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 § 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 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 1 is considered representative of independent claims 1, and 13 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1 and 13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
receive, from the sender terminal, first feature information indicating a first object to be sent by a sender to a recipient;
receive, from the recipient terminal, second feature information indicating a second object received by the recipient;
perform matching processing that matches the first feature information with the second feature information; and
determine whether the first object corresponds to the second object based on a result of the matching processing.
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps c and d can be performed mentally. For example, a person can visually compare two images, one of the object that is to be sent and the other of the object and decide if they match each other.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims are steps a and b of receiving the feature information and processor and a server (claims 1, and 13).
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The steps of receive, from the sender terminal, first feature information indicating a first object to be sent by a sender to a recipient;
receive, from the recipient terminal, second feature information indicating a second object received by the recipient;
amount to data gathering which is insignificant pre-solution activity which does not integrate the claimed mental process into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Each of the other additional elements (a processor and server) amounts to merely using a generic 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: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of the additional elements 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.
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).
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, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka US 2023/0351412 (cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a server used in an identity determination system (see paragraph 0059, information processing apparatus 100 and figure 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
210
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the identity determination system includes a sender terminal (seller device 10 of figure 2) and a recipient terminal (purchaser device 20 of figure 2), the server comprising a processor configured to: receive, from the sender terminal, first feature information indicating a first object to be sent by a sender to a recipient (see paragraph 0062, the seller device has an acquisition function 12 that captures an image of a product to be posted to sell according to an operation received from the seller via an input function)
PNG
media_image3.png
164
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; receive, from the recipient terminal, second feature information indicating a second object received by the recipient (see paragraph 0071, the purchaser uses a camera on the purchaser device 20 to capture an image of the product received via an input function)
PNG
media_image4.png
154
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
; perform matching processing that matches the first feature information with the second feature information (see paragraph 0082, the product identification unit matches the product features received from the seller and purchaser to identify if the products match)
PNG
media_image5.png
302
340
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; and determine whether the first object corresponds to the second object based on a result of the matching processing (see above paragraph 0082, identify whether the received product matches the authentic product based on the collation).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses wherein the first feature information includes image data of the first object, and the second feature information includes image data of the second object (see above paragraphs 0062 and 0071).
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein when the first feature information and the second feature information are not matched in the matching processing, the processor further performs transmission processing that transmits, to the recipient terminal, first instruction information for obtaining at least one piece of third feature information associated with the second object, the at least one piece of third information being configured to match the first feature information with the second feature information by being added to the second feature information.
However as seen in figure 11 Tanaka does disclose carrying out feature extraction and in step S306 determining if the feature is sufficient for matching, wherein if the answer is no then it returns to capture more information until sufficient feature information is extracted for the matching procedure (see paragraph 0120)
PNG
media_image6.png
194
342
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
804
690
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Here it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the recapturing process would allow for more features to be added to the image so that sufficient feature information is received. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ask for more information. The motivation would be to ensure that adequate information for matching was captured.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka indicates in figure 11 that a characteristic amount is extracted from an image that captures the entire product or an image that captures the surroundings of the product, and it is determined whether a sufficient characteristic amount has been acquired; and a message prompting for an image of the surroundings of the product to be captured is displayed on the screen, subsequent to a message being displayed on the screen prompting for an image of the entire product to be captured (paragraphs 0120-0126). Therefore, it can be said that the message prompting for an image of the entire product to be captured is prioritized to be displayed over the message prompting for an image of the surroundings of the product to be captured. Incidentally, when acquiring a captured image necessary for extracting a product characteristic amount, a person skilled in the art could have designed as appropriate what kind of image capture location is to be captured in what order of priority.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses in figure 11 a product identification process performed by an exhibitor device 10 and an information processing device 100, wherein: it is determined, on the basis of a recognition result, whether the entire product is captured; and a message (corresponding to the "information necessary for the first characteristic information to satisfy a prescribed condition" of the present invention) prompting for an image of the entire product to be captured is displayed on a screen, when it is determined that the entire product is not captured (corresponding to "when the first characteristic information received from the sender terminal does not satisfy a prescribed condition" in the present invention, see paragraphs 0120-0126). Here, a person skilled in the art could have designed, as appropriate, the information processing device 100 to perform the determination process.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses an information processing device 100, wherein whether a received product matches a regular product is identified on the basis of a characteristic amount (corresponding to the "fourth characteristic information" of the present invention) of a target frame, which is a section including a characteristic amount with high discriminability determined on the basis of the characteristic amount of each section of the regular product, and a characteristic amount of a target frame, which is a section including a characteristic amount with high discriminability determined on the basis of the characteristic amount of each section of the received product; and information (corresponding to the "second instruction information" of the present invention) prompting for an image of the target frame to be captured is output to the exhibitor device 10 of the exhibitor or the purchaser device 20 of the purchaser (paragraph 0072). Here, a person skilled in the art could have designed, as appropriate, a configuration in which the target frame is specified and determined by the seller, instead of being determined on the basis of the characteristic amount of each section of the regular product.
Regarding claim 6 the information processing device 100 is a server device that provides a secondary distribution platform, and provides an electronic commercial transaction platform in which trading of a product through a network is carried out between an exhibitor (corresponding to the "seller" of the present invention) who wants to sell a product and a purchaser (corresponding to the "buyer" of the present invention) who wants to purchase the product. Therefore, it is clear that the trade of the product would not be completed if the received product does not match the regular product. In such a case, a person skilled in the art could have designed, as appropriate, a configuration in which a message rejecting payment of a trade price is transmitted to the exhibitor.
Regarding claim 8, although Tanaka does not explicitly disclose what type of image is captured, it is well known to use RGB images with a typical cell phone operation to which the Examiner declares official notice. The motivation would be to use a common type of image captured using cell phones.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Mayes et al. US 11,731,053 (hereinafter “Mayes”).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the first feature information includes a 3D model of the first object and the second feature includes a 3D model of the second object.
However it is well known to compare 3D models to determine if they match as taught by Mayes (see figure 4 where two models are compared to determine if the object is genuine or counterfeit).
PNG
media_image8.png
482
444
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Tanaka and Mayes are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of comparing objects.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tanaka and Mayes to compare 3D models of the objects. The motivation would be to make a more detailed comparison between the objects.
Regarding claim 10, Mayes discloses that the 3D models include mesh data (col. 14 lines 53-55).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Kayyod US 2022/0326186.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the first and second feature information include sound generated from the object.
Kayyod discloses comparing the sound generated from one bullion bar with a sound produced from a known authentic to determine if the unknown is authentic or not (see paragraph 0039).
Tanaka and Kayyod are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of comparing objects to determine authenticity.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tanaka and Kayyod to use sound features to determine the authenticity of the object. The motivation would be to determine if an object is authentic based on its sound.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Winger et al. US 2010/0213890 (hereinafter “Winger”).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above Tanaka discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose that the first and second feature information include temperature of a first and second object.
Winger discloses determining counterfeit battery pack by comparing the temperature values determined by a temperature monitoring system (see paragraph 0044)
Tanaka and Winger are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of comparing objects to determine authenticity.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tanaka and Winger to use temperature features to determine the authenticity of the object as taught by Winger. The motivation would be to determine if an object is authentic based on its temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights