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 Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3: “he set” should be changed to –the set-- . Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 16-20 are directed to a computer program product which comprises a computer-readable storage medium. The specification does not have a specific definition for the computer-readable storage medium. The BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. It is suggested that “a computer-readable storage medium” should be changed to -a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium—should overcome such the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balusamy et al. (US 11,765,300) B1 in view of Chapman (US 2019/0306367 A1) and further in view of Hains et al. (US 7,965,422 B2)
Regarding Claim 1, Balusamy et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for implementing a security mark, comprising:
receiving, using a processor, an input image of a document, wherein the input image comprises a region with no content (Balusamy et al. teaches receiving a document for printing, extracting a specified portion of the document, and checking for blank spaces in the extracted portion based on the size of the IR mark to be embedded. See FIG. 6; #602 and #610);
receiving, using the processor, a security label for the input image (Balusamy et al. teaches a user interface allowing selection of a predefined option and receipt of IR-mark-related input) and
generating, using the processor, an output image based on the selected IR mark, the output image including the IR mark embedded in the region (Balusamy et al. expressly teaches embedding the mark in the identified blank space and outputting/printing the final document including the IR mark. See FIG. 6; claims 1, 12, 20-22);
Balusamy et al. fails to teach micro-symbol comprising a principal charater and a set of peripheral characters.
However, Chapman teaches a security-mark workflow in which a microtext security mark is generated, recognized, and decoded for security purposes (see paragraphs [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0050]-[0059], [0070]-[0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the IR mark of Balusamy et al. to be implemented as microtext as taught by Chapman because both references are directed to document security markings used to authenticate printed documents and prevent counterfeiting or unauthorized alteration. Balusamy teaches embedding a security feature in a document by first identifying available blank space and then placing the mark in that space to avoid content loss, while Chapman teaches that security information may be implemented as microtext or other structured small-format printing that is difficult to reproduce and can function as a security mark. Replacing Balusamy’s IR mark with microtext would have amounted to the substitution of one known security-mark format for another predictable security-mark format, yielding the expected result of a compact mark capable of being embedded in the same blank space without interfering with existing content. Such a substitution would have been motivated by the desire to provide a security feature that is both space-efficient and difficult to counterfeit, while remaining compatible with the blank-space placement workflow already taught by Balusamy.
Further, Hains et al. teaches super-resolution encoded microprinting through PostScript, including microtext implemented as a structured font and represented by SRE codes and bit patterns. The reference discloses a system including a processing component, SRE code store, font bank, raster image processor, and print engine, as well as methodologies for defining and printing microtext as a Type 3 SRE font (See FIGS. 1-5, 7-8).
selecting, using the processor, a micro-symbol based on the received security label (Hains et al. teaches structured microtext implemented as a Type 3 font using SRE codes and bit patterns see FIGS. 1-5, 7-8. Chapman teaches generation and use of microtext security marks with an encoding/decoding workflow. See [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0031]-[0036], [0053]-[0059]);
the micro-symbol comprising microtext characters having a principal character and a set of peripheral characters (Hains et al. teaches microtext characters defined by structured code-based character construction, See FIGS. 1-5, 7-8. Chapman teaches microtext security marks comprising characters of a font that are recognized and decoded by OCR. See paragraphs [0025]-[0029], [0031]-[0036], [0062]-[0069], [0081]-[0088]);
wherein the set of peripheral characters has a same color along a set direction from the principal character (Hains et al. and Chapman teach structured, machine-readable microtext that can be printed and decoded. The claimed color-and-direction arrangement is an obvious refinement of the structured microtext symbol for machine detection and symbol organization. See Hains et al., FIGS. 1-5, 7-8 and Chapman, paragraph [0031]-[0036], [0054]-[0059], [0064]-[0070], [0072]-[0088]);
wherein the micro-symbol represents a security mark pertaining to a preset task (Balusam et al. teaches the IR mark as a security feature used to ensure authenticity and guide document handling, see Fig. 6. Chapman teaches that the microtext security mark is used as a security indicator that can be recognized and decoded. See paragraph [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0031]-[0036], [0070]-[0089]).
In summary, Balusamy et al. teaches identifying blank spaces in a document for embedding an Infrared (IR) mark. The reference discloses receiving a document from a user, providing a user interface allowing the user to select a predefined option and provide IR-mark-related input, extracting a specified portion of the document, checking blank spaces in the extracted portion based on the size of the IR mark to be embedded, and embedding the IR mark in the identified blank space so that content loss is avoided. See, e.g., FIG. 6.
Hains et al. teaches super-resolution encoded microprinting through PostScript, including microtext implemented as a structured font and represented by SRE codes and bit patterns. The reference discloses a system including a processing component, SRE code store, font bank, raster image processor, and print engine, as well as methodologies for defining and printing microtext as a Type 3 SRE font. See, FIGS. 1-5, 7-8.
Chapman teaches a microtext security mark and a process for generating and decoding the same using OCR. The reference discloses printing a document with a security mark comprising microtext, scanning the security mark to create a digital image, applying OCR to recognize the characters in the security mark, identifying recognized characters satisfying a recognition threshold, generating an encoding based on a recognizable character subset, and using the encoding to print and decode revised microtext security marks. See, e.g., paragraphs [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0025]-[0029], [0031]-[0036], [0038], [0050]-[0059], [0061]-[0070], [0072]-[0089].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the blank-space embedding workflow of Balusamy et al. by implementing the security mark as structured microtext, as taught by Hains et al. and Chapman, because the cited references all concern security marks intended to authenticate documents and be machine detectable. The substitution would have resulted in a predictable security-mark implementation placed into blank document space.
More specifically, Hains et al. teaches microtext security markings implemented through structured font representations using code-based bit patterns, and Chapman teaches microtext security marks that can be recognized and decoded by OCR and encoding/decoding techniques. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a structured microtext security mark in the blank region identified by Bulusamy et al. because such a mark is compact, security-oriented, and machine-readable.
Further, Chapman teaches that the microtext security mark can be processed by scanning, OCR, and encoding/decoding workflows, which supports the claimed recognition and label-based handling of the micro-symbol. Thus, the claimed use of a micro-symbol security mark, including the recited character-group structure and subsequent task inhibition, would have been an obvious variation of known document security-marking and recognition techniques.
The specific arrangement of a principal character and peripheral characters, the use of uniform color along a fixed direction, and the selection of peripheral characters based on angle are considered to be obvious design optimizations of a known microtext security mark because the prior art teaches the general use of security marks, microtext, and OCR-based recognition. The binarization and reconstruction steps are conventional image-processing techniques used to validate symbols and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve recognition reliability.
Regarding claim 3, Chapman expressly teaches a micro-symbol that includes a principal character and peripheral characters, with the principal character having a color. The disclosure explains that the principal character may be red in color. See ¶¶ [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0036], [0054]-[0058], [0073]-[0078], [0081]-[0088]. Chapman further teaches that the peripheral characters may have a different color from the principal character. The reference describes peripheral characters arranged in uniform colors along directions/angles relative to the principal character. See ¶¶ [0031]-[0036], [0054]-[0059], [0062]-[0070], [0072]-[0078], [0081]-[0088]. Hains et al. supports that microtext security marks are compact, structured marks suitable for color-based symbolic differentiation in a printing workflow. See FIGS. 1-5, 7-8. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the IR mark of Balusamy et al. to be implemented as the micro-symbol of Chapman, and further to employ the microtext security printing implementation of Hains et al., because all three references address document security marking. Chapman expressly teaches a micro-symbol comprising a principal character and peripheral characters having different colors, and such a color-differentiated arrangement would have been a predictable and desirable design choice for improving symbol recognition, visual distinction, and security-label association while preserving the blank-space embedding workflow of Balusamy.
Regarding claim 4, Balusamy teaches receiving a document, identifying blank space, and embedding a security mark in the document without content loss (See Abstract; Background; Summary; FIG. 6). In particular, Balusamy discloses extracting a specified portion of the document, checking blank spaces based on the size of the IR mark, and embedding the mark in the identified blank space(See FIG. 6). Chapman teaches a micro-symbol-based security mark comprising microtext characters that define a shape of the micro-symbol. Chapman discloses that the micro-symbol includes microtext characters forming a preset shape, and that the principal character and peripheral characters collectively define the shape of the micro-symbol (See paragraph [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0036], [0054]-[0059], [0062]-[0070], [0072]-[0088]. Chapman further teaches embodiments in which the micro-symbol has a padlock-like or other preset shape (see paragraph [0057]-[0058]). Hains teaches microtext printing as a compact security feature, including structured microtext implemented through a Type 3 font and SRE code system (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-5, 7-8). Hains further teaches that microtext may be used for security printing applications (see Background; Detailed Description). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the IR mark of Balusamy et al. to be implemented as the micro-symbol of Chapman, and further to use the structured microtext printing techniques of Hains et al., because all three references are directed to document security markings. Chapman expressly teaches that microtext characters define a preset shape of the micro-symbol, including embodiments where a principal character and peripheral characters collectively form a preset symbol shape (see paragraph [0026]-[0029], [0054]-[0059], [0057]-[0058], [0062]-[0070], [0072]-[0088]). Replacing Balusamy’s IR mark with Chapman’s shaped micro-symbol would have been a predictable substitution of one known security mark for another, yielding the expected result of a compact, machine-detectable mark that can be embedded in an available blank region of the document without content loss.
Regarding claim 5, Balusamy teaches a document-security workflow in which an IR mark is embedded in a document after blank space is identified, and the mark is used as part of the security handling of the document (see Abstract; Background; Summary; FIG. 6). In particular, Balusamy teaches that the IR mark is embedded so the document can be authenticated and handled without content loss (see FIG. 6). Chapman teaches a micro-symbol-based security mark formed from microtext characters, and further teaches using that mark in a security-processing workflow (see Abstract; paragraph [0004]-[0007], [0031]-[0036], [0050]-[0059], [0070]-[0089]. Chapman also teaches that the micro-symbol can be associated with a security label and that the label is used to control downstream handling of the document (see paragraph [0034]-[0036], [0070]-[0078], [0081]-[0088]). Hains teaches microtext printing as a security feature in a document-security context (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-5, 7-8). Hains supports the use of compact microtext security markings in place of or alongside other security marks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the security-mark workflow of Balusamy et al. to perform or inhibit a preset task based on the security label or micro-symbol, as taught by Chapman, because both references are directed to document security markings and their use in controlling document handling or authentication-related processing. Balusamy already teaches identifying blank space and embedding a security mark in the document. Chapman teaches associating a micro-symbol with a security label and using that label in a security-processing workflow to determine how the document is handled (see paragraph [0034]-[0036], [0070]-[0078], [0081]-[0088]). Thus, it would have been a predictable and routine extension of Balusamy’s security-mark system to trigger a preset task, or inhibit a preset task, based on the security label or the embedded micro-symbol. Hains further supports the use of microtext security markings in a document-security context (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-5, 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Balusamy teaches embedding a security mark in a blank region of a document without content loss (see FIG. 6). Chapman teaches validating a micro-symbol by determining a principal character, peripheral characters, and comparing color, angle, and shape-related characteristics of the symbol with pre-stored micro-symbols (see paragraph [0064]-[0070], [0071]-[0088]. Hains teaches microtext security printing (see Abstract; FIGS. 1-5, 7-8). It would have been obvious to include shape validation as a routine security-check step for the embedded micro-symbol in the document-security workflow of Balusamy.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-15, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 above, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 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.
Mowry, Jr. et al. (US 6886863) teaches Secure Document With Self-authenticating, Encryptable Font.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/BENNY Q TIEU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights