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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Remarks pages 10-21, filed 06/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 7-15 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumar US 8892422, Dharawat et al US 20090271367, Balasa et al US 20200074050 and Soborski US 20130228619.
Regarding claim 1, First, Applicant states that Voynov fails to teach of identifying bigrams within an original document (Applicants Remarks pages 10-12). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Kumar teaches identifying positional bigrams for words in a corpus, where a positional bigram is the occurrence of a first word in a document in the corpus located k-positions before a second word in the document (column 2, lines 60-65)
Second, Applicant states that identifying bigrams is not inherent in OCR (Applicants Remarks page 11). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Examiner was stating the OCR was used to identify bigrams not that it is an inherent feature of OCR
Third, Applicant states that the marked information does not disclose identifying bigrams (Applicants Remarks page 11). Examiner agrees with Applicants Remarks.
Finally, Applicant states that the marked information does not disclose identifying bigrams in a document (Applicants Remarks page 11). Examiner agrees with Applicants Remarks.
Applicant states that Goswami fails to teach each bigram separated by a spatial element and the reference of Goswami two character bigrams cannot be separated by a spatial element because separating two characters with a spatial element would require a third character (Applicants Remarks pages 12-13). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Dharawat et al teaches of the product list tokenizer 210 may look for delimiters such as a space, and use each alphanumeric string between spaces, which is not a stop word, to create the unigrams and bigrams (paragraph 0023). This reads on spatial element separating bigram.
Applicant states that Goswami fails to teach each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram character pairs (Applicants Remarks pages 13). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Kumar teaches for each of the identified positional bigrams, the number of instances in a corpus in which the positional bigram occurs is determined. In some implementations the co-occurrence relationship determination engine 910 may identify the number of text segments in a corpus in which both words in the positional bigram co-occur in the relative position k of the positional bigram. In some implementations a segment parser may be utilized to parse each of a plurality of documents of the corpus into its one or more fields; parse each field into its one or more sentences; and/or parse each sentence into its one or more text segments. Optionally, only the number of instances in which the positional bigram occurs within individual text segments in the corpus is determined (column 6, lines 63- column 7, lines 1-12). Such sequences of words may optionally be parsed into text segments and only positional bigrams within each of the text segments may be counted (column 7, lines 28-31). Therefore, the occurrences of the positional bigrams that are parsed into text segments read on unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram character pairs (see also fig 2).
Applicant states that Harper fails to teach each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code (Applicants Remarks pages 13-14). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Balasa et al teaches replacing a first existing whitespace character with a first reference whitespace character from the encoded identification data, a second existing whitespace character with a second reference whitespace character from the encoded identification data and so on (paragraph 0037)
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, claims 2-4, 7 remain rejected
Regarding claim 8, Applicant states that the reference Verma fails to teach accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document (Applicants Remarks pages 14-15). Examiner agrees with applicant. Soborski teaches Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039). This would read on accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document
Applicant states that the reference Verma fails to teach determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of character identifiers of the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy (Applicants Remarks pages 15-16). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Soborski teaches teaches Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039). This reads on determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of character identifiers of the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy.
Applicant states that Goswami fails to teach determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code (Applicants Remarks pages 16-17). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Dharawat et al teaches of the product list tokenizer 210 may look for delimiters such as a space, and use each alphanumeric string between spaces, which is not a stop word, to create the unigrams and bigrams (paragraph 0023). This reads on spatial element separating bigram.
Regarding claims 9-14, claims 9-14 remain rejected
Regarding claim 15, Applicant states that the reference Verma fails to teach determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of character identifiers of the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy (Applicants Remarks pages 15-16). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Soborski teaches teaches Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039). This reads on determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on a comparison of character identifiers of the artifact with character identifiers of the unique copy.
Applicant states that that Goswami fails to teach 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 (Applicants Remarks page 19). Examiner agrees with Applicant. Balasa et al teaches first and second reference whitespace character may be used to encode or convert the identification data into a binary-like format (e.g. where the first reference whitespace character represents a ‘1’ and the second reference whitespace character represents a ‘0) (paragraph 0031). The second set of reference whitespace characters (e.g. used for encoding identification data for insertion in comments) may comprise at least two of the following: U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069). This reads on 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.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 remains rejected
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 Kumar US 8892422 in view of Dharawat et al US 20090271367 further in view of Balasa et al US 20200074050.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar teaches a method performed by one or more processors (a system including memory and one or more processors operable to execute instructions (column 4, lines 13-17), the method comprising:
identifying bigram within an original document (identifying positional bigrams for words in a corpus, where a positional bigram is the occurrence of a first word in a document in the corpus located k-positions before a second word in the document (column 2, lines 60-65), and
generating a plurality of unique copies of the original document (The determined co-occurrence consistencies represent new values (unique copies) that are derived from analysis of those words and their position in the sequence of words (column 4, lines 34-37)),
wherein each unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram–character pairs (each of the identified positional bigrams, the number of instances in a corpus in which the positional bigram occurs is determined. In some implementations the co-occurrence relationship determination engine 910 may identify the number of text segments in a corpus in which both words in the positional bigram co-occur in the relative position k of the positional bigram. In some implementations a segment parser may be utilized to parse each of a plurality of documents of the corpus into its one or more fields; parse each field into its one or more sentences; and/or parse each sentence into its one or more text segments. Optionally, only the number of instances in which the positional bigram occurs within individual text segments in the corpus is determined (column 6, lines 63- column 7, lines 1-12). Such sequences of words may optionally be parsed into text segments and only positional bigrams within each of the text segments may be counted (column 7, lines 28-31). Therefore, the occurrences of the positional bigrams that are parsed into text segments read on unique copy has a bigram code that comprises a variation of bigram character pairs (see also fig 2).
Kumar fails to teach each bigram separated by a spatial element;
Dharawat et al teaches each bigram separated by a spatial element (of the product list tokenizer 210 may look for delimiters such as a space, and use each alphanumeric string between spaces, which is not a stop word, to create the unigrams and bigrams (paragraph 0023);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kumar with: each bigram separated by a spatial element.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify the bigram in each unique copy.
Kumar in view of Dharawat et al fails to teach each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code,
Balasa et al teaches each unique copy generated by replacing spatial elements of the bigrams with characters selected from a uniform character code (replacing a first existing whitespace character with a first reference whitespace character from the encoded identification data, a second existing whitespace character with a second reference whitespace character from the encoded identification data and so on (paragraph 0037),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kumar in view of Dharawat et al 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, Kumar in view of Dharawat further in view of Balasa et al teaches wherein each bigram comprises a pair of written units (Kumar: see fig 2), 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 (Kumar: A positional bigram is a co-occurrence of a pair of words in a specific relative position with respect to each other. For example, with reference to FIG. 2, an example of a text segment and positional bigrams of the text segment are illustrated. A text segment may include any sequence of words with no breaking punctuation. For example, the text "in trading today, the new york stock exchange" may include two text segments: "in trading today" and "the new york stock exchange." FIG. 2 illustrates the text segment "new york stock exchange." Positional bigram 1 of FIG. 2 is for the word pair "new" and "york," with "new" occurring one position prior to "york." Positional bigram 2 is for the word pair "new" and "stock," with "new" occurring two positions prior to "stock." Positional bigram 3 is for the word pair "new" and "exchange," with "new" occurring three positions prior to "exchange." Positional bigram 4 is for the word pair "york" and "stock," with "york" occurring one position prior to "stock." Positional bigram 5 is for the word pair "york" and "exchange," with "york" occurring two positions prior to "exchange." Positional bigram 6 is for the word pair "stock" and "exchange," with "stock" occurring one position prior to "exchange." (column 6, lines 16-39).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar in view of Dharawat further in view of Balasa 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 (Kumar: Positional bigram 1 of FIG. 2 is for the word pair "new" and "york," with "new" occurring one position prior to "york." Positional bigram 2 is for the word pair "new" and "stock," with "new" occurring two positions prior to "stock." Positional bigram 3 is for the word pair "new" and "exchange," with "new" occurring three positions prior to "exchange." Positional bigram 4 is for the word pair "york" and "stock," with "york" occurring one position prior to "stock." Positional bigram 5 is for the word pair "york" and "exchange," with "york" occurring two positions prior to "exchange." Positional bigram 6 is for the word pair "stock" and "exchange," with "stock" occurring one position prior to "exchange." (column 6, lines 16-39 and fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar in view of Dharawat further in view of Balasa 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 (Balasa et al: first and second reference whitespace character may be used to encode or convert the identification data into a binary-like format (e.g. where the first reference whitespace character represents a ‘1’ and the second reference whitespace character represents a ‘0) (paragraph 0031). The second set of reference whitespace characters (e.g. used for encoding identification data for insertion in comments) may comprise at least two of the following: U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kumar in view of Dharawat 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, Kumar in view of Dharawat further in view of Balasa 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 (Balasa et al: the first set of whitespace characters may comprise any two or more of the following (brackets identifying ASCII equivalents): Horizontal Tab (0x09), Newline (0x0a), Vertical Tab (0x0b), Form Feed (0x0C), Carriage Return (0x0d) and Space (0x20). Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous for in use for a BCPL/C derived language, also called “curly-bracket languages” (paragraph 0066-0067). Moreover, it has been further recognized that in at least one such language, comments are able to use the full range of Unicode characters (paragraph 0068) Note: the ascii characters are replaced by Unicode characters
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kumar in view of Dharawat 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, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski US 20130228619 in view of Kumar US 8892422 in view of Dharawat et al US 20090271367 further in view of Balasa et al US 20200074050
Regarding claim 8, Soborski teaches One or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processor (non-transitory computer readable storage device (paragraph 0010). a processor operable to retrieve a stored item identifier from a storage device (paragraph 0048), cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document (Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039);
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 (Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039).
Soborski fails to teach identifying bigrams within the artifact
Kumar teaches identifying bigrams within the artifact (identifying positional bigrams for words in a corpus, where a positional bigram is the occurrence of a first word in a document in the corpus located k-positions before a second word in the document (column 2, lines 60-65);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski 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.
Soborski in view of Kumar fails to teach determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code;
Balasa et al teaches determining character identifiers for characters separating the bigrams within the artifact, the characters corresponding to a uniform character code (first and second reference whitespace character may be used to encode or convert the identification data into a binary-like format (e.g. where the first reference whitespace character represents a ‘1’ and the second reference whitespace character represents a ‘0) (paragraph 0031). The second set of reference whitespace characters (e.g. used for encoding identification data for insertion in comments) may comprise at least two of the following: U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069).; and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar 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, Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al wherein determining the character identifiers is based on a distance between pairs of written units forming the bigrams (Balasa et al:. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069) a fourth set of reference whitespace characters may be selected based on a length of the portion of code (e.g. if the code is greater than a predetermined length (distance), the identification data will be encoded using a fourth set of reference whitespace characters) (paragraph 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar 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, Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al 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 (Kumar: 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 (column 18, lines 31-45);
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 (Kumar: nodes labeled with a numerical value that is indicative of an example phrase weighting of the corresponding subsequence of words. For example, numerical value "72" represents the example phrase weighting of the five word subsequence "new york stock exchange traded" (column 18, lines 31-50).; and
determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on the correlation (Kumar: The determined co-occurrence consistencies represent new values (unique copies) that are derived from analysis of those words and their position in the sequence of words (column 4, lines 34-37)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al with: 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; 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; and determining that the artifact was derived from the unique copy based on the correlation
The reason of doing so would be to determine the bigram in each unique copy for identification of media.
Regarding claim 12, Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al teaches wherein the artifact is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format (Kumar: Each of the documents may include all or portions of one or more documents such as, for example, HTML documents) (column 5, lines 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al with: wherein the artifact is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format
The reason of doing so would be to have a common format.
Regarding claim 15, Soborski teaches A system comprising:
at least one processor (a processor operable to retrieve a stored item identifier from a storage device (paragraph 0048)); 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 (non-transitory computer readable storage device (paragraph 0010) comprising:
accessing an artifact derived from a unique copy of an original document (Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039);
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 (Comparing the artifacts' (accessing) information may include detecting artifacts that are present in one of the original item (original copy) and the unverified item (unique copy), and absent in the other of the original item and the unverified item (paragraph 0039),
Soborski fails to teach identifying bigrams within the artifact, each bigram separated by a spatial element;
Kumar teaches identifying bigrams within the artifact, each bigram separated by a spatial element (identifying positional bigrams for words in a corpus, where a positional bigram is the occurrence of a first word in a document in the corpus located k-positions before a second word in the document (column 2, lines 60-65);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Saborski 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.
Soborski in view of Kumar 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
Balasa et al teaches wherein the character identifiers correspond to characters of a uniform character code, and the characters separate bigrams within the unique copy (first and second reference whitespace character may be used to encode or convert the identification data into a binary-like format (e.g. where the first reference whitespace character represents a ‘1’ and the second reference whitespace character represents a ‘0) (paragraph 0031). The second set of reference whitespace characters (e.g. used for encoding identification data for insertion in comments) may comprise at least two of the following: U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069).
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 (first and second reference whitespace character may be used to encode or convert the identification data into a binary-like format (e.g. where the first reference whitespace character represents a ‘1’ and the second reference whitespace character represents a ‘0) (paragraph 0031). The second set of reference whitespace characters (e.g. used for encoding identification data for insertion in comments) may comprise at least two of the following: U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and U+2063 INVISIBLE SEPARATOR. Such whitespace characters may be particularly advantageous as little to no space may be used (i.e. zero width), minimizing the likelihood of visual impact for inserted identification data (paragraph 0069).);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar 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, Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al wherein: the unique copy is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format (Kumar: Each of the documents may include all or portions of one or more documents such as, for example, HTML documents) (column 5, lines 62-66).
the artifact is an image (Kumar: fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Soborski in view of Kumar further in view of Balasa et al with: wherein the artifact is in XML (extensible markup language) or HTML (hypertext markup language) format
The reason of doing so would be to have a common format.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soborski US 20130228619 in view of Kumar US 8892422 in view of Dharawat et al US 20090271367 further in view of Balasa et al US 20200074050 further in view of Harper et al US 5832507.
Regarding claim 13, Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al teach all of the limitations of claim 8
Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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 Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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, Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al teach all of the limitations of claim 8
Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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 Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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 Soborski US 20130228619 in view of Kumar US 8892422 in view of Dharawat et al US 20090271367 further in view of Balasa et al US 20200074050 further in view of Sundaresan et al US 20110078167.
Regarding claim 10, Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 8
Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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 Soborski in view of Kumar in view of Dharawat et al further in view of Balasa et al 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
September 10, 2026
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights