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 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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) 15 and 20 recite(s) steps of “obtaining”, “determining” and “embedding” is exemplary of the court identified abstract example of a mental process performed in the human mind and executed on paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not improve functioning of a computer or apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are mere instruction to apply the exception and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art Fujian Normal University, CN102622721A discloses
an apparatus, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; one or more processors for executing the instructions to cause the apparatus to: obtain watermark parameters of a target watermark, wherein the watermark parameters include size, thickness, and content of the target watermark (i.e. detecting watermark information, p. 5);
determine multiple target vertices on the surface of a target 3-dimensional (3D) object, wherein the distance between two vertices in the multiple target vertices is greater than a first distance threshold (i.e. for a 3D grid model, determining a number of adjacent vertices and uses a limit to connect vertices – p. 4);
determine candidate boxes on the target 3D object based on the multiple target vertices and the watermark parameters (i.e. using the summit/neighborhood of vertices, the 3D grid model is divided into pieces – p. 11; for watermark embedding – p. 13);
determine one or more target boxes meeting a first condition in the candidate boxes based on the watermark parameters of the target watermark (i.e. confirm normal orientation – p. 4; and determining a neighborhood roughness of the normal vector – p. 5), wherein the first condition includes: the roughness corresponding to the one or more target boxes is lower than a roughness threshold, and each of the one or more target boxes indicates a location of the target watermark; and embed the target watermark to the one or more target boxes on the target 3D object to obtain a watermarked target 3D object (i.e. watermark embedding step – p. 5).
Takashi Maekawa et al, US 2003/1028209 A1, teaches computing direction of lines of curvature for corresponding grid points on differing compared surfaces for use with embedded watermarks.
None of the references, alone or in combination, provide a motivation to teach determine one or more target boxes meeting a first condition in the candidate boxes based on the watermark parameters of the target watermark, wherein the first condition includes: the roughness corresponding to the one or more target boxes is lower than a roughness threshold, and each of the one or more target boxes indicates a location of the target watermark (as recited in claims 1, 15 and 20).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights