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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (i.e., a descriptive title that distinguishes the invention and is not a generic or general description). The new title should take into account any amendments to the claims to best indicate the claimed invention.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite “selecting”, “extracting”, and “determining” steps which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 recite “determining” and “comparing” steps in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “determined” step in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, claim 3 recites “performing a…calculation” which falls under the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recite “determining” steps in addition to the steps of claims 1 and 2 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6 inherits the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recite “extracting”, “selected”, and “selecting” steps in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recite “determining” steps in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 inherits the steps of claims 1 and 8 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10 inherits the steps of claims 1,8, and 9 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites “determining” step in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13 inherits the steps of claims 1 and 12 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14 inherits the steps of claims 1, 12, and 13 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “dividing” step in addition to the steps of claim 1 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 16 inherits the steps of claims 1 and 15 which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Such actions fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above. Therefore, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 17-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1-3 thus, arguments presented above are equally applicable to claims 17-20. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above while the recited “processor” and “device” are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The “storing” were considered insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and amount to obtaining information so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Therefore, claims 17-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 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.
Ma et al. (US 2019/0164313) teaches methods for detecting objects within digital image analysis of the digital image data including a pre-analysis step in which the digital image data are analyzed to determine whether a source of the digital image data (e.g. scanner/MFP/camera/etc.) can be determined.
Yang et al. (A Survey of Deep Learning-Based Source Image Forensics) teaches algorithms that deal with the problem of image source forensics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights