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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 02/27/2025.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined here.
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 8 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.
As per claim 8, the claim appears to refer back to “the alignment” of claim 7, and attempts to modify the alignment. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, however. Claim 1 makes no mention of an alignment. It therefore would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether the claim is intended to modify the alignment of claim 7, or is intending to introduce some new alignment. Claim 8 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Examiner’s Note: for the purposes of this action, claim 8 is treated as if it were dependent from claim 7.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 13 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 13, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving an image of the collectible card; (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could ___; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not)
selecting at least one region of the image of the collectible card; (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a region of interest on a product; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not)
determining a selected reference card image from the database of reference card images, which corresponds with the image of the collectible card; (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a reference image of a product for comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not)
comparing. . . the at least one region of the image to a corresponding region of the selected reference card; (claims 1, 13, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not)
and determining whether the collectible card is authentic or counterfeit based upon similarities and differences between the image of the collectible card and the reference card image, in the at least one region. (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a product is authentic or not based upon similarities and differences in a product image and a reference image; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the steps above using a generic computer component or in a particular field of use, the entirety of the above process could be performed mentally. Furthermore, as a whole, the above elements recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and marketing or sales activities since the limitations, as a whole, recite a process for determining whether a product is authentic or not, a commercial interaction which would occur in appraising, selling, and marketing products.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A counterfeit detection system for use in determining if a collectible card is counterfeit, the counterfeit detection system comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or more computer devices having a computer processor and computer memory, the computer memory storing executable code that, when executed by the computer processor, enables the computer system to perform a process that comprises the steps of: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
providing a database of reference card images; (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . via a neural network. . . (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use of machine learning and neural networks; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a neural network since the limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome of this step without providing details as to how this is accomplished and since the limitation merely uses a neural network in its ordinary capacity to perform processing functions)
providing a counterfeit detection system for use in determining if a collectible card is counterfeit; (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 2 and 14:
wherein the at least one region comprises a plurality of regions of the image of the collectible card.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the number of regions of interest used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 3 and 15:
wherein the plurality of regions comprises at least three regions.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the number of regions of interest used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
further comprising a processor configured to amplify information of at least one of the regions of interest.
Regarding the use of the processor, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas. Regarding the amplifying of information, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could amplify this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not
Claims 5 and 17:
wherein the neural network is a Siamese neural network that includes two identical sub-networks.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use of machine learning and Siamese neural networks; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a neural network since the limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome of this step without providing details as to how this is accomplished and since the limitation merely uses a neural network in its ordinary capacity to perform processing functions.
Claim 6:
wherein at least one of the sub-networks is configured to operate using data representative of information of regions of the image of the collectible card, and at least one other of the sub-networks is configured to operate using data representative of information of regions of an image of the authentic collectible card that has a same specification as the collectible card.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use of machine learning and neural networks since Siamese neural networks use identical sub-networks in this manner to make comparisons; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a neural network since the limitation merely recites the idea of a solution or outcome of this step without providing details as to how this is accomplished and since the limitation merely uses a neural network in its ordinary capacity to perform processing functions.
Claims 7 and 19:
wherein the image of the collectible card and the authentic collectible card are aligned.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could align two images; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not.
Claim 8:
wherein the alignment is by operation of at least a scale-invariant feature transform.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use an SIFT to align two images; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since the use of an SIFT requires mathematical operations and formulas.
Claim 9:
wherein the plurality of regions of the image of the collectible card comprise regions of interest.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of regions of interest used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 10:
wherein the regions of interest have been manually identified.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could manually identify regions of interest; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not.
Claim 11:
wherein the neural network is configured to determine that the collectible card is a valid collectible card if an indication of distance between the collectible card and the authentic collectible card is within a predetermined distance.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to use a neural network to perform this step, a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine if a distance is within a preset distance in determining whether a product is valid; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not.
Claim 12:
wherein the distance between the collectible card and the authentic collectible card is based on vectors output by the neural network.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use vectors to make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial sales entities would perform this step in determining whether a product is counterfeit or not.
Claim 16:
amplifying information of at least one of the regions of interest, wherein the alignment is by operation of a scale-invariant feature transform.
Please see above analysis for claims 4 and 8.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20240412233; hereinafter "Yan") in view of An et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 111523910 A; hereinafter "Cheng-Zhi").
As per claim 1, Yan teaches:
A counterfeit detection system for use in determining if a collectible card is counterfeit, the counterfeit detection system comprising:
Yan teaches a system and method for authenticating items including collectible cards. (Yan: abstract, paragraph [0002, 40])
one or more computer devices having a computer processor and computer memory, the computer memory storing executable code that, when executed by the computer processor, enables the computer system to perform a process that comprises the steps of:
Yan teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computer which may comprise a processor which executes instructions in the form of software stored in physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Yan: paragraph [0075-81], Fig. 8)
providing a database of reference card images;
Yan teaches the provision of a database with images of authentic items, wherein the item may comprise a trading card. (Yan: paragraph [0023, 40])
receiving an image of the collectible card;
Yan teaches that the system may receive a request from a user to authenticate an item along with an image of the item to be authenticated. (Yan: paragraph [0027])
selecting at least one region of the image of the collectible card;
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6)
determining a selected reference card image from the database of reference card images, which corresponds with the image of the collectible card;
Yan teaches that the system may determine an image from an image library of a reference card image that is similar to that of the item. (Yan: paragraph [0029])
With respect to the following limitation:
comparing, via a neural network, the at least one region of the image to a corresponding region of the selected reference card;
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Yan further teaches that the shapes of interest may be compared in order to determine whether the two cards are similar. Id. Yan, however, does not appear to explicitly teach the use of a neural network to do so.
Cheng-Zhi, however, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) Cheng-Zhi teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Yan for the benefit of increasing the brand effect of products. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraph [0050]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng-Zhi with the teachings of Yan to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further teaches:
and determining whether the collectible card is authentic or counterfeit based upon similarities and differences between the image of the collectible card and the reference card image, in the at least one region.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 2, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the at least one region comprises a plurality of regions of the image of the collectible card.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 3, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of regions comprises at least three regions.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 5, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the neural network is a Siamese neural network that includes two identical sub-networks.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network which uses two identical sub-networks may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 6, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein at least one of the sub-networks is configured to operate using data representative of information of regions of the image of the collectible card, and at least one other of the sub-networks is configured to operate using data representative of information of regions of an image of the authentic collectible card that has a same specification as the collectible card.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network which uses two identical sub-networks may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 9, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of regions of the image of the collectible card comprise regions of interest.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network which uses two identical sub-networks may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 11, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the neural network is configured to determine that the collectible card is a valid collectible card if an indication of distance between the collectible card and the authentic collectible card is within a predetermined distance.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network which uses two identical sub-networks may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) Cheng-Zhi further teaches that the test product may be considered authentic if a calculated Euclidean distance is less than a threshold. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraph [0027-29]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 12, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the distance between the collectible card and the authentic collectible card is based on vectors output by the neural network.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network which uses two identical sub-networks may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) Cheng-Zhi further teaches that the test product may be considered authentic if a calculated Euclidean distance is less than a threshold, wherein the distance is calculated based on a matrix of vectors output by the neural network. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraph [0027-29]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists.
As per claim 13, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A method for use in determining if a collectible card is counterfeit, the method comprising the steps of:
Yan teaches a system and method for authenticating items including collectible cards. (Yan: abstract, paragraph [0002, 40])
providing a counterfeit detection system for use in determining if a collectible card is counterfeit;
Yan teaches a system and method for authenticating items including collectible cards. (Yan: abstract, paragraph [0002, 40]) Yan teaches the implementation of the system and method using a computer which may comprise a processor which executes instructions in the form of software stored in physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Yan: paragraph [0075-81], Fig. 8)
As per claim 14-15 and 17-18, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 2-3 and 5-6, and claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-3 and 5-6, respectively, as outlined above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Zhu, Ming (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 108596312 A; hereinafter "Zhu").
As per claim 4, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
further comprising a processor configured to amplify information of at least one of the regions of interest.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists. Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi, however, does not appear to explicitly teach amplification of information in each of the areas of interest.
Zhu, however, teaches, in the context of determining the authenticity of a product (here, artwork) that information in areas of interest may be amplified by a mobile device (comprising a processor) in examining the areas of interest. (Zhu: paragraphs [0029, 37, 66-69]) Zhu teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi for the benefit of providing clearer local texture of the product to be identified. (Zhu: paragraph [0069]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen, Cheng (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20250061470; hereinafter "Chen").
As per claim 7, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the image of the collectible card and the authentic collectible card are aligned.
Chen, however, teaches that images received for comparing a collectible card with an authentic card may be aligned before allowing for comparison between the two. (Chen: paragraph [0164-169, 335]) Chen teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi for the benefit of calibrating the digital representation of an item to be in the same perspective that the perspective of an authentic visual item allowing you to get corrected images that are spatially oriented in a virtual plane parallel to the plane of the lens of an optical unit. (Chen: paragraph [0168]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 19, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 7, and claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7, as outlined above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen further in view of Jin et al. (Chinese Patent Document No. CN 114943720 A; hereinafter "Jin")
As per claim 8, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the alignment is by operation of at least a scale-invariant feature transform.
Jin, however, teaches that alignment between an image and a reference image may be performed using an SIFT. (Jin: paragraph [0062]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen, or by Jin. Using an SIFT to align two images does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Jin with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Chen, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Kelly et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20060004914; hereinafter "Kelly").
As per claim 10, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the regions of interest have been manually identified.
Kelly, however, teaches that a user may manually select regions of interest for further processing in an image. (Kelly: paragraph [0074], Fig. 11) Kelly teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi for the benefit of providing a system which may allow intelligent cropping/zooming 210 without altering the original media to create new media objects. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kelly with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Furthermore, It can be seen that each element is taught by either Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi, or by Kelly. Adding the manual selection of an area of interest, as taught by Kelly, to the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kelly with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Zhu further in view of Jin.
As per claim 16, Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
amplifying information of at least one of the regions of interest, wherein the alignment is by operation of a scale-invariant feature transform.
Yan teaches that the system may select extracted features comprising shapes of interest in the collectible card to compare with the reference card. (Yan: paragraph [0034, 63-68], Fig. 6) Cheng-Zhi, as outlined above, teaches that a system may select five areas of interest to observe on an object to be authenticated, wherein features may be extracted from these areas of interest, and a Siamese neural network may be used to compare features extracted on a test subject in these areas to the original feature extractions in order to determine whether the product is counterfeit or not. (Cheng-Zhi: paragraphs [0006-10, 15-25, 34, 76-90]) The motivation to combine Cheng-Zhi persists. Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi, however, does not appear to explicitly teach amplification of information in each of the areas of interest, or the use of a SIFT to align the images.
Zhu, however, teaches, in the context of determining the authenticity of a product (here, artwork) that information in areas of interest may be amplified by a mobile device (comprising a processor) in examining the areas of interest. (Zhu: paragraphs [0029, 37, 66-69]) Zhu teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi for the benefit of providing clearer local texture of the product to be identified. (Zhu: paragraph [0069]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Jin, however, teaches that alignment between an image and a reference image may be performed using an SIFT. (Jin: paragraph [0062]) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Zhu, or by Jin. Using an SIFT to align two images does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Zhu. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Jin with the teachings of Yan in view of Cheng-Zhi further in view of Zhu, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628