DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment dated 1/24/2025 has been entered and made of record. The Applicant has canceled claims 1-31. The Applicant has included newly added claims 32-59. The application has pending claims 32-59.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 32, 42, 48, 52, and 57-58 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 at line 10: “aperture in the candidate” should be -- aperture impression in the candidate --.
Claim 42 at line 3: “comprising a scratch” should be -- comprising the scratch --.
Claim 48 at line 4: “having the largest” should be -- having a largest --.
Claim 52 at line 2: “the first rotation angle or the second” should be -- the selected first rotation angle or the selected second --.
Claim 57 at line 3: “rotating the image” should be -- rotating the candidate image --.
Claim 58 at line 15: “rectangular/elliptical” should be -- rectangular or elliptical --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 32-35 and 37-59 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.
Re Claim 58 at line last three lines: The claim limitation “rotating the candidate image by the rotation angle comprising either the selected first rotation angle or the second rotation angle to produce a rotated candidate image” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear why the third and fourth rotation angles are not included in this recited limitation as well since the rotation angle includes one of the four rotation angles as recited in the body of the claim.
Re Claims 32, 58, and 59: The recited selecting a first rotation angle and selecting a second rotation angle [and similarly selecting a third rotation angle and selecting a fourth rotation angle] renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear why the different selections need to be made if the rotation angles were not different. Therefore the Examiner suggests incorporating claim 36’s clarifying limitation which remedies the indefiniteness to each of the independent claims.
Claims 33-35 and 37-57 are dependent upon claim 32 respectively.
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 32-33, 35-54, and 56-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 32 and similarly the non-transitory computer-readable medium of independent claim 58 and the system of independent claim 59 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claim passes Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1 analysis
The independent claims are directed to “determining, for the candidate image, a rotation angle …, wherein the determining comprises: identifying …; in response … selecting a first rotation angle … in response … selecting a second rotation angle …; rotating the candidate image by the rotation angle …”.
The above limitations of “determining, for the candidate image, a rotation angle …, wherein the determining comprises: identifying …; in response … selecting a first rotation angle … in response … selecting a second rotation angle …; rotating the candidate image by the rotation angle …” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the human mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in independent claim 32 are the elements of a “computer-implemented” and the additional elements recited in independent claim 58 are the elements of a “non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers” and the additional elements recited in independent claim 59 are the elements of “one or more computers and one or more storage devices”. The independent claims also include the additional elements of “obtaining a candidate image …” and “providing the rotated candidate image”.
Step 2A, prong 2 analysis
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps “obtaining a candidate image …” and “providing the rotated candidate image” merely constitutes activity involving data gathering and data outputting. Such extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please see MPEP §2106.05(g).
The other additional elements a “computer-implemented”, a “non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers”, and “one or more computers and one or more storage devices” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the step of “obtaining a candidate image …” and “providing the rotated candidate image” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not constitute significantly more than the claimed data gathering and data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The other additional elements a “computer-implemented”, a “non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers”, and “one or more computers and one or more storage devices” are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
For all of the foregoing reasons, independent claims 32, 58, and 59 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding dependent claims 33, 35-54, and 56-57, additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore claims 33, 35-54, and 56-57 do not recite eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claims 34 and 55:
Claims 34 and 55 are dependent on claim 32 respectively and therefore include all the limitations of claim 32. Thus claims 34 and 55 recite “Mental Processes”. Claims 34 and 55 further recites additional elements:
“rotating the candidate image such that a central axis of the firing pin aperture impression aligns horizontally with respect to a set of reference axes and in accordance with a predominant aspect ratio of the firing pin aperture impression” as recited in dependent claim 34.
“training a machine-learning model, the training comprising: providing, to a machine-learning model, a plurality of images including respective portions of bullet shell casings, the plurality of images capturing portions of bullet shell casings including the plurality of features having respective characteristics and aligned at respective target orientations, wherein determining, for the candidate image, the rotation angle to rotate an orientation of the candidate image to align the portion of the bullet shell casing with the target orientation comprises: providing the candidate image to a trained machine-learned model; and obtaining, from the trained machine-learned model, the rotation angle to rotate the orientation of the candidate image to align the portion of the bullet shell casing with the target orientation” as recited in dependent claim 55.
The combination of the additional elements integrates the “Mental Processes” abstract idea into a practical application as discussed in paragraphs [0006] and [0118] of the originally filed specification of the subject application improving the forensic training and detection and thereby constituting an improvement to the technical field of the cartridge casings inspection. As such, the additional elements of claims 34 and 55 [in combination with all the limitations of claim 32] integrate the “Mental Processes” into a practical application. Therefore, claims 34 and 55 recite eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prokoski ‘263 and ‘808 discloses alignment, comparison, and identification of ballistic bullet casings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights