DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “A method of making rattlesnake scale patterns…” of which the Examiner deems as simply an abstract idea and more particularly, a method of organizing human activity to create art. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim simply recites creating such “rattlesnake scale patterns” using a “liquify tool” of “Adobe Photoshop” software which is simply generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use has been found by the courts to not be enough to quality as “significantly more” than simply that which is the judicial exception (see MPEP 21.06.05(A)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In reference to claim 1, the claim recites, “A method of making rattlesnake scale patterns into camouflage comprising the editing of rattlesnake scale patterns…” of which the Examiner deems as failing to comply with the enablement requirement since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined on how to “make...patterns into camouflage…” The claim simply discusses editing an image pattern however it is unclear as to what Applicant regards as the recited, “make…patterns into camouflage.” The specification again solely supports that which is recited in the claim and does not detail that which is meant by such a term/process. Does Applicant mean to recite that camouflage textures or images are created from the rattlesnake scale patterns? Does the camouflage actually represent physical camouflage or simply digital images/patterns? It is questions like these that cannot be answered by the claim nor do the specification provide such answers therefore, the Examiner deems the claim suffers from 35 USC 112 (a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liquifying tool" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cincotti et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0154777), "Create a Snake Leather Skin Text in Photoshop - psd-dude.com" (June 16th, 2018. https://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/create-a-snake-leather-skin-text-in-photoshop.aspx (known herein as PSD-Dude) and further in view of "Photoshop Guide - The Making Of Fragariaphobia - Pxleyes.com" (September 1, 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110901071330/http://www.pxleyes.com/guide/39529/the-making-of-Fragariaphobia.html) (known herein as Fragariaphobia).
In reference to claim 1, Cincotti et al. discloses a method of making rattlesnake scale patterns into camouflage comprising the editing of rattlesnake scale patterns in Adobe Photoshop utilizing the liquifying tool provided within the program software (see paragraphs 13-14, 46-49 and Figures 4, 5, 7 and 10 wherein Cincotti et al. discloses methods and arrangements for making camouflage patterns. Cincotti et al. discloses utilizing a specific digital photographic image using colored disruptive patterns and manipulating the image by editing it in an image editor explicitly disclosed as Adobe Photoshop. Cincotti et al. discloses utilizing the image editing software tools to assist in editing such patterns.).
Although Cincotti et al. does disclose utilizing Adobe Photoshop and its tools to specifically create camouflage patterns from digital photographic images, Cincotti et al. does not explicitly disclose making a “rattlesnake scale” camouflage pattern using the “liquify tool” in Adobe Photoshop. PSD-Dude discloses an Adobe Photoshop tutorial for creating a snake text effect using a reptile leather skin texture (see 1st paragraph, page 1). PSD-Dude discloses the end result comprising a snake skin effect with snake scales (see steps 7-8, pages 4-5) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “rattlesnake scale” limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the snake scale texture creation techniques of PSD-Dude with the camouflage pattern creation techniques of Cincotti et al. in order to create a camouflage pattern that comprises snake skin scale-like textures to create a customized/desired output resembling a snake skin. The Examiner further points out each of the cited prior art is explicitly utilizing Adobe Photoshop and the PSD-Dude prior art explicitly discloses the techniques to apply to any kind of layer in the software editing program (text, shape or raster) thus obtaining an unlimited number of results (see 1st paragraph, page 1 of PSD-Dude). Neither Cincotti et al. or PSD-Dude however explicitly disclose utilizing the liquify tool in Adobe Photoshop to create such patterns. Fragariaphobia discloses utilizing Adobe Photoshop to create an image wherein a strawberry texture is modified with the liquify tool to give the shape and form of a snake and further applying dodge and burn tools to give a more rounded body to the shape (see step 3, page 2). Fragariaphobia further discloses utilizing the liquify tool in fitting a strawberry to a cactus shape (see step 5, page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the usage of liquify and other tools in Adobe Photoshop as disclosed by Fragariaphobia with the camouflage and snake skin pattern creation techniques of Cincotti et al. and PSD-Dude in order to create customized images with desired outputs by merging textures and shapes together to as per the desire of an operator/user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 09/29/25, with respect to the objection of the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Since there appears to be no such remarks/arguments in the amendment of 09/29/25, the Examiner has maintained all rejections as previously seen.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
10/9/25