DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Continuation Application # 19/265,927 filed on July 10, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and also claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0003744 & KR10-2023-0017491, filed on 01/10/2023 & 02/09/2023.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—Claim 1-20 recite a method and apparatus respectively.
The analysis of claims 1, 10 and 18 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
based on storing edited data obtained by modifying original data in the memory, generate a unique value using information related to the original data and a hash function (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function),
generate an original storage path for the original data using the generated unique value (recites mental process of generating an original storage path using a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
generate original meta information including the hash function and information about the original storage path (recites implementing the abstract idea on using an algorithmic hash function to generate original storage path, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating unique value using a hash function.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
An electronic device comprising: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of generating a unique value using a hash function, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating unique value using hash function.
The analysis of claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19 -20 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
Claims 2, 11 and 19 recites generate the unique value by combining at least some of a size of the original data, a number of frames of the original data, or resolution information about the original data, or generate the unique value by rescaling the original data and using at least a portion of the rescaled original data, or generate the unique value using a portion of the original data within a set range (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of generating unique value).
Claims 3, 12 and 20 recites wherein the electronic device is configured to control to configure the edited data including the original meta information and transmit the edited data to an external electronic device (recites at a high-level of generality and a mental process of generating unique value).
Claims 5 and 14 recites wherein the memory includes a first area and a second area having logically different attributes, wherein the first area includes a system storage of a hidden area inaccessible to a user and stores the original data, and wherein the second area is configured to store the edited data and editing information (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
Claims 6 recites a media database including an image information link between the first area and the second area (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
Claims 7 and 15 recites wherein the electronic device is configured to: generate a plurality of unique values using a portion of the original data and the hash function, and generate the original storage path for the original data based on a combination of the plurality of unique values (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
Claims 8 and 16 recites wherein each of first edited data and second edited data having the same original storage path is data edited based on the same original data corresponding to the same original storage path (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
Claims 9 and 17 recites wherein third edited data and fourth edited data having different original storage paths are data edited based on different original data (recites mental process of generating a unique value with pen and a paper related to original data and a hash function).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
Claims 4 and 13 recites wherein the hash function includes file binary hash, combined hashing of file information about the original data, binary hashing of rescaled original data, or hashing of a value of a portion of the original data (recites implementing the abstract idea on using an algorithmic hash function to generate original storage path, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating unique value using a hash function.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
Claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20 an electronic device comprising: at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of generating a unique value using a hash function, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, generating unique value using hash function.
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 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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. US 2011/0182518 A1 (hereinafter ‘Jeong’) (IDS 7/10/25) in view of Zhang et al. US 2020/0327102 A1 (hereinafter ‘Zhang’).
As per claim 1, Jeong disclose, An electronic device (Jeong: paragraph 0034: disclose device such as a PC ‘electronic device’) comprising:
at least one processor (Jeong: paragraph 0022: disclose personal computers, which contains processor), comprising processing circuitry (Jeong: paragraph 0022: disclose personal computers, which contains circuitry); and
memory storing instructions that (Jeong: paragraph 0022: disclose personal computers, which contains memory storing instructions), when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Jeong: paragraph 0056: disclose digital computers that execute the programs using a computer readable recording medium), cause the electronic device to:
based on storing edited data (Jeong: paragraph 0034, Fig. 4: disclose converted to generate a first edit image) obtained by modifying original data in the memory (Jeong: paragraph 0034: disclose editing ‘modifying’ original image is stored in a first device, such as a PC, edited), generate a unique value using information related to the original data and a hash function (Jeong: paragraph 0031: disclose UUID ‘Universally Unique Identifier’ be generated by using any one of various methods including an MAC address-based method and paragraph 0029: disclose unique identifier, original image location. Examiner concedes that the prior art does not teach creating unique value using hash function and will discuss this further in view of secondary art below),
generate an original storage path for the original data using the generated unique value (Jeong: paragraph 0042: disclose original image location ‘path’ information of the metadata matches location ‘path’ information of the device 1. Also, the image searching unit determine whether the "DSC0801" file in the device 1 is the original image having the unique identifier having a value of "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000". Examiner equates location to path and the teaching disclose the location information is part of the metadata that is used to create unique identifier value).
It is noted, however, that Jeong did not specifically detail the aspects of
generate original meta information including the hash function and information about the original storage path as recited in claim 1.
On the other hand, Zhang achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
generate original meta information including the hash function and information about the original storage path (Zhang: paragraph 0038: disclose hashing algorithm is a function that can be used to map original data of (what can be arbitrary) size onto data of a fixed size, and in so doing, produce a value (a hash value) that is unique (with a sufficiently high level of confidence) to the original data).
Jeong and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and both from the same “problem-solving area”. Namely, they are both from the field of “Content Management Systems”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Jeong and Zhang because they are both directed to content management systems and both are from the same field of endeavor. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal option to include the restriction features of Zhang with the method described by Jeong in order to solve the problem posed.
The motivation for doing so would have been for improving efficiency in the management of data references (Zhang: paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zhang with Jeong to obtain the invention as specified in instant claim 1.
As per claim 2, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, Jeong did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the electronic device is configured to: generate the unique value by combining at least some of a size of the original data, a number of frames of the original data, or resolution information about the original data, or generate the unique value by rescaling the original data and using at least a portion of the rescaled original data, or generate the unique value using a portion of the original data within a set range as recited in claim 2.
