data. Please clarify. Further limitation “based on the numerical data or metadata” is unclear. It is not clear whether “the numerical data or metadata” refers to step f) “numerical data or metadata” or step b) “first set of numerical data or metadata”. Please clarify.
Claim limitation, “the numerical representation”. In page 2, line 4, is unclear. It is not clear which numerical representation is referring to. Please clarify.
Claim limitation “ wherein computation” is unclear. It is not clear if the computation referring to entire claim limitations or referring to a specific step. Multiple possible interpretations renders the claim unclear. Please clarify.
Claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above.
The remaining dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 have been analyzed and are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies noted above and therefore inherit 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph issues of the independent claims.
Note: The application appears to deal mainly with abstract characteristics belonging to the philosophy of science/logic (description, paragraph 0001) and lacks specifications in terms of supported, clear, technical features.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established numerous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) with regard to claims 1-5, 7-11. The scope of claims 1-5, 7-11 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-5, 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) render applicant's claims as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-5, 7-11 is so numerous that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
The indefiniteness issues and errors present in the claims preclude examiner from performing reasonable prior art search.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671