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, see page 6, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to falling within one of the statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 9-12 for not falling within one of the statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims to include a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within the statutory categories.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1-12 has been withdrawn. While The examiner does not agree with arguments I-V, Applicant has amended the claims to include additional subject matter as such argument VI on page 17 is persuasive rendering the other arguments moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and the claims being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Determine whether the image is a photograph" is not a mental process
Applicant respectfully submits that the limitation "determine whether the image is a photograph" is not a mental process, because the determination required by the claim is fundamentally different from what the human mind is capable of performing.
Specifically, a human can only make a subjective judgment regarding whether the depicted content of an image "looks realistic." Such a judgment is based on visual perception of scene elements, e.g., whether the illumination obeys physical laws, whether textures look natural, whether proportions appear plausible, or whether any obvious inconsistencies or distortions are visible. These observations relate only to content realism, not to photographic authenticity.
In contrast, the claimed step requires determining whether the image is a true photograph (i.e., whether the digital image file itself originates from a photographic device), which is a fundamentally different inquiry. Humans cannot make this determination mentally. A human observer cannot:
detect whether the file was generated synthetically,
distinguish a real photograph from a re-photographed screen displaying a synthetic
image,
perceive frequency-domain characteristics, sensor noise signatures, or entropy-level
statistical patterns, and
mentally analyze pixel-level features indicative of camera-captured imagery.
Therefore, even if the depicted scene appears entirely realistic, a human cannot infer whether the file is a genuine photograph. Conversely, an authentic photograph may visually appear unrealistic due to distortion, noise, lens artifacts, sensor limitations, or post-processing by the machine that took the picture, yet still be a true photograph. These discrepancies illustrate that a human's visual evaluation of scene realism does not, and cannot, reveal the true origin of the image data.
The claimed determination therefore involves computational analysis of pixel-level and statistical characteristics that are not perceptible to human vision and cannot be carried out mentally, and thus does not fall within the "mental processes" grouping.
The examiner disagrees with this analysis. The examiner notes language “determine whether and image is a photograph” has been cancelled from the claims. The examiner note that claims language does not require any of the features:
“detect whether the file was generated synthetically,
distinguish a real photograph from a re-photographed screen displaying a synthetic
image,
perceive frequency-domain characteristics, sensor noise signatures, or entropy-level
statistical patterns, and
mentally analyze pixel-level features indicative of camera-captured imagery.”
Which applicant argues is required. None of these features are claimed. Currently the claim recites: “determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold” Which is simply comparing a number “entropy” to a threshold another number. Humans can easily compare two numbers mentally.
Applicant further argues:
2. The limitations of "comparing similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks with a
similarity threshold" and "determining whether the number of times the similarity exceeds the threshold reaches a count threshold" are likewise not mental processes.
Applicant respectfully submits that a human mind cannot practically perform the type of objective, pixel-level similarity computations required by the claim. Human perception of similarity is inherently qualitative and subjective, based on holistic visual impression rather than any measurable or repeatable numerical criterion. A human observer cannot:
compute pixel-wise correlation values or template-matching scores;
apply a predetermined, objectively defined similarity threshold (e.g., a correlation
coefficient); or
maintain an accurate running count of how many sub-block comparisons exceed such
a threshold across potentially hundreds or thousands of sub-block pairs.
Each of these operations requires manipulating large volumes of pixel-level numeric data, performing algorithmic correlation or convolution, and executing iterative accumulator-based logic. These are quintessential computer operations and cannot reasonably be characterized as activities performable in the human mind.
Accordingly, the similarity-comparison and count-threshold determinations recited in Claim 1 fall outside the "mental processes" grouping and constitute concrete computational steps that require a processor, not human mental thought.
The examiner disagrees with applicants analysis for the following reasons
Firstly no pixel wise computation or “template matching score” are claimed. While the examiner does not necessarily agree with this element cannot be performed mentally. It is irrelevant because the features are not claimed.
Second “applying a threshold” is easily performed mentally as it is just comparting two number which is easily performed in the mind.
Third the claims only requires a plurality (at least two) subblocks. While the examiner does not agree that one a human could not keep c count to 100 or 1000. This is irrelevant because only two blocks are required to meet the claim language. Furthe claim does not even require maintain a count at all. There is not counting functionally claimed merely comparing. The claim only requires using a count not actually performing a count.,
Finally, there is nothing in the claim that requires “large volumes of pixel-level numeric data, performing algorithmic correlation or convolution, and executing iterative accumulator-based logic”.
For the above reason the examiner does not agree with applicants’ assertion that "comparing similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks with a similarity threshold" and "determining whether the number of times the similarity exceeds the threshold reaches a count threshold" are not mental processes. Rather these elements only require “compare the similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks” one time which can be done by merely looking at two subblocks and determining if they are similar. The element “Determine that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold.” Simply requires comparing a count to a threshold one time. Among the two steps only two basic comparisons are required.
Applicant further argues:
Even if any limitation is considered an abstract idea, Claim 1 integrates the alleged
judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two) and amounts to
significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1 is directed to a specific and complete technical solution implemented on a concrete
digital image. The claimed method does not merely analyze information in the abstract, but instead performs a coordinated sequence of pixel-level image-processing operations, including identifying the image as a true photograph before further analysis, segmenting the photograph into character blocks, dividing each character block into multiple sub-blocks, performing objective, algorithmic similarity computations on these sub-blocks, and determining that the entire image is processed only when the number of similarity exceedances meets a defined count threshold.
This ordered combination is not a mathematical concept, not a mental process, and not a method of organizing human activity. Instead, it constitutes a technical image-forensics pipeline designed to solve a specific technological problem: reliably detecting localized copy-move,
rotation-based, and mirroring-based forgeries in photographic images, i.e., problems that cannot be solved through human perception or generic computing alone.
The claimed character-block segmentation, sub-block division, pixel-wise template matching, threshold-based similarity evaluation, and multi-threshold decision logic work together to yield a concrete technical improvement in computer image-forensics capability. Under MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), such improvements constitute integration of any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, even under Alice Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than any purported abstract idea. The combined use of hierarchical block segmentation, objective similarity scoring, and a dual-threshold evaluation framework is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, either individually or in combination, in the field of image authentication. These features provide an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the claim to a particular technological implementation rather than a mental or generic computer operation.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s characterization of the analysis with regard to steps 2a and integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two) and significantly more (Step 2B). The analysis is are applied to “additional element” See MPEP 2106. The examiner notes that the additional element of claims 1,5 and 9 are merely generic computer components (a storage and processor or A non-transitory machine-readable medium. Implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 2 (now incorporated into claim 1) applicant argues:
Original Claim 2 recites calculating the information entropy of the image and determining
that the image is a photograph when the entropy exceeds a predetermined threshold. As explained above with respect to Claim 1, a human mind cannot determine whether a digital image file constitutes a true "photograph" captured by a photographic device. Human perception is limited to judging whether the visual content appears realistic; it cannot evaluate the statistical, pixel-level characteristics that distinguish sensor-captured images from
synthetically generated ones.
Entropy computation, in particular, is a quantitative evaluation of the amount of
information present in an image. This requires analyzing numerical pixel distributions, evaluating probability-related measures of luminance variations, and comparing the resulting
entropy value to a predetermined numerical threshold.
None of these computations can be performed mentally.
Thus, the step of "determining that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold" cannot reasonably be classified as a mental process.
Moreover, incorporating entropy as a photographic-authenticity indicator provides a significant technical advantage. Entropy captures statistical randomness characteristics that often distinguish genuine photographs (e.g., sensor-originated variations) from synthetically generated images. When integrated into the overall framework of Claim 1, the entropy-based analysis materially enhances the computer's ability to assess photographic authenticity with improved accuracy and reliability. This constitutes a concrete technical improvement in computer image-processing capabilities.
