DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 08/15/25 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claims are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims employ abstract idea of “analyze one or more areas of the document”, “detect whether any of the one or more areas contain at least one anomaly”, and “determine that the input image is an image of the digital copy” / “determine that the input image is an image of a physical copy” read as a mental process and evaluation/classification that can be performed conceptually or by observation, and the claim only generically invokes “at least one hardware processor”. The claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claim does not include additional step(s)/element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited step(s)/element(s), when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to more than the above-identified abstract idea. The additional elements or combination of elements “hardware processor” in the claim taken individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea) itself because the “hardware processor” is recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The use of generic computer components does not impose any meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. A claim without significantly additional limitations is not patent eligible.
Using the 101 subject matter eligibility test, the claims pass Step 1 since they are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Analyzing under Step 2A, i.e., part 1- Mayo Test, the claims are directed to abstract idea and therefore must be analyzed at Step 2B. Using Step 2B, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claim(s) 2-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 [US 2021/0304388 A1].
Claim 1. A method comprising using at least one hardware processor to: receive an input image of a document with known boundaries and internal structure [D1, Figure 2 and [0025]] D1 teaches the image recorded having a flat or two-dimensional structure and the depth information; analyze one or more areas of the document to detect whether any of the one or more areas contain at least one anomaly indicative of a screen capture of a digital copy of the document [D1, Figure 2 and [0025 and 0028]] D1 teaches the signs of pixels, aliasing, or different color profile. When you take a picture of a screen, you’re capturing a digital image that was rendered on a grid of pixels. If the original image contains smooth curves, diagonal lines, or fine textures, the pixel grid can’t perfectly represent them this mismatch creates aliasing. A moire pattern may also be present which includes a type of parallel pattern.; when the at least one anomaly is detected, determine that the input image is an image of the digital copy of the document [D1, Figure 2 and [0025]] D1 teaches the image is a displayed image; and when the at least one anomaly is not detected, determine that the input image is an image of a physical copy of the document [D1, Figure 2 and [0025]] D1 teaches the image is a printed image. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of D1 having multiple configurations in which the anomaly detected is that of aliasing and signs of pixel anomalies. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the configuration in this manner in order to detect various anomalies within the captured image to make the determination of an image of a document or a screen. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, would be capable to have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more areas comprise a first area that includes an entire area within the boundaries of the document. [D1, Figure 2 and [0025]] D1 teaches the image recorded having a flat or two-dimensional structure and the depth information. This is an area within the document being captured.
Claim 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein the at least one anomaly comprises at least one set of parallel stripes within the first area. [D1, Figure 2 and [0025 and 0028]] D1 teaches the signs of pixels, aliasing, or different color profile. When you take a picture of a screen, you’re capturing a digital image that was rendered on a grid of pixels. If the original image contains smooth curves, diagonal lines, or fine textures, the pixel grid can’t perfectly represent them this mismatch creates aliasing. A moire pattern may also be present which includes a type of parallel pattern.
Claim 4. The method of Claim 3, wherein detecting whether the first area contains the at least one set of parallel stripes comprises applying at least one morphological operation to the input image. [D1, [0029]] D1 teaches the configuration to transform he image received to extract features in order to determine signs of a recaptured image.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons as to those described in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM).
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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights