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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an image” in line 8 should read “an original image” and “an original image” in line 10 should read “the original image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tan” in line 4 should read “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 26, 28, 29 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No.11037284. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1-2, 26, 28, 29 and 33 are obvious in view of the allowed claims 1-2 and 8-10 of the US11037284.
Appl # 18964809 US11037284
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1+2
Claim 26
Claim 8
Claim 28
Claim 8
Claim 29
Claim 8+9+10
Claim 33
Claim 8+9+10
Claims 1-2, 26-29, 31 and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 8-10 of U.S. Patent No.11544835. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1-2, 26-29, 31 and 33 are obvious in view of the allowed claims 1-2 and 8-10 of the US11544835.
Appl # 18964809 US11544835
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1+2
Claim 26
Claim 8
Claim 27
Claim 8+9
Claim 28
Claim 8+9
Claim 29
Claim 8+9
Claim 31
Claim 33
Claim 8+9
Claim 8+10
Claims 1-7 and 23-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No.12159442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1-7 and 23-34 are obvious in view of the allowed claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 and 12-16 of the US12159442.
Appl # 18964809 US12159442
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 1+2
Claim 4
Claim 1+2
Claim 5
Claim 1+2+3
Claim 6
Claim 1+2+5
Claim 7
Claim 1+2+6
Claim 23
Claim 1+2+3
Claim 24
Claim 1+2+8
Claim 25
Claim 1
Claim 26
Claim 9
Claim 27
Claim 9
Claim 28
Claim 9
Claim 29
Claim 9+10+11
Claim 30
Claim 9+10+12
Claim 31
Claim 9+10+13
Claim 32
Claim 9+10+15
Claim 33
Claim 9+10+15
Claim 34
Claim 9+10+16
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.
Claim 26 is 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. Claim 26 recites “an image” in line 2. Claim 26 also recites “an image in line 4 “an image”. Claim 26 further recites in line 4 “the original image”. It is unclear as to of the recitals of “an image” in lines 2 and 4, the recital of “the original image” in line 4 refers to? Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 27-34 depending on claim 26 are also rejected.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the original image" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 27-34 depending on claim 26 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL1 (Detection of second-generation images using an assessment criteria method, Glenn Porter et al., JOCRPP, 2015, Pages 207-222) hereafter NPL1.
1. Regarding claim 26, NPL1 discloses a method (pages 207-208, 211-212, 219 Introduction, fig 1, fig 8, Table I & II discloses a method for detecting image recapture) for detecting image recapture, the method comprising:
extracting one or more features from an image captured by an image capture sensor (fig 1 and table I “criterion” shows and discloses extracting/detecting one or more features (i.e display edge, flare, reflection, unnatural barrel distortion, foreign objects visible on the surface of the image, fingerprints visible on the surface of the captured image etc) from an image captured by an image capture sensor (camera) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of one or more only one is required to be met); and
generating a probability that an image is a recapture of the original image based on the extract one or more features and an analysis of metadata of the image (pages 207-208, 211-212 and 219 disclose “A key contribution of this study was the establishment and articulation of a series of criteria consisting of various visual and metadata artefacts (i.e features from the image and analysis of metadata) useful for aiding image examination. In the context of fraud investigation, the question of image authenticity is something that requires consideration on a case-by-case basis. Under the experimental conditions of this investigation, all image samples examined (n=67) were found to contain at least one artefact indicative of the copying process. The results of this study support the view that the probability of a rephotographed image using a mobile phone camera not containing any second-generation artefacts is unlikely. This suggests that the absence of any artefacts may well indicate that the questioned image is an original).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 in view of NPL1 (single reference 103 as the claimed limitations “a hardware processor to execute encoded instructions to perform operations and one or more sensors “i.e the GPS sensor as disclosed in Table II” would be obvious in view of “mobile phone camera and computational disclosed on pages 219- 220” and the GPS sensor as disclosed in Table II).
2. Regarding claim 1, NPL1 discloses a system for (fig 1 shows and discloses a system) detecting image recapture, the system comprising:
a hardware processor; and a system encoded with instructions executable by the hardware processor to perform (examiner notes that “a hardware processor to execute encoded instructions to perform operations would be obvious in view of “mobile phone camera and computational” disclosed on pages 219- 220”,”The results of this study do, however, provide some insights into the likelihood of originality when captured by a mobile phone camera. If artefacts are detected and the examiner is confident that the findings are indicative of the photographic reproduction process, then a conclusion can be drawn that the questioned image is of second-generation. Future efforts towards a more comprehensive and systemized approach to the forensic task of authenticating images may lead to the integration of computational-based examination methods to further bolster investigative efforts particularly in circumstances where the criteria fails to detect any signs of copying.)”;
an image capture sensor (fig 1 shows the camera meeting the limitations of an image capture sensor);
one or more other sensors (“i.e the GPS sensor as disclosed in Table II” and GPS data on page 209 would obviously meet the limitations of one or more other sensors, examiner notes that the specifics of one or more other sensors are not required by the claim); operations comprising:
extracting one or more features from an image captured by the image capture sensor (fig 1 and table I “criterion” shows and discloses extracting/detecting one or more features (i.e display edge, flare, reflection, unnatural barrel distortion, foreign objects visible on the surface of the image, fingerprints visible on the surface of the captured image etc) from an image captured by an image capture sensor (camera) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of one or more only one is required to be met); and
generating a probability that an image is a recapture of an original image based on the extracted one or more features and an analysis of metadata of the image (pages 207-208, 211-212 and 219 disclose “A key contribution of this study was the establishment and articulation of a series of criteria consisting of various visual and metadata artefacts (i.e features from the image and analysis of metadata) useful for aiding image examination. In the context of fraud investigation, the question of image authenticity is something that requires consideration on a case-by-case basis. Under the experimental conditions of this investigation, all image samples examined (n=67) were found to contain at least one artefact indicative of the copying process. The results of this study support the view that the probability of a rephotographed image using a mobile phone camera not containing any second-generation artefacts is unlikely. This suggests that the absence of any artefacts may well indicate that the questioned image is an original). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, a hardware processor and one or more other sensors would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the disclosure of NPL1. The suggestion/motivation would be an accurate (i.e 100% detection see “Results” section) on page 212 and a convenient process/system on page 209.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights