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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-13, 18-21, 24-36, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For step 1, a claim is determined whether it falls within one of the four statutory categories. Claims 1-13 and 18-21 are directed to a system comprising at least a processor, claims 24-36 and 41-44 are directed to a method corresponding the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claims fall within at least one of the statutory categories of invention and passes step 1.
For step 2A (Prong One), a claim is determined whether it recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claims 1 and 24 recite limitations to:
“process the at least one file using a plurality of check processes, each of the plurality of check processes generating a weight and a confidence score”
“generate an overall suspicion score…based on the weights and confidence score”
“determine whether the at least one file is suspicious based on the overall suspicion score”
However, there are no elements recited in those limitations that would preclude them from being practically performed in the mind, or with pen/paper, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For example, limitation [A] is directed to processing a file using “a plurality of check processes”. The “check processes” on a file are not explicitly defined or described with language that excludes them from human mental activities. A “check process” can simply be mental analysis (e.g., comparing data) of data fields of a file document displayed on a computer screen. In limitation [B], the generation of the suspicion score can include mentally formulating a numerical value. In limitation [C], the determination of the “score” is merely a comparison step to obtain a result. If the “score” is above or below a threshold, it would signify a suspicious or non-suspicious file. Therefore, these steps can be performed without the direct aid of processing from a computer. Rather, the computer can be used as an ancillary tool – e.g., displaying a PDF document (“file”) on a monitor – where the processing can be accomplished mentally. Thus, the independent claims present at least one limitation that falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
For step 2A (Prong Two), a claim is determined whether it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements are:
“means for receiving at least one file to be analyzed”
“A system...comprising…a processor” for performing the limitations [A]-[C].
However, these elements fail to add something more meaningful to the judicial exception as generic computer components are used to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
Limitation [D] is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Furthermore, the limitations as a whole fail to integrate the idea into a practical application. In MPEP 2106.04(d), the considerations of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application include, but is not limited to, “[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” and “[a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” In the current claims, a file is merely determined if it is suspicious or non-suspicious. Mere determination, or display, of a result do not actively improve the security of a system.
Thus, the independent claims, as a whole, fail to present enough elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For step 2B, a claim is determined whether any elements, or combination of elements, are enough to ensure that the claims 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 elements to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Since these elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that they can be represented as ordinary computer systems. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Having a computer system with a processor to perform such elements does not instantly preclude it from mental activities if the act itself is presented in a generic/abstract manner – it would be mere instructions to apply an exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, the independent claims are not patent eligible. Furthermore, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent Claims: The dependent claims further define the what type of data is performed in the “plurality of check processes”. However, these are nominal limitations that do not provide more than an insignificant relationship to the exception. A “check process” is open-ended and is not described with language that would exclude mental processes. The dependent claims also further define additional data collection, which are insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g., claim 13 recites identifying “areas of overlap”; claim 18 broadly “determines” the type of save). Thus, none of the elements in those limitations would preclude them from being performed mentally nor do they present additional meaningful elements that are more than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0359815 to Mayer et al. (hereinafter, “Mayer”).
As per claim 1: Mayer discloses: A system for detecting manipulation of a file (systems and methods for detecting altered documents (“file”) [Mayer, ¶0013]), comprising: means for receiving at least one file to be analyzed (the system accesses a target PDF document/file [Mayer, ¶0062, 0104]; the system includes a communication interface 240 [Mayer, ¶0034-0035]); and a processor in communication with the said means, the processor programmed to (the system includes one or more processors to perform the disclose features of Mayer [Mayer, ¶0038]): process the at least one file using a plurality of check processes, each of the plurality of check processes generating a weight and a confidence score after processing the at least one file (determining an inter document score based on identified one or more second artifacts based on the document and an alteration score based on one or more of the intra document score and the inter document score; the intra document score and inter document score may be determined by weighting of the various first and second artifacts identified in the target PDF [Mayer, ¶0104]); generate an overall suspicion score for the at least one file based on the weights and confidence scores generated by the plurality of check processes (the scores and weights impact an overall alteration score of the target PDF [Mayer, ¶0105]); and determine whether the at least one file is suspicious based on the overall suspicion score (if the alteration score exceeds a predetermined threshold, there is a high risk of the PDF document being altered [Mayer, ¶0104]).
As per claim 6: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Mayer discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a blocklist check processes for checking an editor used to edit the at least one file (the name of the software tool used for creating or editing the target PDF file is included in the document model, wherein a ranking of software tools common in altering or creating false PDF documents is used [Mayer, ¶0074]).
As per claim 8: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Mayer discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a creation or modification date check process for checking at least one of a creation date or a modification date of the at least one file (analyzing creation and editing of the target PDF document, including dates [Mayer, ¶0076, 0093]).
As per claim 9: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Mayer discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a creator or producer check process for checking at least one of a creator or a producer of the at least one file (details related to the creation or editing of the target PDF document, including the name of the software tool [Mayer, ¶0074]).
As per claim 11: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Mayer discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a fonts check process for checking a font associated with the at least one file (analyzing text characteristics and font characteristics [Mayer, ¶0069-0070]).
As per claim 12: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Mayer discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a tagged check process for checking whether the at least one file has been tagged for suspicious content (a flag or indicator may be inserted into the PDF content stream by a software commonly known in creating false PDF documents [Mayer, ¶0074]).
As per claim 24: Claim 24 is different in overall scope from claim 1. However, claim 24 is directed to a method performed by the system recited of claim 1. In addition to systems, Mayer also discloses methods for detecting altered documents (“file”) [Mayer, ¶0013]. Therefore, the response provided for claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 24.
As per claim 29: Claim 29 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 29 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 6. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 6 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 29.
As per claim 31: Claim 31 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 31 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 8. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 8 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 31.
As per claim 32: Claim 32 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 32 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 9. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 9 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 32.
As per claim 34: Claim 34 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 34 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 11. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 11 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 34.
As per claim 35: Claim 35 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 35 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 12. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 12 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 35.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of US 2020/0211120 to Wang et al. (hereinafter, “Wang”).
As per claim 2: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Mayer does not explicitly disclose, but Wang discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a claim date check process for checking a date of a claim indicated in the at least one file (a document associated with an insurance claim includes a claim reporting date [Wang, ¶0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include any type of documents to be analyzed for authenticity in Mayer, such as insurance claim documents. Mayer does not restrict the documents to any particular type. Insurance fraud was a common practice and checking for altered information in insurance claim documents would have been advantageous to mitigate and/or detect suspicious insurance claims.
As per claim 3: Mayer in view of Wang disclose all limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, the motivation for incorporating Wang in claim 2 is also applicable in claim 3. Therefore, Mayer in view of Wang disclose: wherein the claim date check process retrieves a claim date or range, determines a creation date of the at least one file, and compares the creation date to the claim date or range (comparing transaction dates (e.g., in view of Wang, the claim date would have been a transaction date) set forth in the target PDF with dates of the target PDF creation date [Mayer, ¶0076]).
As per claim 25: Claim 25 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 25 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 2. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 2 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 25.
As per claim 26: Claim 26 incorporates all limitations of claim 25. Claim 26 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 3. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 3 and 25 are equally applicable to claim 26.
Claims 4, 5, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of US 2004/0230891 to Pravetz et al. (hereinafter, “Pravetz”).
As per claim 4: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Mayer does not explicitly disclose, but Pravetz discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes a signature check process for checking a digital signature associated with the at least one file (a digital signature of a document is used for detecting any unauthorized modifications to a document [Pravetz, ¶0026, 0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a digital signature check process in Mayer, such as suggested in Pravetz. Both [Mayer, Abstract] and [Pravetz, ¶0003] are directed to detecting document modification. Digital signatures were known in the art for providing means to verify an integrity of digital data through the use of public-key cryptography, wherein undetectable document modification would have been difficult without a corresponding private key to a public key.
As per claim 5: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Mayer does not explicitly disclose, but Pravetz discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes an encryption check process for checking encryption of the at least one file (the document may be encrypted).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an encryption check process of the PDF document in Mayer. An encrypted document limits a particular group of users that can access the content of a document, which indicates that that the document is less likely to have been modified by an unauthorized party.
As per claim 27: Claim 27 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 27 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 4. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 4 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 27.
As per claim 28: Claim 28 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 28 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 5. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 5 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 28.
Claims 7, 18-23, 30, and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of G.F. Bascuñana1 (hereinafter, “Bascuñana), “Method for Effective PDF Files Manipulation Detection”, Jan. 2017.
As per claim 7: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Mayer does not explicitly disclose, but Bascuñana discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes an end-of-file and identification check process for checking at least one of an end-of-file indicator or a file identifier associated with the at least one file (the trailer of a PDF file includes a file identifier with the last line being labeled %%EOF (end of file) [Bascuñana, pp. 12-13]; the trailer is the first thing that is checked during when detecting if a file has been manipulated [Bascuñana, pp. 30-31]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement checks on any evidence of editing or alteration of the target PDF file in Mayer (e.g., see [Mayer, ¶0076]). Bascuñana is directed to analogous art of detecting PDF manipulation and includes all characteristics of a PDF file. It would have been advantageous to expand the scope of analysis to include non-content parts (e.g., metadata, layout, the header/trailer of a PDF, etc.) of a PDF file to determine any manipulation.
As per claim 18: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable in claim 18. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor determines whether the at least one file was saved using an incremental save or a full save (incremental updates are checked; in a given example, one regular (“full”) and one incremental update is found from cross-reference tables in Test 1 [Bascuñana, pg. 38]).
As per claim 19: Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose all limitations of claim 18. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable to claim 19. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor reads a file trailer to find a cross-reference table or stream if the at least one file was saved using an incremental save (a file trailer that helps find the cross-reference table and includes objects with existing entries in the cross-reference table and offset to the previous cross-reference table, if more than one exists [Bascuñana, pg. 12]).
As per claim 20: Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose all limitations of claim 19. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable in claim 20. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor uses the cross-reference table or stream to locate all objects in the document (a cross-reference table hosts references and information about all indirect objects on how to locate and access them [Bascuñana, pg. 11]).
As per claim 21: Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose all limitations of claim 20. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable in claim 21. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor uses generation information for each object in the at least one file to determine which objects contain changes from an original version of the at least one file (a generation number indicates if an object has been changed/updated [Bascuñana, pp. 11-12]).
As per claim 22: Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose all limitations of claim 21. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable in claim 22. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor regenerates a file corresponding to each generation of the at least one file and highlights each change between each generation (a reference layout of objects and structure of a non-manipulated PDF file is constructed to compare the target file and learn the differences between them [Bascuñana, pg. 30]).
As per claim 23: Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose all limitations of claim 22. The motivation for incorporating Bascuñana in claim 7 is also applicable in claim 23. Therefore, Mayer in view of Bascuñana disclose: wherein the processor identifies location coordinates for each change (the cross-reference table is used to locate the different objects [Bascuñana, pp. 11 & 22]).
As per claim 30: Claim 30 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 30 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 7. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 8 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 30.
As per claim 41: Claim 41 incorporate all limitations of claim 24. Claim 41 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 18. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 18 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 41.
As per claim 42: Claim 42 incorporates all limitations of claim 41. Claim 42 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 19. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 19 and 41 are equally applicable to claim 42.
As per claim 43: Claim 43 incorporates all limitations of claim 42. Claim 43 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 20. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 20 and 42 are equally applicable to claim 43.
As per claim 44: Claim 44 incorporates all limitations of claim 43. Claim 44 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 21. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 21 and 43 are equally applicable to claim 44.
As per claim 45: Claim 45 incorporates all limitations of claim 44. Claim 45 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 22. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 22 and 44 are equally applicable to claim 45.
As per claim 46: Claim 46 incorporates all limitations of claim 45. Claim 46 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 23. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 23 and 45 are equally applicable to claim 46.
Claims 10, 13-15, 33, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of US 2024/0221412 to Wells et al. (hereinafter, “Wells”).
As per claim 10: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. Mayer does not explicitly disclose, but Wells discloses: wherein the plurality of check processes includes an overlapping objects check process for checking whether one or more overlapping objects exist in the at least one file (determining if overlaps exist for bounding boxes derived from a document to determine valid documents [Wells, ¶0104]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement checks on any evidence of editing or alteration of the target PDF file in Mayer (e.g., see [Mayer, ¶0076]). Wells is directed to analogous art of detecting valid/fake documents [Wells, ¶0028-0030]. It would have been advantageous to increase the scope of analysis to include non-content parts (e.g., the layout of a document) in determining if a document is valid.
As per claim 13: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 1. The motivation for incorporating Wells in claim 10 is also applicable to claim 13. Therefore, Mayer in view of Wells disclose: wherein the processor identifies one or more areas of overlap in the at least one file (determining if overlaps exist for bounding boxes derived from a document to determine valid documents [Wells, ¶0104]).
As per claim 14: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 13. The motivation for incorporating Wells in claim 10 is also applicable to claim 14. Therefore, Mayer in view of Wells disclose: wherein the processor applies a highlight to the at least one file based on bounding boxes of each object detected in each overlapping area (bounding box presence/absence evaluator and the inter-bounding box evaluator is at least partially performed by comparing the bounding box template to the bounding boxes derived from the document under test to determine whether overlap exists [Wells, ¶0104]).
As per claim 15: Mayer discloses all limitations of claim 14. The motivation for incorporating Wells in claim 10 is also applicable to claim 15. Therefore, Mayer in view of Wells disclose: wherein the processor identifies layers in the at least one file and any objects that obscure underlying text of the at least one file (when an overlap exists the content of the overlapping bounding boxes (e.g., a security feature object, field, field prefix, etc.) expected to be present is present and in the expected relative position [Wells, ¶0104])
As per claim 33: Claim 33 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 33 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 10. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 10 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 33.
As per claim 36: Claim 36 incorporates all limitations of claim 24. Claim 36 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 13. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 13 and 24 are equally applicable to claim 36.
As per claim 37: Claim 37 incorporates all limitations of claim 36. Claim 37 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 14. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 14 and 36 are equally applicable to claim 37.
As per claim 38: Claim 38 incorporates all limitations of claim 37. Claim 38 is directed to a method performed by the system recited in claim 15. Therefore, the responses provided in claims 15 and 37 are equally applicable to claim 38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 and 39-40 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0274011: The authenticity of a digital document is determined based on part of the code of the document and features that are not detectable on the rendered image of the digital document. See Abstract.
US 2017/0293764: An electronic file is submitted through a plurality of checks organized into categories with assigned weights. The weighted checks help determine a risk assessment of the electronic file. See Abstract.
G. Endignoux, O. Levillain and J. -Y. Migeon, "Caradoc: A Pragmatic Approach to PDF Parsing and Validation," 2016 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), San Jose, CA, USA, 2016, pp. 126-139, doi: 10.1109/SPW.2016.39. (PDF files are validated at the structural level. See Abstract.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT B LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-1453. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs: 10am-7pm ET.
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, JUNG KIM can be reached at 571-272-3804. 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.
/ROBERT B LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2494
1 Cited in the IDS filed 7-19-2024.