DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/29/2026 has been fully considered.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 Amendment
The objection to the claims is withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 101, Examiner respectfully points out that the arguments fail to address the lack of hardware elements in claim 1. Claims 1 and 11 remain an abstract idea as it does not require any particular entity performing the embedding or acting upon a defined entity. The steps are broad enough to cover obtaining and adding a watermark in the mind or with pen/paper as the watermark is described as a bit string or data. The arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments that it preserves semantic integrity or has reduced semantic error rate, bounded data distortion, providing deterministic reversibility or verification, and improved robustness to normalization, Examiner notes that are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining and adding a watermark to information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover obtaining and adding a watermark in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components, as the watermark is described as a bit string.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a device”, claim 1 does not require a computer or device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a device” language, the claim encompasses a user obtaining and adding a watermark to short strings as introduction to elementary encryption classes are taught.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anan (20120163653), and further in view of Kiayias (20100043081).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Anan teaches
A method of embedding a watermark in a structured data set, the method comprising: / A computing device, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store computer instructions; and when the processor executes the stored computer instructions, the computing device is configured to: (abstract, par.39-45, 128-130):
obtaining a plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data forming the structured data set, each piece of the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data including a target attribute having a plurality of attribute values; obtaining a plurality of attribute value groups based on grouping the plurality of attribute values; obtaining a plurality of groups corresponding to the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data based on the plurality of attribute value groups, wherein the plurality of groups comprises a target group (par.43-56, 63-67, receive image and selected area for modifying pixels for watermarking, determine parameters and values and new values for parameters, average pixel and superimpose pixel); and
encoding watermarks to the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data in the target group by using the target group as a granularity (par.44-47, 124-129, pixel conversion according to calculations).
Anan does not expressly disclose, however Kiayias teaches wherein the encoding comprises assigning, within each of the plurality of attribute value groups, a value identifier to each attribute value in the corresponding one of the plurality of attribute value groups, and representing each target-attribute value by a bit string having a length defined in part by a logarithmic value of a quantity of the plurality of attribute value groups (par.80-83, 91-94, determine fingerprint optimal’s code length and embed code).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein encoding the watermarks comprises: adding the watermarks based on the plurality of attribute values of the target attribute in the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data in the target group (Anan, par.104-110, 124-129, modify pixel attributes, Kiayias, par.80-83, 91-94).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein the attribute values of the target attribute in different to-be-processed data in a same group have semantics of a same type, and semantics of attribute values of the target attribute in to-be-processed data in different groups belongs to different types (Anan, par.104-110, 124-129, modify pixels based on color, luminance, saturation).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Anan/ Kiayias teaches presenting an interaction interface, wherein the interaction interface comprises a plurality of attribute values of the target attribute in the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data; and obtaining the plurality of groups corresponding to the plurality of pieces of to-be- processed data comprises: obtaining a result of grouping the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data by a data owner on the interaction interface (Anan, par.41-43, 73-76, select symbols for watermark generation, owner, provider, other identifiers).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein obtaining the plurality of groups corresponding to the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data comprises: dividing the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data into a plurality of groups based on attribute values in the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data (Anan, par.80-84).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein the dividing the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data into a plurality of groups based on attribute values in the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data comprises: identifying semantics of the attribute values of the target attribute in the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data; and dividing the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data into the plurality of groups based on the semantics of the attribute values of the target attribute in the plurality of pieces of to-be- processed data (Anan, par.80-84).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein watermark data added to the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data comprises an error-correcting code (Anan, par.84-87, 115-124).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Anan/ Kiayias teaches wherein the target group is any one of the plurality of groups (Anan, par.57-59).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anan/ Kiayias, and further in view of Wu (NPL “Sharing and hiding a secret image in color palette images with authentication”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Anan/ Kiayias teaches watermarking by modifying attributes, but does not expressly disclose, however Wu teaches wherein obtaining the result of grouping the plurality of pieces of to-be-processed data by a data owner on the interaction interface comprises: obtaining a plurality of attribute value groups based on an operation of grouping the plurality of attribute values by the data owner on the interaction interface, wherein different attribute value groups comprise different attribute values; and placing, in a same group, to-be-processed data having attribute values in a target attribute value group, wherein the target attribute value group is any one of the plurality of attribute value groups (sec.3.4, Embedding phase, based on picking different colors for different bits based on color distance/similarity to pixels from image according to palette groupings).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anan/ Kiayias to use similarity of attributes as taught by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further facilitate protection of content (Wu, sec.1-3).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anan/ Kiayias, and further in view of Cheng (20210149733).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Anan/ Kiayias does not expressly disclose, however, Cheng teaches receiving a key and a hash algorithm that are entered by the data owner on the interaction interface, wherein the key and the hash algorithm are used to determine the watermarks added to the to-be-processed data in the target group (par.56-63).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anan/ Kiayias to use keys and hash algorithms as taught by Cheng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further facilitate protection of content (Cheng, par.50-70).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to watermarking content. Tanaka (20170061565), Singh (20220046332), Okumura (20140293082), Anan (20120163653), Reed (20220036495) modifies luminance according to similarity.
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 David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409