Accordingly, the additional features recited in original Claim 2 are not abstract ideas. Rather, they integrate entropy computation into a specific technological application, rendering original Claim 2 directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Since amended Claim 1 now incorporates all technical features of original Claim 2, amended Claim 1 likewise directs to patent-eligible subject matter.
The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes again applicant is discusses many features that are not actually required by the claim. The claim merely requires “calculate an information entropy of the image” and “determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold”.
Regarding the first step the examiner notes that entropy in information theory is merely a mathematical measure of complexity of information (in this case an image). This is a statistic calculated by a mathematical formula (see equation 1 of applicant’s specification). This fits the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping
Regarding the steps “determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold”. This step is merely comparing two numbers. that is deciding if the entropy is higher than the threshold and making a determination based on that. This can very easily be done mentally and fits well within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Since these are both abstract ideas the claim as a whole merely involves uses generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are insufficient to integrate the invention into an abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 3 applicant argues:
Original Claim 3 recites performing gray-scale processing on the image prior to calculating information entropy. In the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that "processing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing grey scale values of an image in any way such as looking at them." Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion.
First, the Examiner's reasoning conflates visual perception with digital image processing, which is inconsistent with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The 2019 PEG makes clear that a limitation is a mental process only if it can be practically performed in the human mind. Gray-scale processing, as recited in the claims, is not such an operation.
A human mind cannot directly perform gray-scale conversion on a digital image. Gray- scale processing is a deterministic computational transformation of pixel-level numerical
values. It requires algorithmic manipulation of luminance information that is not visible to the human eye, cannot be derived mentally, and cannot be computed without accessing and
modifying the underlying pixel matrix.
While a person may visually perceive that an image "looks grayscale," such subjective
perception does not constitute executing an actual gray-scale conversion algorithm. The claimed step requires accessing the image's pixel array, computing luminance or weighted- channel values, and rewriting the pixel matrix based on those computed values. These steps are not acts that can be carried out mentally. They inherently require processing of digital data by a computer and thus fall outside the "mental processes" grouping.
Accordingly, the Examiner's assertion that merely "looking at" grayscale values is equivalent to performing gray-scale conversion is misplaced. The claimed gray-scale processing step is a technical image-processing operation that cannot be performed in the human mind.
For at least these reasons, original Claim 3 is not directed to a mental process and, when
viewed as a whole, remains directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The examiner strongly disagrees. Again, applicant is reading may features into the claim which are simply no there. The examiner notes that “directly perform gray-scale conversion on a digital image. Gray- scale processing is a deterministic computational transformation of pixel-level numerical values. It requires algorithmic manipulation of luminance information that is not visible to the human eye, cannot be derived mentally, and cannot be computed without accessing and
modifying the underlying pixel matrix” is simply not required by the claim. The claim only requires “processing” and that it be somehow “gray-scale”. This element is broad enough to encompass a huge variety of concepts. Image processing can be anything from performing noise filtering for example or sort of analysis on the image for example. Grey-scale here is an adjective that requires that the processing must relate to greyscale somehow. Applicant appears to be referring to the well known process of converting a color image into a greyscale image, however this is not expressly claimed. The examiner however further notes that color to grey scale conversion is a very well known, very common preprocessing step. Even if the claim were amended to require this much more specific limitation it would be unlikely be sufficient to integrate the claim into an abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 4:
Original Claim 4 narrows the similarity-comparison procedure to groups of sub-blocks that contain similar characters, adding a further layer of technical specificity that enhances forgery- detection robustness and reduces false-positive similarities. This refinement meaningfully limits the scope to a particular technical implementation and improves the accuracy of the similarity- evaluation mechanism.
The examiner disagrees. The additional features of this claim can still be performed mentally as it merely involves determining identify characters of sub-blocks and comparing groups of sub-blocks to each other to determine similarity which can easily be performed mentally. Since these are abstract ideas the claim as a whole merely involves uses generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. These additional elements are insufficient to integrate the invention into an abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: the language “the electronic computing device” should read an electronic computing device as this element has not yet been referred to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1 The claim(s) recite(s) “calculate an information entropy of the image; determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold; identify at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph; divide the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks; and compare the similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks, and determine that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold”
The limitation of “calculate an information entropy of the image”, as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concept’ subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function. (See for example equation 1/paragraph 20 of applicant’s specification). As such this limitation is little more that an instruction to perform a mathematical calculation on an image.
The limitation of determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the value to a threshold.
The limitation of identify at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying character blocks.
The limitation of divide the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, dividing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally dividing the character block into sub blocks.
The limitation of determine that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the determinations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites additional elements – An electronic computing device, comprising: a storage, being configured to store an image; and a processor, being electrically connected with the storage and being configured to. The processor and storage are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and storage performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and storage to perform the function to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 3
The limitation of configured to perform gray-scale processing on the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing grey scale values of an image in any way such as looking at them.
The limitation of “calculates the information entropy according to the gray-scale level of the image” , as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concepts subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function.
The considerations for significantly more and integration into an abstract idea are not different than the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 4
The limitation of determine characters included in each of the plurality of sub-blocks, and the processor performs similarity comparison on each group of sub-blocks containing the same characters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining and comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determining and the comparing.
The considerations for significantly more and integration into an abstract idea are not different than the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 5 The claim(s) recite(s) “ n image analysis method, comprising calculating an information entropy of the image by the electronic computing device; determining that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold a the following steps: determining whether an image is a photograph; identifying at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph; dividing the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks; and comparing the similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks, and determining that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold”
The limitation of “calculate an information entropy of the image”, as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concept’ subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function. (See for example equation 1/paragraph 20 of applicant’s specification). As such this limitation is little more than an instruction to perform a mathematical calculation on an image.
The limitation of determining that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the value to a threshold.
The limitation of identifying at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying character blocks.
The limitation of dividing the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, dividing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally dividing the character block into sub blocks.
The limitation of determining that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the determinations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites additional elements – An electronic computing device. The device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the function to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 7
The limitation of performing gray-scale processing on the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing grey scale values of an image in any way such as looking at them.
The limitation of “calculates the information entropy according to the gray-scale level of the image” , as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concepts subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function.
The considerations for significantly more and integration into an abstract idea are not different than the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 8
The limitation of determining characters included in each of the plurality of sub-blocks by the electronic computing device; wherein the electronic computing device performs similarity comparison on each group of sub-blocks containing the same characters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining and comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determining and the comparing.
Re claim 9 The claim(s) recite(s) “calculating an information entropy of the image; determining that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold; identifying at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph; dividing the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks; and comparing the similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks, and determining that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold”
The limitation of “calculate an information entropy of the image”, as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concept’ subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function. (See for example equation 1/paragraph 20 of applicant’s specification). As such this limitation is little more that an instruction to perform a mathematical calculation on an image.
The limitation of determining that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing the value to a threshold.
The limitation of identifying at least one character block from the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying character blocks.
The limitation of dividing the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, dividing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally dividing the character block into sub blocks.
The limitation of determining that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determine in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the determinations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites additional elements – A non-transitory machine-readable medium, causing an electronic computing device to execute the following instructions after being loaded into [[an]] the electronic computing device. The device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic c non-transitory machine-readable medium and a generic computing device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer program to perform the function to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 11
The limitation of performing gray-scale processing on the image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, processing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally processing grey scale values of an image in any way such as looking at them.
The limitation of “calculates the information entropy according to the gray-scale level of the image,” as drafted, is a process that, corresponds to the mathematical concepts subgroup. As entropy is merely a mathematical value calculated using a mathematical function.
The considerations for significantly more and integration into an abstract idea are not different than the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 12
The limitation of determining characters included in each of the plurality of sub-blocks by the electronic computing device; wherein the electronic computing device performs similarity comparison on each group of sub-blocks containing the same characters, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining and comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determining and the comparing.
The considerations for significantly more and integration into an abstract idea are not different than the claim from which this claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 7 and 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.
Re claims 3, this claim depends from cancelled claim 2 making it unclear how to interpret the claim because it does not depend from a valid claim. The examiner assumes this claim is intended to depend from claim 1.
Re claims 7, this claim depends from cancelled claim 6 making it unclear how to interpret the claim because it does not depend from a valid claim. The examiner assumes this claim is intended to depend from claim 5.
Re claims 11, this claim depends from cancelled claim 10 making it unclear how to interpret the claim because it does not depend from a valid claim. The examiner assumes this claim is intended to depend from claim 9.
Cited Art
Abramova et al (previously cited) “Detecting Copy–Move Forgeries in Scanned Text Documents” 2016 Society for Imaging Science and Technology discloses
identify at least one character block from the image (see page 6 last paragraph note that document segmentation isolates character lines (blocks ) and subsequently (subblocks) individual glyphs from each other); divide the at least one character block into a plurality of sub-blocks (see page 6 last paragraph note that document segmentation isolates character lines (blocks ) and subsequently (subblocks) individual glyphs from each other); and compare the similarity of the plurality of sub-blocks (see section 7 last paragraph “. Next, we have calculated logarithms of HU moments of the pixels inside each bounding box as a glyph’s feature representation. In spite of the fact that the recognition of individual characters has not been implemented in our practical setup, we have obtained decent detection results in the basic CM and compression scenarios. As a threshold for determining whether an individual glyph has been duplicated or not, we have measured the Euclidean distance between the computed feature vectors of each identified glyph and of its nearest neighbor. In the simplest case of a plain CM forgery, the Euclidean distance between feature vectors of two copied glyphs was always zero. This resulted in a correct detection of all forged glyphs without any false positive matches” note that the similarity of glyphs is used to determine whether the document is a forgery), and determine that the image is a processed image when the number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold (see page 7 last paragraph “As a threshold for determining whether an individual glyph has been duplicated or not, we have measured
the Euclidean distance between the computed feature vectors of each identified glyph and of its nearest neighbor” see paragraph section 8 second paragraph we have adjusted the threshold for the Euclidean distance to 0.1. This value was determined through a set of trials conducted with varying thresholds, in the search of a good trade-off between the number of true and false
positives. Computing feature vectors per bounding box has enabled us to analyze the detection performance at the level of individual glyphs instead of the original pixel-based approach” note that the difference being less than a threshold corresponds to similarity exceeding a threshold)
Wang et al (previously cited) CN 105405054 further discloses to determine whether the image is a photograph; and further process the image when it is determined that the image is a photograph (see paragraph 16 note that if the photo is not a real photo than the system judges that the photo is fraudulent see paragraph 50 note that the photo is passed for further processing if it is real). The motivation to combine is to determine if the photograph is a real or synthesized photograph (see paragraph 7). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily used a similar procedure as an initial process to determine if the photograph was real prior to performing the copy move check of Abramova. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang and Abramova.
Yang et al (previously cited) “Copy-Move Forgery Detection in Digital Image” Advances in Multimedia Information Processing - PCM 2009 discloses number of times the similarity exceeds a similarity threshold reaches a count threshold (see caption to figure 1 and section 4 note that if the number of similar blocks exceeds a threshold the document is determined to be copy and pasted blocks). The motivation is to avoid mis identified copy and paste blocks (see section 4). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified Wang and Abramova with Yang to eliminate misidentified blocks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang Abramova and Yang to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Maloney US 2017/01400250 (previously cited) discloses “calculate an information entropy of the image; determine that the image is a photograph when the information entropy is higher than an information entropy threshold.” (See paragraph114). However, the examiner notes the examiner is unable to determine a reason to combine Maloney with the combination Abraomava Wang and Yang absent hindsight reconstruction. For example, Wang discloses determining if an image is a real or synthesized photo. Maloney appears to merely be differentiating between text areas and continuously varying image regions unrelated to forgery detection of Arabomava.
Conclusion
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 SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights