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 .
Claim Status
The status of claims 1-20:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024 and 05/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “low-cost” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-cost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “low-cost” renders the term “monochrome application” indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poder et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No 2015/0063659, filed in the IDS received 05/08/2025, hereinafter “Poder”) in view of Boutant et al. (WO 2017089736 A1 using the translation provided herein, hereinafter “Boutant”) and Rodriguez et al. (WO 2004051917 A1, hereinafter “Rodriguez”).
Regarding claim 1, Poder discloses a method for rendering a watermark, comprising:
creating a digital watermark (Poder [0053]: “A spatial luminance pattern associated with a first digital watermark may be modulated to encode a first portion of personally identifiable information (202). The spatial luminance pattern may refer to an intensity map of brightness. The luminance may be gamma corrected, and referred to as luma. Gamma correction generally tailors the presentation of brightness in a non-linear fashion, for example, according to a power-law. The non-linear correction may enhance visual perception of the encoded color”) resulting in a visually distinguishable pattern (Poder [0053]: “The patterns, shapes, and symbols may be linked to the issuer, such as the DMV, the state department, an employer, etc.”); and
rendering a digital watermark on the document in a manner that allows verification at different viewing angles (Poder [0055]: “The two digital watermarks may be applied to different grating structures underneath the same page of the identification document such that only one digital watermark is detectable from a given viewing angle or a particular viewing direction”).
Poder does not explicitly disclose the method comprising:
applying grayscale inversion.
However, Boutant teaches the method comprising:
applying grayscale inversion (Boutant [86]: “Thus, in order to facilitate the visualization of the possible Glass pattern, the authentication and verification images as well as the image of the superposition can, before their display or even their recording, undergo one or more improvement processes such as, for example a contrast enhancement in particular by histogram equalization of grayscale or decomposition color channels or by inversion of grayscale scales or decay color so as to form a negative image of the other (the positive ) to observe an anti-correlation”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate grayscale inversion as taught by Boutant into the method as taught by Poder because it would improve the method by incorporating another security mechanism into the method and by allowing the method to form a negative image of the watermark (Boutant [86]). This motivation for the combination of Poder and Boutant is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results and rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The Poder and Boutant combination does not explicitly disclose the method, comprising:
applying contrast reduction.
However, Rodriguez teaches the method, comprising:
applying contrast reduction (Rodriguez Page 43: “In another implementation, we use an emphasizer to de-emphasize (or wash out or reduce contrast of) a predetermined color channel in an original”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate contrast reduction as taught by Rodriguez with the method of Poder and Boutant because it would improve the method by incorporating another security mechanism into the method. This motivation for the combination of Poder, Boutant, and Rodriguez is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Poder discloses the method further comprising:
viewing the document at varying angles to verify a validity of the document based on the visibility and characteristics of the digital watermark (Poder [0055]: “The two digital watermarks may be applied to different grating structures underneath the same page of the identification document such that only one digital watermark is detectable from a given viewing angle or a particular viewing direction”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-20 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 4-5 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.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIDAN KEUP whose telephone number is (703)756-4578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/AIDAN KEUP/ Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666