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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The use of the term ChatGPT, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant should include the proper symbol indicating use in commerce following the term ChatGPT and distinguish this from other artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
SPF and PA should be written out the first time these acronyms are used in the context of sunscreen where SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor (SPF), and PA++++ stands for Protection Grade of UVA (PA) and is a Japanese rating system that measures a product’s ability to protect against UVA rays.
OCR should be written out the first time it is used as Optical Character Recognition in the context of technology converting images of text into digitally-encoded editable text.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: unit in claim 9.
The term “unit” is construed as “sub-processor” within a processor as shown in Fig. 5 of the drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In regarding claims 1, 9, and 10:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A: Claims 1, 9, and 10 are directed a method, apparatus, and computer readable medium for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors, the method comprising: a data extracting step of extracting, when design data of packaging paper including a packaging label or packaging box of cosmetic container is collected from an external terminal, product information data indicating attribute information of cosmetics including at least text information, as information included in design data; a description checking step of determining whether there exists essential description of the attribute information of the cosmetics, which is required to be described on the packaging paper, based on the product information data extracted from the data extracting step and a pre-stored attribute information regulation for cosmetics; a description suitability determining step of determining description suitability of the product information data based on the product information data about the essential description and the attribute information regulation, when there is the essential description exists; and a result providing step of providing a user account with result data that is generated as a result of the description checking step and the description suitability determining step.
Prong 1:
The limitation of a data extracting step of extracting, when design data of packaging paper including a packaging label or packaging box of cosmetic container is collected from an external terminal…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process to satisfy or avoid a legal obligation, advertising, and marketing. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed in a mental process for organizing human activity. For example, “data extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses the mental process that, by comparison and matching, a final decision is made.
Similarly, the limitation of a description checking step of determining whether there exists essential description of the attribute information of the cosmetics… in the text segment, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process to satisfy or avoid a legal obligation, advertising, and marketing. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the mental process for determining whether essential information needs to be included on the cosmetic packaging paper by the designer.
Similarly, the limitation of a description suitability determining step, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process to satisfy or avoid a legal obligation, advertising, and marketing. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the mental process for determining the description suitability of the product information data based on the essential description and the attribute information regulation.
Similarly, the limitation of a result providing step of providing a user account with result data…, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process to satisfy or avoid a legal obligation, advertising, and marketing. For example, “providing result data” in the context of this claim encompasses the mental process for deciding a result that is generated from the description checking step and the description suitability determining step.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – computer implemented method (claim 1), an apparatus for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors (claim 9), is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component / software application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
For a human, he/she will parse an input stream using a mental process. For a computer, it requires some program and database to parse an input stream using data inputs and deep learning algorithms of optical character recognition programs for texts and images.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processor, machine-readable medium.
The additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium).
Thus, the recited generic additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. In the court of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, the court cites a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, —is purely functional and generic (page 16). In the specification of instant application, processor, machine-readable medium are general computer components ([0023] in publication). Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic computer are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite limitations that fit the narrative of mental process for organizing human activity stated above and therefore are rejected for the same basis.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 10 recites "A computer-readable medium that stores instructions for enabling..." The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (CRM). Examiner suggests amending the claim to "A non- transitory computer-readable medium..." commensurate with the disclosure of the published specification and in concordance with the Kappos memo on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, February 23, 2010, 1351 OG 212.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (Korean Patent No. KR 102555512 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a method for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy (Abstract);
a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors (Claim 9);
the method comprising: a data extracting step of extracting (Diagram 14 illustrating a package design attribute extraction model);
when design data of packaging paper including a packaging label or packaging box of a cosmetic container is collected from an external terminal (Diagram 15, explaining a package design inspection method: Step S1510),
product information data indicating attribute information of cosmetics including at least text information, as information included in the design data (Diagram 15, Step S1520)
a description checking step of determining whether there exists essential description of the attribute information of the cosmetics which is required to be described on the packaging paper (Diagram 15, Step S1530),
packaging paper based on the product information data extracted from the data extracting step and a pre-stored attribute information regulation for cosmetics (Diagram 15, Step S1540),
regulation for cosmetics a description suitability determining step of determining description suitability of the product information data based on the product information data about the essential description and the attribute information regulation, when there is the essential description exists (Diagram 15, Step S1550),
and a result providing step of providing a user account with result data that is generated as a result of the description checking step and the description suitability determining step (Diagram 15, Step S1560).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
156
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Shin teaches data extracting step includes:
a first extracting step of collecting first text by separating text from an image when the design data is data in which the image and text are combined (image 11 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
429
456
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A second extracting step of collecting second text by extracting text information from the image using an artificial intelligence character recognition and keyword extraction algorithm for the image (the convolutional neural network is a type of artificial neural network that is often used to analyze visual images based on which the image can be recognized)
A third extracting step of extracting product information data, which corresponds to a classification value of each attribute information of the cosmetics (Figure 14).
PNG
media_image4.png
318
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
From the first text and the second text by using a natural language schematic mining algorithm for the first text and the second text, to assign the product information data to the classification value of each attribute information (Figure 12).
PNG
media_image5.png
242
444
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the description checking step includes checking whether the essential description is described based on existence of product information data in the attribute information about all essential descriptions by matching the attribute information which is assigned to each extracted product information data, based on the classification value of the attribute information of the essential description (Figure 13).
PNG
media_image6.png
376
498
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, wherein the description checking step includes additionally checking existence of a mark of functionality information and product information data about ultraviolet protection levels including SPF and PA in the essential description.
When there exists product information data about at least one of the functionality information and information about whether the cosmetic is a sun care product in the attribute information (Figure 9).
PNG
media_image7.png
322
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches a classification value of the attribute information of the essential description includes a brand name, a cosmetic name, a capacity, a manufacturer, a responsible seller, a manufacturing number, and a total ingredient table (Image 11).
Further includes a functionality mark when the cosmetic is functional cosmetics, and further includes an ultraviolet protection level when the cosmetic is a sun care product (Fig. 9b).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches wherein the description suitability determining step includes: a reference information extracting step of extracting reference information about the description suitability by applying the classification value of the attribute information of the essential description to which the product information data belongs to the pre-stored attribute information regulation of the cosmetics and a determining step of determining whether the extracted production information data satisfies each reference information by applying the extracted reference information to each extracted product information data (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the reference information is one of a first reference in which an ingredient name written in a total ingredient table is to be marked when the ingredient name is written in a cosmetic name and a second reference in which there is a keyword corresponding to ingredient information, which corresponds to a functionality mark, in the total ingredient table when there is the keyword indicating the functional cosmetics (Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image8.png
374
488
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches further comprising, after the description checking step: an additional data identifying step of determining whether there exists additional data, which is product information data other than the essential description (Fig. 10-11).
An additional data generating step of generating recommended additional data, which is information about usage, storage, and handling of the cosmetics, as information that is generated using a generation-type artificial intelligence algorithm for the product information data (Fig. 14).
A data recommending step of providing the user account with the additional data and the recommended additional data generated in the additional data generating step so that the user account recognizes information to be added to the design data (Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image9.png
342
474
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
744
524
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches a computer-readable recording medium that stores instructions for enabling a computing device to perform the following steps (Fig. 7, description of embodiments, claim 9)
PNG
media_image11.png
184
484
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
56
834
media_image12.png
Greyscale
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin , in view of Sun et.al. (Chinese Patent CN 111460205 A).
Regarding Claim 9, which is claim 1 except for a different statutory category of an apparatus. Therefore, the rejection rationale of claim 1 is fully incorporated herein. Additionally, Shin teaches an apparatus for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors, the apparatus comprising. For the purpose of prior art consideration, “object recognition” is construed as “optical character recognition” of the package design, object detection unit 844.
Shin fails to teach a data extracting unit that extracts, when design data of packaging paper including a packaging label or packaging box of a cosmetic container is collected from an external terminal, product information data indicating attribute information of cosmetics including at least text information, as information included in the design data.
However, Sun et al. teaches a data extracting unit that extracts, when design data of packaging paper including a packaging label or packaging box of a cosmetic container is collected from an external terminal, product information data indicating attribute information of cosmetics including at least text information, as information included in the design data (Sun et al, Summary Para. 2, line 7-8)
Shin is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors. Sun et al is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably analogous to solving the problem of applying the technique of artificial intelligence by using a high-definition camera equipped with OCR as the inspecting device for preventing labeling errors from occurring in cosmetic labeling.
Sun et al teaches an apparatus for inspecting a cosmetic packaging design based on object recognition and policy, which is implemented by a computing device including one or more processors and one or more memories for storing instructions executable in the processors, the apparatus comprising (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the data extracting unit that extracts, a description checking unit that determines whether there exists essential description of the attribute information of the cosmetics, a description suitability determining unit that determines a description suitability of the product information data based on the product information about essential description and the attribute information regulation, when the essential description exists, and a result providing unit that provides a user account with result data that is generated as a result of performing functions of the description checking unit and the description suitability determining unit of Shin (Claim 9) to incorporate the teachings of Sun et. al by including the high-definition camera transmitting end signal connected to the receiving end of a computing computer, and the computing computer transmitting end signal connect the image processing module and the OCP receiving end…the text cutting module transmitting end signal is connected to the text extraction module receiving end, the transmitting end of the text extraction module is signally connected to the retrieval module (Sun et. al, Summary Para 2, line 7-8). Dependent on the product category for cosmetics, there are different certification marks based on the law, and applying the technique of artificial intelligence and a high-definition camera equipped with OCR as the inspecting device would minimize the damage due to waste and data error by providing instructions that are precisely outlined for a machine to perform the task of labeling and correction without the subjectiveness of the designers. Furthermore, the use of AI software would increase efficiency and accuracy to address the need for mass production (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 October 27, 2025
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668