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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 8 and 15 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Applicants Specification paragraph 115 discloses that the computer storage media does not comprise signals per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voynov et al US 11120520 in view of Goswami US 20130191111 further in view of Harper et al US 5832507.
Regarding claim 1, Voynov et al teaches a method performed by one or more processors (preprocessing service 70 may also perform other document processing functions, such as OCR (optical character recognition), etc., and/or a document service 72 may perform such document processing functions (column 11, lines 43-49) Note: a processor is required to perform processing services, the method comprising:
identifying bigram within an original document (Preliminary analysis (analysis and structuring) of the marked information (column 4, lines 64-66). the marked information in digital form is transmitted to the software for analysis and formation of the structure of its visualization. At the same time, the original unmarked information (the original) is stored (column 5, lines 33-37). The visual image is divided into independent related components. Any method can be used to identify components (for example: OCR—Optic Character Recognition) (column 5, lines 54-62) Note: the original document can be OCR to identify marked information (see fig 3). The marked information is read as bigram, and
generating a plurality of unique copies of the original document (To achieve uniqueness, before making changes in the framework of the implemented program, a pseudo-random sequence of offsets (direction and distance) is generated, which is subsequently applied to the visual image of the original and allows one to get a unique random copy. a unique copy of the visual image is produced (column 7, lines 4-16), each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code, wherein each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram–character pairs.
Voynov et al fails to teach each bigram separated by a spatial element;
wherein each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram–character pairs.
Goswami teaches each bigram separated by a spatial element (the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007). process 300 that can be used to obtain bigram data for a document. Process 300 starts (step 302) with a target document having character data. The character data is received (e.g., extracted from the document) at step 304 (paragraph 0051). character data is then processed to populate the bigram vector or array. At step 310 a first bigram is read from the character data (paragraph 0051);
wherein each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram–character pairs (the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al with: each bigram separated by a spatial element; wherein each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram–character pairs.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify the bigram in each unique copy.
Voynov et al in view of Goswami fails to teach each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code,
Harper et al teaches each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code (for a non-UNC name, the entire path name is converted character-by-character to two-byte-wide unicode and sequentially loaded into the pppath buffer 32A as an un-parsed unicode character string (column 7, lines 31-37 and fig 2),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al in view of Goswami with: each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code.
The reason of doing so would be to allow a bigram in each unique copy to be encoded with that unique copy.
Regarding claim 2, Voynov does not disclose et al in view of Goswami further in view of Harper et al teaches wherein each bigram comprises a pair of written units (Goswami: each possible bigram is represented as a pair of characters in the standard character code scheme (paragraph 0031), and wherein, when generating each unique copy, spatial elements of bigrams comprising a common pair of written units are replaced with a same character selected from the uniform character code to form the bigram–character pairs (Goswami: the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007). Note: the pair of characters of the word “patent” are replaced using underscores of a uniform character code to form the bigram pair. The character data is received (e.g., extracted from the document) at step 304 (paragraph 0051). character data is then processed to populate the bigram vector or array. At step 310 a first bigram is read from the character data (paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al with: wherein each bigram comprises a pair of written units, and wherein, when generating each unique copy, spatial elements of bigrams comprising a common pair of written units are replaced with a same character selected from the uniform character code to form the bigram–character pairs.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify each bigram in each unique copy for processing.
Regarding claim 3, Voynov et al in view of Goswami further in view of Harper et al teaches wherein the bigram code includes bigram–character pairs having a combination of character identifiers different from other bigram codes of the unique copies (Goswami: each possible bigram is represented as a pair of characters in the standard character code scheme (paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al with: wherein the bigram code includes bigram–character pairs having a combination of character identifiers different from other bigram codes of the unique copies.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately decode each bigram in each unique copy for processing.
Regarding claim 4, Voynov et al in view of Goswami further in view of Harper et al teaches wherein the character identifiers of the unique copies include at least two character identifiers identifying at least a first uniform character code and a second uniform character code, each of the first uniform character code and second uniform character code corresponding to a space character, the space character of the first uniform character code being greater in width than the space character of the second uniform character code (Harper et al: in fig 2, the path name is converted using 2 uniform character code, binary (binary code) (first uniform character code) and numerical (string length) (second uniform character code). The space character of a zero is greater in length and width than a period or slash in fig 2 and fig 3, which are space characters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al with: wherein the character identifiers of the unique copies include at least two character identifiers identifying at least a first uniform character code and a second uniform character code, each of the first uniform character code and second uniform character code corresponding to a space character, the space character of the first uniform character code being greater in width than the space character of the second uniform character code.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately decode each bigram in each unique copy for processing.
Regarding claim 7, Voynov et al in view of Goswami further in view of Harper et al teaches wherein the spatial elements are ASCII characters and the uniform character code, from which the characters are selected to replace the spatial elements, comprises Unicode (Harper et al: for a non-UNC name, the entire path name is converted character-by-character to two-byte-wide unicode and sequentially loaded into the pppath buffer 32A as an un-parsed unicode character string (column 7, lines 31-37 and fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Voynov et al with: wherein the spatial elements are ASCII characters and the uniform character code, from which the characters are selected to replace the spatial elements, comprises Unicode.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately decode each bigram in each unique copy for processing using a basic format.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma US 20180341631 in view of Voynov et al US 11120520 further in view of Goswami US 20130191111
Regarding claim 8, Verma teaches One or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processor (a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable media having computer readable program code embodied thereon (paragraph 0019-0020), cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document (data provenance system 105 can thereby map particular content portions not only to another source artifact, but may also identify a particular version of that source artifact (paragraph 0027);
determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of the character identifiers of the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy (the data provenance system can determine that content from one artifact of a first media type has been incorporated as a different second media type in another artifact, such as a new artifact generated using the artifact generation system 110 (paragraph 0026) Note: this reads on determining that the artifact was derived from which media type (unique copy). data provenance system 105 may compare content (character identifiers) of newly generated or identified artifacts against the content of artifacts described in the indexed records (paragraph 0027).
Verma fails to teach identifying bigrams within the artifact
Voynov et al teaches identifying bigrams within the artifact (Preliminary analysis (analysis and structuring) of the marked information (column 4, lines 64-66). the marked information in digital form is transmitted to the software for analysis and formation of the structure of its visualization. At the same time, the original unmarked information (the original) is stored (column 5, lines 33-37). The visual image is divided into independent related components. Any method can be used to identify components (for example: OCR—Optic Character Recognition) (column 5, lines 54-62) Note: the original document can be OCR to identify marked information (see fig 3). The marked information is read as bigram;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma with: identifying bigrams within the artifact.
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Verma in view of Voynov et al fails to teach determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code;
Goswami teaches determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code (the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007). process 300 that can be used to obtain bigram data for a document. Process 300 starts (step 302) with a target document having character data. The character data is received (e.g., extracted from the document) at step 304 (paragraph 0051). character data is then processed to populate the bigram vector or array. At step 310 a first bigram is read from the character data (paragraph 0051); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al with: determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code.
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Regarding claim 9, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami wherein determining the character identifiers is based on a distance between pairs of written units forming the bigrams (Goswami: the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al with: wherein determining the character identifiers is based on a distance between pairs of written units forming the bigrams.
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Regarding claim 11, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami teaches wherein determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy further comprises:
generating an artifact index, the artifact index comprising the bigrams and the character identifiers corresponding to the artifact (Verma: The data provenance system 105 may further utilize and contribute records to a corpus of indexed records, which memorialize the various artifacts known to the data provenance system 105 (paragraph 0027);
determining a correlation between the character identifiers in the artifact index and character identifiers in a unique copy index corresponding to the unique copy for respective bigrams (Verma: the data provenance system can determine that content from one artifact of a first media type has been incorporated as a different second media type in another artifact, such as a new artifact generated using the artifact generation system 110 (paragraph 0026) Note: this reads on determining that the artifact was derived from which media type (unique copy).; and
determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on the correlation (Verma: data provenance system 105 may compare content (character identifiers) of newly generated or identified artifacts against the content of artifacts described in the indexed records (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 12, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami teaches wherein the artifact is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format (Verma: XML artifacts (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Verma teaches A system comprising:
at least one processor (processor (paragraph 0031); and
one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable media having computer readable program code embodied thereon (paragraph 0019-0020) comprising:
accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document (data provenance system 105 can thereby map particular content portions not only to another source artifact, but may also identify a particular version of that source artifact (paragraph 0027);
determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of the binary spacing indicators for the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy (the data provenance system can determine that content from one artifact of a first media type has been incorporated as a different second media type in another artifact, such as a new artifact generated using the artifact generation system 110 (paragraph 0026) Note: this reads on determining that the artifact was derived from which media type (unique copy). data provenance system 105 may compare content (character identifiers) of newly generated or identified artifacts against the content of artifacts described in the indexed records (paragraph 0027),
Verma fails to teach identifying bigrams within the artifact, each bigram separated by a spatial element;
Voynov et al teaches identifying bigrams within the artifact, each bigram separated by a spatial element (Preliminary analysis (analysis and structuring) of the marked information (column 4, lines 64-66). the marked information in digital form is transmitted to the software for analysis and formation of the structure of its visualization. At the same time, the original unmarked information (the original) is stored (column 5, lines 33-37). The visual image is divided into independent related components. Any method can be used to identify components (for example: OCR—Optic Character Recognition) (column 5, lines 54-62) Note: the original document can be OCR to identify marked information (see fig 3). The marked information is read as bigram;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma with: identifying bigrams within the artifact, each bigram separated by a spatial element.
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Verma in view of Voynov et al fails to teach wherein the character identifiers correspond to characters of a uniform character code, and the characters separate bigrams within the unique copy.
assigning a binary spacing indicator to each spatial element of the bigrams, wherein binary spacing indicators indicate a relative width of spatial elements of the bigrams; and
Goswami teaches wherein the character identifiers correspond to characters of a uniform character code, and the characters separate bigrams within the unique copy (the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007).
assigning a binary spacing indicator to each spatial element of the bigrams, wherein binary spacing indicators indicate a relative width of spatial elements of the bigrams (the document is parsed into n-character units for some integer n, rather than into words. Typically, n is chosen to be a small number such as 2 or 3, and the n-grams overlap; thus, for example, the word "patent" can be parsed into bigrams (i.e., n-grams with n=2) as "_p", "pa", "at", "te", "en", "nt", "t_", where "_" denotes the space character (paragraph 0007). process 300 that can be used to obtain bigram data for a document. Process 300 starts (step 302) with a target document having character data. The character data is received (e.g., extracted from the document) at step 304 (paragraph 0051). character data is then processed to populate the bigram vector or array. At step 310 a first bigram is read from the character data (paragraph 0051);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al with: wherein the character identifiers correspond to characters of a uniform character code, and the characters separate bigrams within the unique copy; assigning a binary spacing indicator to each spatial element of the bigrams, wherein binary spacing indicators indicate a relative width of spatial elements of the bigrams;.
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Regarding claim 20, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami wherein: the unique copy is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format (Verma: XML artifacts (paragraph 0047); and
the artifact is an image (Verma: digital content included in digital works, or “electronic artifacts” (or simply “artifacts”) (paragraph 0026).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma US 20180341631 in view of Voynov et al US 11120520 further in view of Goswami US 20130191111 further in view of Harper et al US 5832507.
Regarding claim 13, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami teach all of the limitations of claim 8
Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami fails to teach wherein the character identifiers of the unique copy and the character identifiers of the artifact include at least two character identifiers identifying at least a first uniform character code and a second uniform character code, each of the first uniform character code and second uniform character code corresponding to a space character, the space character of the first uniform character code being greater in width than the space character of the second uniform character code
Harper et al teaches wherein the character identifiers of the unique copy and the character identifiers of the artifact include at least two character identifiers identifying at least a first uniform character code and a second uniform character code, each of the first uniform character code and second uniform character code corresponding to a space character, the space character of the first uniform character code being greater in width than the space character of the second uniform character code (Harper et al: in fig 2, the path name is converted using 2 uniform character code, binary (binary code) (first uniform character code) and numerical (string length) (second uniform character code). The space character of a zero is greater in length and width than a period or slash in fig 2 and fig 3, which are space characters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami with: wherein the character identifiers of the unique copy and the character identifiers of the artifact include at least two character identifiers identifying at least a first uniform character code and a second uniform character code, each of the first uniform character code and second uniform character code corresponding to a space character, the space character of the first uniform character code being greater in width than the space character of the second uniform character code;
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Regarding claim 14, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami teach all of the limitations of claim 8
Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami fails to teach wherein the uniform character code for the characters of the artifact is Unicode
Harper et al teaches wherein the uniform character code for the characters of the artifact is Unicode (Harper et al: for a non-UNC name, the entire path name is converted character-by-character to two-byte-wide unicode and sequentially loaded into the pppath buffer 32A as an un-parsed unicode character string (column 7, lines 31-37 and fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami with: wherein the uniform character code for the characters of the artifact is Unicode;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately decode each bigram in each unique copy for processing using a basic format.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma US 20180341631 in view of Voynov et al US 11120520 further in view of Goswami US 20130191111 further in view of Sundaresan et al US 20110078167.
Regarding claim 10, Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami teaches all of the limitations of claim 8
Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami fails to teach wherein the artifact comprises metadata associated with the uniform character code, and the character identifiers for each of the bigrams is determined from the metadata.
Sundaresan et al teaches wherein the artifact comprises metadata associated with the uniform character code, and the character identifiers for each of the bigrams is determined from the metadata (A topic extractor 202 continues to search the group of documents to identify key phrases within the text of the group of documents at operation 404. In some embodiments, the process also identifies key phrases or other information associated with the document, such as metadata which may be used to classify and identify the source of each document and so forth (paragraph 0040)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Verma in view of Voynov et al further in view of Goswami with: wherein the artifact comprises metadata associated with the uniform character code, and the character identifiers for each of the bigrams is determined from the metadata;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately decode each bigram in each unique copy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 16-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L BURLESON whose telephone number is (571)272-7460. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 530pm.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270- 3438. 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.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2683
Michael Burleson
April 24, 2026
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights