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 .
Response to Arguments
Prior Art rejections are withdrawn.
The claim objection, listed as item 5 in the non-final Office action dated 4/20/2026, is withdrawn. The claim objection, listed as item 4 in the non-final Office action dated 4/20/2026, is maintained.
Claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) are withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn. However, note that in view of the amendments to the independent claim 1, in particular the amendments incorporating claim 6, select prior rejections to claim 6 are now applied to the independent claim 1 as described below.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The inclusion of “computer-implemented” amounts to the use of generically recited computer for the performance of the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The use of “autonomously” in amended claim 1 is not supported by the Specification. The Specification does describe “automatic” authentication (see, for example, Paragraphs 18 and 31). However, performing steps autonomously and performing steps automatically are not the same.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, and 13-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites, “autonomously performing grayscale processing on the multiple images and delineating regions corresponding to the target components according to the labels in the multiple images; magnifying the delineated regions of the multiple images; autonomously selecting differential points in the magnified regions and determining shapes and positions of the differential points;”. As described in the Non-Final rejection with regards to claims 6-11, the grayscale processing is vaguely recited and appears to not have any specific recited function for any subsequent steps. As written, the grayscale processing is independent of the delineating, magnifying, etc. For example, are the delineated regions identified and magnified in ‘the multiple images’ or in grayscale processed multiple images? It is unclear as written in the claim, and the Specification is silent on what the grayscale processing involves and how it is used for subsequent steps.
Claims 2, 5, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
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, 2, 5, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of evaluating watch authenticity, without significantly more.
The claim recites, “A computer-implemented method for authenticating a watch against
genuine version of the watch, comprising:
acquiring an authentication signal of the watch;
analyzing the authentication signal of the watch and determining operation information for photographing;
autonomously rotating the watch according to the operation information for photographing to sequentially position the watch at multiple angles relative to a camera;
autonomously triggering photographing by the camera of the watch at each of the multiple angles to generate multiple images of the watch at the multiple angles;
autonomously arranging the multiple images;
autonomously traversing the multiple images and associating labels with target components of the watch in the multiple images;
autonomously performing statistics according to the labels in the multiple images to ensure presentation of all of the target components in the multiple images;
autonomously performing grayscale processing on the multiple images and delineating regions corresponding to the target components according to the labels in the multiple images;
magnifying the delineated regions of the multiple images;
autonomously selecting differential points in the magnified regions and determining shapes and positions of the differential points;
autonomously evaluating at least one of marks, shapes or surfaces related to each of the target components individually according to the shapes and positions of the differential points, and generating defect information, the defect information representing differences in appearance between the watch and the genuine version of the watch;
autonomously outputting an evaluation result of the watch, according to the defect information.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can analyze a signal and determine operation information, traverse images and associate labels with watch components, perform statistics, delineate regions, select differential points and determine their shapes and positions, evaluate marks, shapes, or surfaces, and generate defect information. The photographing of the watch at multiple angles via rotating the watch, arranging of images, grayscale processing, and magnification amount to routine, generic, and well-understood steps. The photographing and acquiring of authentication signal, as well as outputting a result amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection and outputting)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of computer-implementation. This is recited at a level of generality such that it amounts to no more than implementation of the abstract idea using a generic computer. Accordingly, the 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of describing the defect information, which amounts to the mental process of the person identifying particular types of defect information that are readily visible to the human eye. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining if components are missing in images (mental process), and rotating the watch for subsequent imaging (routine, conventional, and well-understood step). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of acquiring magnified regions (data collection, insignificant additional element), going through the images (mental process), inputting the magnified regions into a generically recited learning model (insignificant additional element), and highlighting/outlining points (mental process, or with pen and paper). Note that, as claimed, the learning model is not actually used; the magnified regions are input but there is no claimed output. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining positions (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of evaluating regions (mental process), using a generically recited machine learning model (insignificant additional element), determining the magnified regions where differential points are located, (mental process) and outputting defect information (mental process and extra-solution activity). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of acquiring information (data collection, insignificant additional element) and performing an association (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of arranging images (routine, generic, and well-understood step). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a counterfeit (mental process), storing information (mental process), and using the stored information for comparisons (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 1 (and dependent claims), in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 recites: “A computer-implemented method for authenticating a watch against
genuine version of the watch, comprising:
acquiring an authentication signal of the watch;
analyzing the authentication signal of the watch and determining operation information for photographing;
autonomously rotating the watch according to the operation information for photographing to sequentially position the watch at multiple angles relative to a camera;
autonomously triggering photographing by the camera of the watch at each of the multiple angles to generate multiple images of the watch at the multiple angles;
autonomously arranging the multiple images;
autonomously traversing the multiple images and associating labels with target components of the watch in the multiple images;
autonomously performing statistics according to the labels in the multiple images to ensure presentation of all of the target components in the multiple images;
autonomously performing grayscale processing on the multiple images and delineating regions corresponding to the target components according to the labels in the multiple images;
magnifying the delineated regions of the multiple images;
autonomously selecting differential points in the magnified regions and determining shapes and positions of the differential points;
autonomously evaluating at least one of marks, shapes or surfaces related to each of the target components individually according to the shapes and positions of the differential points, and generating defect information, the defect information representing differences in appearance between the watch and the genuine version of the watch;
autonomously outputting an evaluation result of the watch, according to the defect information.”
Tang discloses a method for watch authentication wherein a plurality of watch images are compared to reference images of authenticated watches by extracting features and determining similarity between images. Knowles teaches watch authentication wherein scale-invariant features are extracted from a watch image, and motion curve is extracted based on a video of the watch. Callegari teaches product authentication by comparing an image of a product with a reference image of a genuine product. Miyamoto discloses a method for identifying an object according to registered objects in a database by capturing a plurality of images of the object from various angles. However, none of these references disclose the bolded elements above. These elements outline a specific chain of operations that are not disclosed in the references and would not have been obvious to incorporate.
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 AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights