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/Amendments
The amendment, filed 12/19/2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 18-37 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/039,771.
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered and determined to be persuasive in view of the accompanying claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejection, and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is removed.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection regarding the amended limitation no longer relies on the combination of references presented in the Non-Final Rejection. A change in scope necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments has led to an updated search revealing new art.
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 18, 27, 31, 34, and 37 are rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel (US 7,152,047; hereinafter “Nagel”) in view of Slepyan et al. (US 2003/0169899; hereinafter “Slepyan”) in view of Fraser (US 11,200,439; hereinafter “Fraser”).
Regarding Claim 18, Nagel discloses a sensor for verifying a value document, wherein the value document comprises a plurality of fibers distributed over the value document and is brought into a capture region of the sensor for the purpose of verifying to verify said value document,
wherein the sensor comprises (Fig. 5, Col 45, lines 26-36, Nagel teaches an authentication apparatus containing a variety of sensors.):
an image capture device configured to capture a value document image of the value document (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches a fiber scanner which takes an image of a document.), wherein the value document image comprises a characteristic optical or magnetic signal of the plurality of fibers (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches a fiber scanner which takes an image of the fiber pattern present on a document.), and
an evaluation device which
to localize the plurality of fibers contained in the value document image (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches using a processor to extract an observed fiber pattern present on the document.),
to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on the at least one local fiber characteristic value (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches applying a statistical analysis (i.e., a local fiber characteristic value) as a way to authenticate a document.).
Nagel does not disclose an evaluation device which comprises information about a value document type of the value document, said value document type being a currency or a denomination of the currency, and is configured to determine one or more different locations of the value document image based on the value document type of the value document, and to ascertain for the one or more different locations of the value document image at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location and optionally to a surrounding region of the respective location on the value document image.
Slepyan discloses an evaluation device which comprises information about a value document type of the value document, said value document type being a currency or a denomination of the currency ([0046], Slepyan discloses a bill identification step to determine the type of currency or the denomination of a bill captured in an image.), and is configured to determine one or more different locations of the value document image based on the value document type of the value document ([0046-0047], Slepyan discloses utilizing the bill denomination and type information to identify a reference template, which is used to determine regions of the image that contain a watermark (i.e., a security/identifying characteristic).),
Nagel and Slepyan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of document and currency authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel by incorporating the logic disclosed by Slepyan, such that the image obtained by Nagel is classified into a type of document, and furthermore a region of interest is identified based on the type of document, as disclosed by Slepyan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to utilize unique characteristics of different types of currency or denominations (such as a $10 bill could have identifying information in the bottom left corner, and a $20 bill could have identifying information in the top right corner) to help guide authentication.
Nagel in view of Slepyan does not explicitly teach and to ascertain for the one or more different locations of the value document image at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location and optionally to a surrounding region of the respective location on the value document image.
Fraser discloses to ascertain for the one or more different locations of the value document image at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones, wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication. The Examiner further notes Figs. 12A-12B, Col 50, lines 6-19, wherein Fraser also teaches a method to authenticate a document based on a comparison between the fiber pattern of the document and a previous fiber pattern of a document.) and optionally to a surrounding region of the respective location on the value document image.
Nagel, Slepyan, and Fraser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of document and currency authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan such that the region of interest identified by Nagel in view of Slepyan is specifically used to perform authentication by utilizing Fraser’s method of obtaining a vector representing the fiber characteristic value for the region. The motivation for this combination being the ability to process smaller or specific regions of an image, therefore accounting for changes in fiber distribution over the entirety of the document image.
Regarding Claim 27, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18, wherein a plurality of partial images are fixedly predefined in the evaluation device and the evaluation device is configured to determine one or more partial images for evaluation purposes from said fixedly predefined partial images depending on the value document type of the value document to be verified ([0046-0047], Slepyan discloses a bill identification step to determine the type of currency or the denomination of a bill captured in an image. The type of currency/denomination is used to determine a reference template (i.e., a partial image) to identify a watermark present on the currency/denomination for authentication.).
Regarding Claim 31, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18, wherein the evaluation device, is further configured: for one or a plurality of locations of the value document image to compare the at least one local fiber characteristic value of the respective location (see combination made in claim 18 regarding determining the local fiber characteristic in different regions/zones of a document image in order to authenticate a document.) (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches applying a statistical analysis (i.e., a local fiber characteristic value) as a way to authenticate a document, also see Figs. 12A-12B, Col 50, lines 6-19, Fraser teaches a method to authenticate a document based on a comparison between the fiber pattern of the document and a previous fiber pattern of a document.)
The current combination of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach explicitly teach to compare the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location (italicized for context) with an expected value, wherein the expected value for the respective value document and optionally for the respective location of the respective value document, is predetermined or the evaluation device is configured to determine the expected value with which the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location is compared on the basis of the at least one local fiber characteristic value which are ascertained for one or more other locations of the same value document image, and to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit (italicized for context) depending on the comparison results obtained for one or more locations of the value document image, depending on a difference established during the comparison between the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location and the expected value.
Fraser further discloses to compare the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location (italicized for context) with an expected value, wherein the expected value for the respective value document and optionally for the respective location of the respective value document, is predetermined or the evaluation device is configured to determine the expected value with which the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location is compared on the basis of the at least one local fiber characteristic value which are ascertained for one or more other locations of the same value document image, and to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit (italicized for context) depending on the comparison results obtained for one or more locations of the value document image, depending on a difference established during the comparison between the local fiber characteristic value of the respective location and the expected value (Fig. 12B, Col 50, lines 12-19, Fraser teaches storing a prior fiber pattern (i.e., expected value) and consequently performing a comparison between the present fiber pattern and the prior fiber pattern as a method to authenticate a document.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that Fraser’s comparison method is utilized in order to determine a documents authenticity. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use a ground truth as a method for determining authenticity.
Regarding Claim 34, Nagel discloses a method for verifying a value document with the aid of a sensor, wherein the value document comprises a multiplicity of fibers distributed over the value document (Col 44, lines 52-58, Nagel teaches processing a document which contains a fiber pattern), and wherein the method comprises:
introducing the value document into the capture region of the sensor and capturing a value document image of the value document with the aid of an image capture device of the sensor (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches a fiber scanner which takes an image of a document.),
wherein the value document image contains a characteristic optical or magnetic signal of the fibers (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches a fiber scanner which takes an image of the fiber pattern present on a document.), and
evaluating the value document image with the aid of an evaluation device of the sensor, which evaluation device is configured (see Fig. 6B):
to localize the fibers contained in the respective value document image (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches using a processor to extract an observed fiber pattern present on the document.), and
to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on the at least one local fiber characteristic value (Fig. 6B, Col 45, lines 37-48, Nagel teaches applying a statistical analysis (i.e., a local fiber characteristic value) as a way to authenticate a document.)
Nagel does not explicitly disclose to determine one or more different locations of the value document image based on the value document type of the value document, and to ascertain for one or more different locations of the value document image in each case at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location and optionally to surroundings of the respective location.
Slepyan discloses to determine one or more different locations of the value document image based on the value document type of the value document ([0046-0047], Slepyan discloses a bill identification step to determine the type of currency or denomination of a bill captured in an image, which is used to determine a template which will identify a specific region of interest in the image which contains a watermark.),
Nagel and Slepyan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of document and currency authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel by incorporating the logic disclosed by Slepyan, such that the image obtained by Nagel is classified into a type of document, and furthermore a region of interest is identified based on the type of document, as disclosed by Slepyan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to utilize unique characteristics of different types of currency or denominations (such as a $10 bill could have identifying information in the bottom left corner, and a $20 bill could have identifying information in the top right corner) to help guide authentication.
Nagel in view of Slepyan does not explicitly teach and to ascertain for one or more different locations of the value document image in each case at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location and optionally to surroundings of the respective location.
Fraser discloses to ascertain for one or more different locations of the value document image in each case at least one local fiber characteristic value which applies to the respective location and optionally to surroundings of the respective location (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones, wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication.).
Nagel, Slepyan, and Fraser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of document and currency authentication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan such that the region of interest identified by Nagel in view of Slepyan is specifically used to perform authentication by utilizing Fraser’s method of obtaining a vector representing the fiber characteristic value for the region. The motivation for this combination being the ability to process smaller or specific regions of an image, therefore accounting for changes in fiber distribution over the entirety of the document image.
Regarding Claim 37, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches The sensor according to claim 18, wherein the evaluation device has information about the value document type of the value document to be verified ([0046], Slepyan discloses a bill identification step to determine the type of currency or the denomination of a bill captured in an image.) and is configured to determine those locations of the value document image for which the respective local fiber characteristic value is determined depending on the value document type of the value document to be verified (The Examiner notes the combination made in claim 18 regarding utilizing the value document type information to determine specific regions of the value document to extract local fiber characteristic values for authentication.), to carry out the determining of the partial images depending on the value document type of the value document to be verified ([0046-0047], Slepyan discloses a bill identification step to determine the type of currency or the denomination of a bill captured in an image. The type of currency/denomination is used to determine a reference template (i.e., a partial image) to identify a watermark present on the currency/denomination for authentication.).
Claims 19-22, 24, and 35 are rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez et al. (US 2020/0156400; hereinafter “Rodriguez”).
Regarding Claim 19, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18,
to ascertain at least one local fiber characteristic value
to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on the least one local fiber characteristic value ascertained (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones, wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication.).).
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach wherein the one or more different locations comprise one or more grid points and wherein the evaluation device, is further configured: to scan the value document image grid point by grid point, to ascertain at least one local fiber characteristic value (italicized for context) for each grid point.
Rodriguez discloses wherein the one or more different locations comprise one or more grid points and wherein the evaluation device, is further configured: to scan the value document image grid point by grid point, to ascertain at least one local fiber characteristic value (italicized for context) for each grid point (Figs. 2-3, [0047-0051], Rodriguez discloses placing a grid of reference points on an image (wherein the image can include images of banknotes). The Examiner notes Figs. 4-6 wherein each grid point and region can be assigned a value based on the luminance of a line/contour going through the grid point/region.).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Rodriguez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of authenticating a document based on an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view Slepyan in view of Fraser such that the different locations (used for determining a local fiber characteristic value for authentication) are defined by the grid points utilized by Rodriguez. The motivation for this combination being the ability to optimize the authentication process by having a pre-determined segmentation grid which does not need to be calculated for each document being analyzed.
Regarding Claim 20, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 19, wherein the evaluation device, is further configured: to identify one or more conspicuous grid points which are conspicuous with regard to the at least one local fiber characteristic value ascertained for the respective grid point (Col 35, Lines 64-67, Fraser teaches using vectors associated with a zone as a way to determine the authenticity of a document. The Examiner notes the combination made in Claim 19 regarding the grid points taught by Rodriguez defining the different zones.), to identify one or more conspicuous regions of the value document image in which the one or more conspicuous grid points are situated (Col 35, Lines 64-67, Fraser teaches using vectors associated with a zone as a way to determine the authenticity of a document.), and to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on one or more properties of the respective conspicuous region and/or depending on the local fiber characteristic value ascertained for the grid points of the respective conspicuous region (Col 35, lines 64-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches evaluating a plurality zones in order to determine the authenticity of a document.).
Regarding Claim 21, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 19.
The current combination of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez does not explicitly teach wherein the evaluation device is further configured to ascertain at least one local fiber characteristic value for a surrounding region assigned to the respective grid point.
Rodriguez further discloses wherein the evaluation device is further configured to ascertain at least one local fiber characteristic value for a surrounding region assigned to the respective grid point (Figs. 2-3, [0047-0051], Rodriguez discloses placing a grid of reference points on an image (wherein the image can include images of banknotes), wherein the grid points further define a surrounding region 12 (see Fig. 3).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Nagel in view Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez such that the location/region where a local fiber characteristic value is extracted is determined by the grid system disclosed by Rodriguez (which explicitly defines a surrounding region). The motivation for this combination being the ability to adjust and modify which areas (as opposed to specific points which may miss important contextual features surrounding the point) of a document should be analyzed for authentication.
Regarding Claim 22, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 21, wherein the evaluation device, is further configured: to determine one or more partial images of the value document image, each of which contains a segment of the value document image, to determine at least one local fiber characteristic value for the respective partial image, to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on the at least one local fiber characteristic value of one or more of the partial images (The Examiner notes the combination made in claim 21, wherein the claimed “partial images” is analogous to each section/region/zone taught by Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez, and consequently each region has a respective vector which represents the local fiber characteristic value that is used to determine the authenticity of that region, and all the regions together are evaluated to determine the authenticity of the entire document.).
Regarding Claim 24, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 22, wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine at least two partial images of the value document image which together cover at least 50% of an area of a side of the value document, wherein the partial images are arranged in rows and/or in columns on the value document, wherein the partial images may be arranged in a grid composed of at least two rows and/or at least two columns on the value document (Fig. 2-3, [0042], [0048], Rodriguez discloses placing reference points (which define the “partial images”) over the entirety of the image of a dollar bill.).
Regarding Claim 35, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 22, wherein each partial image of the value document image comprises a surrounding region around a respective one of the one or more grid points (The Examiner notes the combination made in claim 22, wherein the claimed “partial images” is analogous to each section/region/zone taught by Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez, which furthermore also includes the surrounding region 12 (see Fig. 3, Rodriguez) disclosed by Rodriguez.).
Claim 23 is rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez in view of Ophey et al. (US 2009/0008924; hereinafter “Ophey”).
Regarding Claim 23, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez teaches the sensor according to claim 22.
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez does not teach wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a measure of local density of the plurality of fibers, wherein the measure comprises: a number of fibers situated in the surrounding region of the respective location, the respective partial image or in the respective surrounding region around a grid point, a fiber density in the surroundings of the respective location, in the respective partial image or in the respective surrounding region, or a distance measure characteristic of the distance between one or more fibers of the plurality of fibers in the respective surrounding region, optionally including a mean distance of one or more fibers of the partial image or of the surrounding region from a fiber that is the most closely adjacent to the respective fiber.
Ophey discloses wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a measure of local density of the plurality of fibers, wherein the measure comprises: a number of fibers situated in the surrounding region of the respective location, the respective partial image or in the respective surrounding region around a grid point, a fiber density in the surroundings of the respective location, in the respective partial image or in the respective surrounding region (([0039], [0046], Ophey teaches determining a particle density present on a document. The Examiner notes [0039] wherein the particles include fibers, and therefore the particle density also represents a fiber density. Furthermore, calculating a fiber density requires determining “a number of fibers” as density is defined by mass (i.e., the number of fibers in a region) divided by the volume (i.e., the area of the region).), or a distance measure characteristic of the distance between one or more fibers of the plurality of fibers in the respective surrounding region, optionally including a mean distance of one or more fibers of the partial image or of the surrounding region from a fiber that is the most closely adjacent to the respective fiber.
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, Rodriguez, and Ophey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of authenticating a document based on an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Rodriguez such that the vector calculated at each zone/region (used for authenticating the document) was instead replaced by Ophey’s method of determining a fiber density, such that a fiber density is calculated for each zone/region as a way for authenticating a deice. The motivation for this combination being the ability to account for the distribution of a fiber pattern within a region of a document.
Claims 25, 30, and 36 are rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Ophey.
Regarding Claim 25, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18, wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a measure (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones, wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication), wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a representative value (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones, wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication).
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a measure (italicized for context) of a local constitution of the fibers at the respective location and optionally in a surrounding region of the respective location (italicized for context).
Ophey teaches wherein the local fiber characteristic value used is a measure (italicized for context) of a local constitution of the fibers at the respective location and optionally in a surrounding region of the respective location (italicized for context) ([0039], [0046], Ophey teaches calculating a particle density (i.e., a measure of local constitution), which the Examiner asserts concerns the shape and size of the particle, as both variables which change the particle density.).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Ophey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of authenticating a document based on an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that the vector calculated at each zone/region (used for authenticating the document) was instead replaced by Ophey’s method of determining a particle/fiber density (which concern the shape and size of the particle/fiber), such that a particle/fiber density is calculated for each zone/region as a way for authenticating a device. The motivation for this combination being the ability to account for the distribution of a fiber pattern within a region of a document.
Regarding Claim 30, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 27, wherein the evaluation device, for the purpose of evaluating the value document image, is configured: to assign an effect region to each of the localized fibers of the value document image or of the respective partial image or of the respective surrounding region (Col 35, lines 39-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches dividing an image of a document into regions/zones (i.e., effect region), wherein each region/zone is associated with a vector (i.e., local fiber characteristic value) used for authentication.) and/or free regions and/or overlap regions, and to classify the value document as suspected counterfeit depending on one or more properties of the coverage regions and/or the free regions and/or the overlap regions in/at one or more conspicuous regions of the value document image (Col 35, lines 63-67, Col 36, lines 1-8, Fraser teaches authenticating each zone (i.e., region) of a document in order to authenticate the document.).
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach to identify coverage regions which belong to the effect region of at least one of the fibers, and/or to identify free regions which do not belong to any effect region of at least one of the fibers, and/or to identify overlap regions in which the effect regions of at least two adjacent fibers overlap.
Ophey further teaches and to identify coverage regions which belong to the effect region of at least one of the fibers, and/or to identify free regions which do not belong to any effect region of at least one of the fibers, and/or to identify overlap regions in which the effect regions of at least two adjacent fibers overlap ([0039], [0046], Ophey teaches determining a particle density present on a document. The Examiner notes [0039] wherein the particles include fibers, and therefore the particle density also represents a fiber density, and furthermore the ability to determine a fiber density allows for determining a free region (i.e., fiber density = 0) or a coverage region (i.e., fiber density ≠ 0).).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Ophey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of authenticating a document based on an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that the vector calculated at each zone/region (used for authenticating the document) was instead replaced by Ophey’s method of determining a particle/fiber density (which concern the shape and size of the particle/fiber), such that a particle/fiber density is calculated for each zone/region as a way for authenticating a device and therefore able to determine a coverage and free region. The motivation for this combination being the ability to account for the distribution of a fiber pattern within a region of a document.
Regarding Claim 36, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Ophey teaches the sensor according to claim 25, wherein the local constitution of the fibers comprises a shape or size or color or brightness of the fibers at the respective location and optionally in a surrounding region of the respective location ([0039], [0046], Ophey teaches a variety of way for detecting particles (note [0039] wherein particles include fibers), including pattern matching (i.e., shape). Furthermore, Ophey also teaches calculating a particle density, which the Examiner asserts concerns the shape and size of the particle, as both variables which change the particle density.).
Claim 26 is rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Meier et al. (US 2006/0075245; hereinafter “Meier”).
Regarding Claim 26, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18, which is configured, on a basis of one or more properties of the fibers localized in the value document image and/or on the basis of one or more of the local fiber characteristic values of the respective value document which were ascertained for the one or more different locations of the value document image (The Examiner notes the combination made in claim 18 regarding determining a local fiber characteristic value for different zones/regions of a document.):
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach to determine individual fingerprint data of the respective value document, to assign the individual fingerprint data to processing data of the respective value document, and to store the individual fingerprint data together with the processing data of the respective value document, optionally in a list for a plurality of value documents, in each case in a manner assigned to one another.
Meier teaches to determine individual fingerprint data of the respective value document, to assign the individual fingerprint data to processing data of the respective value document, and to store the individual fingerprint data together with the processing data of the respective value document, optionally in a list for a plurality of value documents, in each case in a manner assigned to one another. (Fig. 2, [0071-0075], Meier teaches processing a document and determining signature specifications (i.e., processing data), which are used to determine a hash value and a digital signature (i.e., fingerprint data), which are then combined together to generate a digitally signed document which can be stored in a data archive. The Examiner further notes Fig. 3 wherein Meier discloses processing multiple documents and archiving multiple documents.).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Meier are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of processing images of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that it incorporates Meier’s process of storing documents based on a hashed value is utilized to store the processed information (i.e., the data generated in the process of authenticating the document as taught by Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser). The motivation for this combination being the ability to store the data produced in the process of authenticating a document, such that it can be used for future use and furthermore be used to identify a document.
Claim 28 is rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Ilic et al. (US 2019/0362469; hereinafter “Ilic”).
Regarding Claim 28, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches the sensor according to claim 18, wherein the sensor is configured for verifying value documents of one or more specific value document types, (see combination made in claim 18 regarding determining the local fiber characteristic in different regions/zones of a document image in order to authenticate a document.).
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not teach wherein each value document comprises at least one disturbing security element which adversely affects the capture of the characteristic optical or magnetic signal of the fibers, and the evaluation device of the sensor is configured to classify the value documents of the specific value document type as suspected counterfeit depending on the at least one local fiber characteristic value (italicized for context) of only one or a plurality of such locations of the value document image at which the capture of the optical or magnetic signal of the fibers is not adversely affected by the at least one disturbing security element.
Ilic teaches wherein each value document comprises at least one disturbing security element which adversely affects the capture of the characteristic optical or magnetic signal of the fibers, and the evaluation device of the sensor is configured to classify the value documents of the specific value document type as suspected counterfeit depending on the at least one local fiber characteristic value (italicized for context) of only one or a plurality of such locations of the value document image at which the capture of the optical or magnetic signal of the fibers is not adversely affected by the at least one disturbing security element ([0259], Ilic teaches identifying reflective or specular highlights present in an composite image of a document, and consequently processing an image such that the reflective highlight is removed and that the document can be properly processed without influence from the reflective highlight. The Examiner notes [0041-0042] from the Applicant’s specification (cited from corresponding U.S. Publication US 2024/0021037) wherein the claimed “disturbing security element” includes reflective security elements.).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Ilic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of processing images of documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that it incorporates Ilic’s process of determining reflective (i.e., disturbing security elements affecting the reading of the image), and consequently select another region of the document for processing which is not affected by the disturbing security element for processing using the local fiber characteristic value taught by Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser. The motivation for this combination being the ability to ignore portions of a document image which could negatively impact the reading of the image.
Claim 33 is rejected as being unpatentable over Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser in view of Hayduchok (US 6,481,624; hereinafter “Hayduchok”).
Regarding Claim 33, Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser teaches a value document processing apparatus comprising: a sensor according to claim 18 (see the combination made in Claim 18),
Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser does not explicitly teach a transport device for introducing the value documents into the capture region of the sensor.
Hayduchok teaches a transport device for introducing the value documents into the capture region of the sensor (Fig. 2, Col 3, lines 36-41, Hayduchok teaches a series of belt systems which form a transport path for moving a document along a reader.).
Nagel, Slepyan, Fraser, and Hayduchok are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of processing documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nagel in view of Slepyan in view of Fraser such that it incorporated Hayduchok’s method of using a transporter to transport documents through a reader. The motivation for this combination being the ability process a series of documents, or process documents which are larger than the sensor size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20190266826A1– Trumpfheller et al.
US 5992601 A – Mennie and Jones
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 PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669