On the other hand, Zhang achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the electronic device is configured to: generate the unique value by combining at least some of a size of the original data, a number of frames of the original data, or resolution information about the original data, or generate the unique value by rescaling the original data and using at least a portion of the rescaled original data, or generate the unique value using a portion of the original data within a set range (Zhang: paragraph 0038: disclose function that can be used to map original data of (what can be arbitrary) size onto data of a fixed size, and in so doing, produce a value (a hash value) that is unique (with a sufficiently high level of confidence) to the original data. Examiner argues that the invention uses original file parameters to generate the unique value and the prior art teaches the similar solution).
As per claim 3, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Jeong disclose, wherein the electronic device is configured to control to configure the edited data including the original meta information (Jeong: paragraph 0009: disclose unique identifier exists in the metadata of the input image) and transmit the edited data to an external electronic device (Jeong: Fig. 4 Element 420: disclose edit image).
As per claim 4, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, Jeong did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the hash function includes file binary hash, combined hashing of file information about the original data, binary hashing of rescaled original data, or hashing of a value of a portion of the original data as recited in claim 4.
On the other hand, Zhang achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the hash function includes file binary hash, combined hashing of file information about the original data, binary hashing of rescaled original data, or hashing of a value of a portion of the original data (Zhang: paragraph 0038: disclose hashing algorithm is a function that can be used to map original data of (what can be arbitrary) size onto data of a fixed size, and in so doing, produce a value (a hash value) that is unique (with a sufficiently high level of confidence) to the original data).
As per claim 5, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Jeong disclose, wherein the memory includes a first area and a second area having logically different attributes, the first area includes a system storage of a hidden area inaccessible to a user and stores the original data, and wherein the second area is configured to store the edited data and editing information (Jeong: paragraph 0036: disclose original image access authority information prevents the original image from being shared between random users).
As per claim 6, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Jeong disclose, further comprising a media database including an image information link between the first area and the second area (Jeong: paragraph 0046: disclose indicating a characteristic with respect to textures; a boundary area descriptor indicating a characteristic with respect to shapes).
As per claim 7, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted, however, Jeong did not specifically detail the aspects of
wherein the electronic device is configured to: generate a plurality of unique values using a portion of the original data and the hash function, and generate the original storage path for the original data based on a combination of the plurality of unique values as recited in claim 7.
On the other hand, Zhang achieved the aforementioned limitations by providing mechanisms of
wherein the electronic device is configured to: generate a plurality of unique values using a portion of the original data and the hash function, and generate the original storage path for the original data based on a combination of the plurality of unique values (Zhang: paragraph 0038: disclose hashing algorithm is a function that can be used to map original data of (what can be arbitrary) size onto data of a fixed size, and in so doing, produce a value (a hash value) that is unique (with a sufficiently high level of confidence) to the original data).
As per claim 8, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. In addition, Jeong disclose, wherein each of first edited data and second edited data having the same original storage path is data edited based on the same original data corresponding to the same original storage path (Jeong: paragraph 0032: disclose the unique identifier is not changed while the original image is edited, copied, and converted, and maintains its unique value in the corresponding area of the metadata).
As per claim 9, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 above. In addition, Jeong disclose, wherein third edited data and fourth edited data having different original storage paths are data edited based on different original data (Jeong: paragraph 0037: disclose third device Device ID=3 via a second device Device ID=2, metadata of an image stored in the third device may include ID information of the first and second devices, and thus a movement path of the image may be indicated. Examiner argues that the similar teaching can be applied for fourth edited data and fifth edited data and so on).
As per claim 10, Jeong disclose, A method of operating an electronic device, comprising (Jeong: paragraph 0034: disclose device such as a PC ‘electronic device’): remaining limitations in this claim 10 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 11, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 2. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 11 limitations under the same rationale as claim 2.
As per claim 12, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 12 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
As per claim 13, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 4. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 13 limitations under the same rationale as claim 4.
As per claim 14, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 5. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 14 limitations under the same rationale as claim 5.
As per claim 15, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 7. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 15 limitations under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 16, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 8. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 16 limitations under the same rationale as claim 8.
As per claim 17, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 9. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 17 limitations under the same rationale as claim 9.
As per claim 18, Jeong disclose, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Jeong: paragraph 0056: disclose computer readable recording medium include magnetic storage media (e.g., ROM, floppy disks, hard disks, etc.), optical recording media (e.g., CD-ROMs, or DVDs) ) storing at least one instruction that, when executed by at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, individually and/or collectively, of an electronic device, causes the electronic device to perform operations (Jeong: paragraph 0056: disclose digital computers that execute the programs using a computer readable recording medium) comprising: remaining limitations in this claim 18 are similar to the limitations in claim 1. Therefore, examiner rejects these remaining limitations under the same rationale as limitations rejected under claim 1.
As per claim 19, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 2. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 19 limitations under the same rationale as claim 2.
As per claim 20, limitations of this claim are similar to claim 3. Therefore, examiner rejects claim 20 limitations under the same rationale as claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2016/0004850 A1 disclose “Secure downloading system for facilitating secure download from marketplace, has internet media type repository for storing copy of requested file, and file handler for retrieving copy of file indicated by path and returning copy of file”
US Pub. US 2011/0246966 A1 disclose “EMBEDDING SOURCE FILES INTO PROGRAM SYMBOL FILES”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights