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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 28, 2025 has been entered.
REMARKS
On pages 8-12, Applicant argues “the claims enable Task(s) using a reduced amount of data, thereby improve technical functioning.” Applicant cites paragraphs [0004] which describes the Technical Problem and asserts the steps of “a step of dividing the target data into a plurality of sampling ranges; a step of obtaining, for each of the sampling ranges, an average value of at least one data element among one or more types of data element included in each of the sampling ranges, each data element being represented by a numerical value; a step of obtaining, for each of the sampling ranges, a relative difference calculated by dividing an average value of each of the sampling ranges by a sum of average values of the sampling ranges; a step of generating a code corresponding to the target data by concatenating, as character string data, the relative differences of the respective sampling ranges or numerals of a predetermined number of digits from a top digit of the relative differences” accomplishes the objective described in paragraph [0004]. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the pointed to steps are merely mathematical operations wherein the results from the operations are used in task(s) performed by mental process such as “a step of authenticating a face by associating the generated code with identification information, a step of recognizing a space by comparing at least part of the generated code to at least part of a second code generated from an image, a step of determining a direction of an object by using at least part of the generated code to determine: (i) an upper portion of the object, and (ii) a lower portion of the object, a step of recognizing an object by comparing at least part of the generated code to data generated by an edge detection technique, a step of inspecting an industrial product by comparing at least part of the generated code to reference inspection code, a step of detecting a defect by determining that at least part of the generated code does not match reference matching code, or a step of obtaining a shape and/or area of the object by determining a matching rate between the generated code and reference shape/area code.” Claim 2 recites steps performed by mathematical operations and the results from such operations are utilized in tasks performed by a mental process. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible.
Applicant points to paragraph [0056] to support the improvement because the claimed system “improves technical functioning at least because it enables accomplishment of these tasks using a smaller amount of data.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the pointed to paragraph [0056] is directed to an intend outcome. Claim 2 recites steps performed by mathematical operations and the results from such operations are utilized in tasks performed by a mental process. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible.
Applicant argues claim 2 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because 2laim 2 recites steps performed by mathematical operations and the results from such operations are utilized in tasks performed by a mental process. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible.
Applicant argues this improved technical functioning shows subject matter eligibility at Step 2B of the analysis as well. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because 2laim 2 recites steps performed by mathematical operations and the results from such operations are utilized in tasks performed by a mental process. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible.
Lastly, Applicant argues claim 2 improves technical functioning by compressing data. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2 should be found to be subject matter eligible at Step 2B of the analysis as well. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because 2laim 2 recites steps performed by mathematical operations and the results from such operations are utilized in tasks performed by a mental process. Therefore, the claims remain ineligible.
PENDING MATTERS
Claim 1, 6, and 8 are cancelled.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, and 10-17, filed August 28, 2025, are examined on the merits.
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 2-5, 7, 9, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) a code generation method and a device which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Mathematical Calculations
Claim 2 recites steps of dividing the target data, obtaining…an average value, obtaining a relative difference, and step of generating a code are directed to either mathematical relationships, e.g. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, or mathematical calculations, e.g. a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. The claim when given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is considered to be within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Mental Process
The limitations of “at least one of: “a step of authenticating a face by associating the generated code with identification information,
a step of recognizing a space by comparing at least part of the generated code to at least part of a second code generated from an image,
a step of determining a direction of an object by using at least part of the generated code to determine: (i) an upper portion of the object, and (ii) a lower portion of the object,
a step of recognizing an object by comparing at least part of the generated code to data generated by an edge detection technique,
a step of inspecting an industrial product by comparing at least part of the generated code to reference inspection code, a step of detecting a defect by determining that at least part of the generated code does not match reference matching code, or a step of obtaining a shape and/or area of the object by determining a matching rate between the generated code and reference shape/area code” are recited at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. The limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”)
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a “computer readable medium” and “device”. However, the broad generality of the additional elements of “computer readable medium” and “device” do not preclude the claims from embodying "mathematical concepts" or “mental process“ grouping.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a “computer readable medium” and “device”. However, the broad generality of the additional elements of “computer readable medium” and “device” do not preclude the claims from embodying "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 3 recites generating a database in which the code and additional data related to the target data are associated with each other. The additional elements do not preclude the interpretation of "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Claim 4 recites the target data includes still image data, moving image data, or sound data. The additional elements do not preclude the interpretation of "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Claim 5 recites the code is represented by character string data in hexadecimal. The additional elements do not preclude the interpretation of "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Claim 10 recites the data collation method comprising: a step of acquiring, by the method, a reference code that is the code obtained according to reference data as the target data; a step of generating, by the method, a specific target code that is the code corresponding to specific target data as the target data; and a step of comparing the reference code and the specific target code to determine a match/mismatch between the reference code and the specific target code. The additional steps do not preclude the interpretation of "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Claims 7 and 9 recites the same steps as claim 2. Therefore, claims 7 and 9 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 11 recites including the step of authenticating the face by associating the generated code with the identification information. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 12 recites including the step of recognizing the space by comparing the at least part of the generated code to the at least part of the second code generated from an image. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 13 recites including the step of determining the direction of the object by using the at least part of the generated code to determine: (i) the upper portion of the object, and (ii) the lower portion of the object. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 14 recites including the step of recognizing the object by comparing the at least part of the generated code to the data generated by the edge detection technique. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 15 recites including the step of inspecting the industrial product by comparing the at least part of the generated code to reference inspection code. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 16 recites including the step of detecting the defect by determining that the at least part of the generated code does not match the reference matching code. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
Claim 17 recites including the step of obtaining the shape and/or area of the object by determining the matching rate between the generated code and the reference shape/area code. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 2. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, supra.
PERTINENT PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhattacharjee (Compression Tolerant Image Authentication, 1998) discloses A string of digits is constructed by concatenating the column- and row-positions of these points. This series is encrypted using private key encryption, to generate the image signature (see Section 2) (page 437).
CONCLUSION
The limitation of “a step of obtaining, for each of the sampling ranges, a relative difference calculated by dividing an average value of each of the sampling ranges by a sum of average values of the sampling ranges; and a step of generating a code corresponding to the target data by concatenating, as character string data, the relative differences of the respective sampling ranges or numerals of a predetermined number of digits from a top digit of the relative differences” is free of any prior art.
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.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
9/30/2025