DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that no Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
No IDS has been received for this application. Applicants are reminded of the Duty to Disclose, from section 2001 of the MPEP (emphasis added). MPEP 2001 Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith [R-08.2012] 37 C.F.R. 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability.
(a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Patent No. 12517996. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
“A system for determining content authenticity based on weighted analysis of categorical attributes with limited training data, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising: determining a first set of data corresponding to a private data source; determining a second set of data corresponding to a public data source; generating an assessment of image authenticity based on: generating a first verification of a first attribute based on the first set of data; generating a second verification of a second attribute based on the second set of data; and determining a first weight for the first verification and a second weight for the second verification, wherein the first verification is weighed more heavily than the second verification; generating a confidence metric for the assessment based on the first weight the second weight, the first verification and the second verification; and generating a notification for display on a user device based on the assessment and the confidence metric, the notification indicating an authenticity” (claim 1, instant application) is analogous to
“An artificial intelligence-based system for determining content authenticity based on weighted analysis of categorical attributes with limited training data, the system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause operations comprising: receiving an image, wherein the image comprises a two-dimensional representation of a physical artifact, wherein the physical artifact comprises a plurality of attributes corresponding to a user; determining, using a first machine learning model, a first attribute and a second attribute of the plurality of attributes in the image, wherein the first attribute and the second attribute comprises information that is used for validating authenticity of the image, wherein the first machine learning model is configured to generate verifications for individual attributes of the plurality of attributes; determining whether the first attribute and the second attribute corresponds to a first data category or a second data category, wherein the first data category is inaccessible via a public data source, and wherein the second data category is accessible via the public data source; determining a first set of data corresponding to a private data source; determining a second set of data corresponding to the public data source; generating an assessment of image authenticity based on: in response to determining that the first attribute corresponds to the first data category, generating a first verification of the first attribute based on the first set of data; in response to determining that the second attribute corresponds to the second data category, generating a second verification of the second attribute based on the second set of data; and determining a first weight for the first verification and a second weight for the second verification, wherein the first verification is weighed more heavily than the second verification due to the first attribute corresponding to the first data category and the second attribute corresponding to the second data category; generating a confidence metric for the assessment based on the first weight the second weight, the first verification and the second verification; and generating a notification for display on a user device based on the assessment and the confidence metric, the notification indicating an authenticity of the image” (claim 1, patent 12517996).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims of the instant application have not in fact been patented.
The claims of the conflicting patents and/or applications contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the copending application claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species with that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is “anticipated” by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court’s predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There does not appear to be support for generating an assessment of authenticity without using different weights for different attributes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving, making determinations, and displaying information.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are broad enough to cover receiving, making determinations, and displaying information with/in the mind or with pen/paper, other than the generic computer components.
Regarding Prong One, these steps, as drafted, form a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen/paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "a device", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the "a device" language, the claim encompasses a user receiving an image, making determinations based on image data, and making a determination as to authenticity.
Regarding Prong Two, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only use generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and are not patent eligible.
The claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by the “background of the invention” section and the cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to validating authenticity of images/content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
