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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based Japanese patent application No. 2024-040032 filed on 14 March 2024.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
US 20110184791 A1
Pars. 28-31
Users submit original content which is monitored to detect copies thereof for authentication purposes, monitor and report a situation where the same submission is being reprinted on other sites
US 20190044736 A1
Pars. 33-44
Blockchain based tracking (evidence) of user modifications to content which results in creation of new content
11586724
Abstract
“the content is verified by identifying the source data of the content, distributing the content, and authenticating the distributed content. Where the content has not been changed, the system may authenticate the content using a cryptographic hash.”
US 20210176238 A1
Pars. 43-49
Authentication of an image by extracting data and/or metadata from the image for subsequent analysis; using a trusted third party database for authentication, verification
US 20120136853 A1
Abstract
“identifying authoritative sources of multimedia content … a directed graph is constructed over a network of sources based on a propensity of one source to "cite" content provided by another source”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 20, the detecting covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The storing is recited at a high level of generality and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; this limitation is directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 7-10 and 16-19 the execute, generate, compare cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The output, store, input are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-6 and 12-15 the different kinds of information are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by B. Cran, Pub. No.: US 20210314360 A1, hereinafter Cran.
As per claim 1, Cran discloses An information processing system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (pars. 33, 56-60); and at least one processor (pars. 53, 59, 68, 75) configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a transcription of citation information to a creation (Cran, pars. 36-38, 43-45, 51 disclose real time detection of copying events (i.e. detect a transcription) of content to create ripped content (i.e. transcribed citation information) including any content of any file type. Claim interpretation note: page 6 of the instant specification defines citation information as “an image, another report, or a news article”, all of which are disclosed by Cran as cited above); and
store evidence information indicating an evidence of the citation information in a case where the transcription is detected (pars. 39, 47, 49, 62, 70, 73, 76, 80 disclose storing information about detected copy events and ripped content).
As per claim 4, Cran discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the creation includes report information (at least par. 51 discloses multiple types of “report” information that is used to create the ripped content).
As per claims 11, 14 and 20 they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cran in view of Chitiveli et al., Pub. No.: US 20130198193 A1, hereinafter Chitiveli.
As per claim 2, Cran discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Cran does not expressly disclose however Chitiveli in the related field of endeavor of data management discloses wherein the citation information includes an image, and wherein the evidence information includes at least a time when the image is taken (Chitiveli, par. 17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Chitiveli would have allowed Cran to incorporate creation time metadata of any kind of file such as images, text, reports, presentations, news, educational, informational etc. (see Chitiveli, par. 17 and Cran, par. 51).
As per claim 3, Cran discloses the information processing system according to claim 1. Cran does not expressly disclose however Chitiveli in the related field of endeavor of data management discloses wherein the citation information includes literature information, and wherein the evidence information includes at least a time when the literature information is created (Chitiveli, par. 17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Chitiveli would have allowed Cran to incorporate creation time metadata of any kind of file such as images, text, reports, presentations, news, educational, informational etc. (see Chitiveli, par. 17 and Cran, par. 51).
As per claim 5, Cran as modified discloses The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the creation includes report information (Cran, at least par. 51 discloses multiple types of “report” information that is used to create the ripped content).
As per claims 6, 12, 13 and 15, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claims 7-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cran in view of Deery et al., Pub. No.: US 20180219685 A1, hereinafter Deery.
As per claim 7, Cran discloses The information processing system according to claim 4. Cran does not expressly disclose however Deery in the related field of endeavor of data management discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to output the evidence information in a case where a request to view the creation is received (Deery, pars. 18-19, 23-24 disclose that when a document is accessed or request to verify/view is received, the system retrieves and compares hash values to confirm authenticity and output a verification result/fraud alert (i.e. evidence information)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Deery would have allowed Cran to provide information about whether or not stored information, when requested, is authentic or not.
As per claim 8, Cran as modified by Deery discloses The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to store a hash value generated by inputting predetermined information included in the citation information into a hash function, as the evidence information (as indicated in the rejection of claim 1, Cran teaches detecting transcription, content theft and storing evidence records related to detected transcription but does not teach generating or storing hashes of citation information; Deery, pars. 18-19, teaches generating hash values from document content and storing them as verification evidence, the hashes generated by inputting document information into a hash function and used as authenticity evidence). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Deery would have allowed Cran to implement hashes and blockchains because they are well-known, efficient and tamper-resistant ways to store evidence of content identity. A blockchain is known to improve immutability and trustworthiness of stored information.
As per claim 9, Cran as modified by Deery discloses The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to store the evidence information in a blockchain (Deery, pars. 18-21. See rationale to combine provided in the rejections of claims 7, 8).
As per claim 10, Cran as modified by Deery discloses The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: compare, in a case where a request to view the creation is received, a hash value generated by inputting predetermined information included in the citation information transcribed to the creation into a hash function, with the stored hash value; and output a determination result of the evidence (Cran discloses detecting transcriptions and storing evidence information as per the rejection of claim 1 but does not disclose hash comparison or determination logic; Deery, par. 19 discloses, upon document access or verification, generating a new hash from current document content, comparing the new hash with a stored hash, and outputting a determination result such as authenticity confirmation or fraud alert, the comparison being done in response to a verification/view request. See rationale to combine provided in the rejections of claims 7, 8).
As per claims 16-19, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154