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 § 112
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 1-20 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, the limitations “the length of each of the set of D1 segments being a different D1 random number and within the range threshold” and “the length of each of the set of D2 segments being a different D2 random number and within the range threshold” render the claim indefinite.
It is unclear and confusing because these limitations recite that each of the D1 and D2 segments has a random length, however, also recites restraints to said lengths (i.e., non-random). The use of the word random appears to be misleading, failing to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Please amend the claim for clarification. Similar reasons apply to claims 10 and 17 that recite similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “setting a first segment of the set of D1 segments to be a first particular D1 length” and “setting a second segment of the set of D2 segments to be a second particular D2 length” render the claim indefinite.
It is unclear and confusing because these limitations restrain the first particular D1 and the second particular D2 length to be of particular lengths (i.e., assigned in a non-random manner), while the limitations of claim 1 recite that the D1 segments and D2 segments have random lengths. The use of the word random appears to be misleading, failing to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Please amend the claim for clarification. Similar reasons apply to claims 11 and 18 that recite similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “merging two or more adjacent sub-images” renders the claim indefinite.
It is unclear and confusing when the claimed “merging” is performed with respect to the steps of claim 1. For example, is the “merging” performed before or after “re-arranging” of claim 1?
- If the “merging” is performed before “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 4 to include “wherein the re-arranging comprises re-arranging the larger sub-image randomly in both the first dimension and the second dimension” or equivalent. It is further noted that the applicant’s specification does not disclose how to “re-arrange” a single larger sub-image.
- If the “merging” is performed after “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 4 to include “merging two or more adjacent re-arranged sub-images into a larger sub-image” or equivalent.
Similar reasons apply to claim 12 that recites similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “dividing the two-dimensional image into one or more regions” and “moving sub-images of the set of sub-images based at least in part on an arrangement configuration” render the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
i) Claim 1 recites partitioning the two-dimensional image into a set of sub-images. Is the “dividing” of claim 5 equivalent to such partition of claim 1, or in addition to the partition of claim 1? Please amend the claim for clarification.
ii) Claim 1 recites re-arranging of the sub-images. Is the “moving sub-images” of claim 5 equivalent to such re-arrangement of claim 1, or in addition to the re-arrangement of claim 1? Please amend the claim for clarification.
iii) It is unclear and confusing when the claimed “moving” is performed with respect to the steps of claim 1. For example, is the “moving” performed before or after “re-arranging” of claim 1?
- If the “moving” is performed before “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 5 to include “wherein the re-arranging comprises re-arranging the moved sub-images randomly in both the first dimension and the second dimension” or equivalent.
- If the “moving” is performed after “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 5 to include “moving sub-images of the re-arranged set of sub-images based at least in part on an arrangement configuration”.
Similar reasons apply to claims 13 and 19 that recite similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the arrangement configuration is a higher probability of partitioning more objects” and “smaller sub-images” renders the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
iv) It is unclear and confusing whether partitioning of objects is actually performed as part of the claimed invention. It is noted that claim 1 recites partitioning the two-dimensional image into sub-images of random sizes, and claim 5 recites dividing the two-dimensional image (i.e., not according to objects), however, no partitioning of objects has been recited.
v) It is unclear and confusing what “higher probability”, “more objects”, and “smaller sub-images” are each relative to.
Similar reasons apply to claims 14 and 19.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “the arrangement configuration is a higher probability of having one sub-image covering more objects” and “smaller sub-images”, and “the first region” render the claim indefinite.
vi) The limitation “the first region” lacks antecedent basis.
vii) It is unclear and confusing what “higher probability”, “more objects”, and “larger sub-images” are each relative to.
Similar reasons apply to claim 15.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “editing a sub-image of the set of sub-image” renders the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
viii) The limitation “the set of sub-image” appears to be a typographical error. Please amend to include “the set of sub-images”.
ix) It is unclear and confusing when the claimed “editing” is performed with respect to the steps of claim 1. For example, is the “editing” performed before or after “re-arranging” of claim 1?
- If the “editing” is performed before “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 8 to include “wherein the re-arranging comprises re-arranging the set of sub-images and the edited sub-image randomly in both the first dimension and the second dimension” or equivalent.
- If the “editing” is performed after “re-arranging”, please further amend claim 8 to further include “editing a sub-image of the re-arranged set of sub-images to change the one or more characteristics of the two-dimensional image” or equivalent.
Similar reasons apply to claims 16 and 20 that recite similar subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “characteristics of the two-dimensional image comprise memorability of the two-dimensional image” renders the claim indefinite, particularly in view of claim 8.
It is unclear and confusing what steps are included in “editing a sub-image of the set of sub-image to change one or more characteristics [that is the memorability] of the two-dimensional image”. For example, is the memorability of the two-dimensional image actually measured before and after the “editing” to ensure a change has been made, according to the averaging method described in the applicant’s specification para [32]? It is noted further that, “memorability” appears to be a constantly changing value regardless of any “editing”, since it is a measure of subjective memory capability of human viewers. Please amend the claim for clarification.
Similar reasons apply to claims 16 and 20 that recite similar subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rodriguez Bravo et al. (US 2025/0225224).
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez Bravo discloses:
receiving, by a computing system, a two-dimensional image comprising a first dimension, a second dimension, and one or more objects (see para [1], a computer; and see [48] and fig 5, receiving a challenge image 500 with a vertical dimension, a horizontal dimension, and multiple objects);
receiving, by the computing system, a range threshold for each sub-image, the range threshold comprising a lower boundary and an upper boundary of number of pixels (see para [1], a computer; and see [48], receiving an obfuscation technique that randomly partitions the challenge image into challenge image partitions 550, wherein each challenge image partition is inherently limited in size by a lower boundary (i.e., 1 pixel) to an upper boundary (i.e., total number of pixels));
partitioning, by the computing system, the first dimension of the image into a set of first-dimension (D1) segments, the length of each of the set of D1 segments being a different D1 random number and within the range threshold (see para [1], a computer; and see [48], [54], and fig 5, randomly partitioning the vertical dimension of the challenge image into vertical segments of different sizes and within the size limitations);
partitioning, by the computing system, the second dimension of the two-dimensional image into a set of second-dimension (D2) segments, the length of each of the set of D2 segments being a different D2 random number and within the range threshold (see para [1], a computer; and see [48], [54], and fig 5, randomly partitioning the horizontal dimension of the challenge image into horizontal segments of different sizes and within the size limitations);
creating, by the computing system, a set of sub-images from the images by combining the set of D1 segments and the set of D2 segments in one-to-one correspondence (see para [1], a computer; and see fig 5, the partitioned vertical and horizontal segments are combined in a one-to-one manner to form the challenge image partitions 550); and
re-arranging, by the computing system, the set of sub-images randomly in both the first dimension and the second dimension (see para [1], a computer; and see [48], [67], and fig 4, re-arranging the challenge image partitions 550 to be placed randomly on a virtual canvas 308 for display).
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses: wherein partitioning the two-dimensional image further comprises:
setting a first segment of the set of D1 segments to be a first particular D1 length; partitioning the first dimension using the remaining D1 segments, wherein each of the remaining D1 segments has a different D1 random number (see [48] and [54], the horizontal segments have varying random sizes);
setting a second segment of the set of D2 segments to be a second particular D2 length; and partitioning the second dimension using the remaining D2 segments, wherein each of the remaining D2 segments has a different D2 random number (see [48] and [54], the vertical segments have varying random sizes).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses: creating a first sub-image having a width of the first particular D1 length and a height of the second particular D2 length, wherein the first sub-image overlaps at least a first object of the one or more objects in the two-dimensional image (see fig 5, the horizontal and vertical segments form length and height of the challenge image partitions, wherein each challenge image partition at least overlaps in objects with challenge image).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez Bravo further disclose: merging two or more adjacent sub-images into a larger sub-image, wherein the larger sub-image has width and height each within the range threshold (see [51], a user merging the challenge image partitions during a challenge response test).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses: moving sub-images of the set of sub-images based at least in part on an arrangement configuration (see [48], [67], and fig 4, the challenge image partitions are re-arranged based on a configuration of the virtual canvas for display).
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses:
the arrangement configuration is a higher probability of partitioning more objects (see fig 5, the challenge image partitions include many objects), and
moving sub-images of the set of sub-images comprises moving smaller sub-images of the set of sub-images closer to the first region (see [51], a user moving the challenge image partitions, which may be closer to a particular region).
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses:
the arrangement configuration is a higher probability of having one sub-image covering more objects (see fig 5, one of the challenge image partitions may include the most number of objects), and
moving sub-images of the set of sub-images comprises moving larger sub-images of the set of sub-images closer to the first region (see [51], a user moving the challenge image partitions, which may be closer to a particular region).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses: editing a sub-image of the set of sub-image to change one or more characteristics of the two-dimensional image (see [27], performing other obfuscation techniques to further edit the challenge image, thereby, inherently editing its challenge image partitions).
Regarding claim 9, Rodriguez Bravo further discloses: wherein the one or more characteristics of the two-dimensional image comprise memorability of the two-dimensional image (see rejection of claim 8, the edited challenge image would inherently change memorability of the challenge image, as different images cause different memorability to viewers).
Regarding claims 10-20, Rodriguez Bravo discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claims 1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kondo et al. (US 7,519,199), Miksovsky et al. (US 7,689,064), and Alamuri et al. (US 9,600,678) each discloses re-arranging image segments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, EMILY TERRELL can be reached at 571-270-3717. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights