Patent Application 18497786 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING DOCUMENT

Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING DOCUMENT AUTHENTICITY BASED ON WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF CATEGORICAL CONTENT ATTRIBUTES
Application Information

Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING DOCUMENT AUTHENTICITY BASED ON WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF CATEGORICAL CONTENT ATTRIBUTES
Application Number: 18497786
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-10-30T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-10-30T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 726
National Sub-Class: 021000
Examiner Employee Number: 80559
Art Unit: 2409
Tech Center: 2400
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 4
Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text



    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.

Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims that include a contingent limitation does not require the contingent limitation “in response to”, or the following limitations as the step happens in response to the contingent limitation, i.e. at least in claims 2, 3, 18, 19. 
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.
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.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (20150269593), and further in view of Sancheti (20200250766).
Regarding claim 1, Le teaches A system for determining content authenticity based on weighted analysis of categorical attributes, 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 (abstract, par.74-78): 
receiving an image, wherein the image comprises a two-dimensional representation of a physical artifact, determining a first attribute of the plurality of attributes in the image; wherein the first attribute comprises information that is used for validating authenticity of the image (fig.1, 1A, par.74-78), 
determining whether the first 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 (par.7-9, 34-38, 55-58), 
generating an assessment of image authenticity based on: generating a verification of the first attribute based on the first set of data or the second set of data; and determining a weight for the verification based on whether the first attribute was verified against the first set of data or the second set of data, wherein verifications based on the first set of data have a first weight and verifications based on the second set of data have a second weight (par.20-26, 75-80); 
generating a confidence metric for the assessment based on the weight and the verification; and generating a notification for display on a user device based on the assessment and the confidence metric (par.44-50, 83-86).  
Le does not expressly disclose, however, Sancheti teaches wherein the physical artifact comprises a plurality of attributes corresponding to a user (fig.1-2, par.11-13); 
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 (par.13-15, 20-25). 
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le to use additional sources to validate data as taught by Sancheti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to support additional validation/authentication schemes (Sancheti, par.10-30).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Le teaches A method for determining content authenticity based on weighted analysis of categorical attributes, the method comprising: / One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations comprising (abstract, par.74-78): 
receiving first content, wherein the first content comprises a plurality of attributes; determining, using a first model, a first attribute of the plurality of attributes in the first content; / determining a first attribute of the plurality of attributes in the first content (fig.1, 1A, par.74-78); 
determining whether the first attribute corresponds to a first data category or a second data category (par.7-9, 34-38, 55-58), 
generating a first comparison of the first attribute and the first set of data; determining a first weight for the first comparison based on the first comparison involving the first set of data; generating an assessment of authenticity of the first content based on the first weight and a first result of the first comparison; / based on the first weight and the first comparison (par.20-26, 75-80); and 
generating a notification for display on a user device, wherein the notification comprises the assessment / comprises the assessment and a confidence metric (par.44-50, 83-86).  
Le does not expressly disclose, however, Sancheti teaches a plurality of attributes corresponding to a user (fig.1-2, par.11-13); 
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; in response to determining that the first attribute corresponds to the first data category, retrieving a first set of data corresponding to the user from a private data source (par.13-15, 20-25). 
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le to use additional sources to validate data as taught by Sancheti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to support additional validation/authentication schemes (Sancheti, par.10-30).
Regarding claim 2, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the contingent limitations that follow the “in response” recitation.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Le/Sancheti teaches 
determining a second attribute of the plurality of attributes in the first content (Le, fig.1, 1A, par.74-78); 
in response to determining that the second attribute corresponds to the second data category, retrieving a second set of data corresponding to the user from the public data source; generating a second comparison of the second attribute and the second set of data (Le, , 34-38, 55-58, Sancheti, par.13-15, 20-25); and 
determining a second weight for the second comparison based on the second comparison involving the second set of data, wherein the assessment of authenticity of the first content is further based on the second weight and a second result of the second comparison/ based on the second weight and the second comparison (Le, par.20-26, 75-80).  
Regarding claim 3, Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the contingent limitations that follow the “in response” recitation.
Regarding claim 6, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: generating a third comparison of the first attribute and the second set of data; and generating the first weight based on the third comparison (Le, 34-38, 55-58, Sancheti, 13-15, 20-25).  
Regarding claim 7, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is data confirmed by the user; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is the data confirmed by the user (Le, 34-38, 55-58, Sancheti, 13-15, 20-25).  
Regarding claim 8, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is non-human-readable data; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is non-human-readable data (Le, 35-40, 90-92, Sancheti, 43-46).  
Regarding claim 9, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is a two-dimensional code, wherein the two-dimensional code comprises a resource locator; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is the two-dimensional code (Le, 35-40, 90-92, Sancheti, 43-46).  
Regarding claim 11, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is temporal data, wherein the temporal data represents a point in time; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is the temporal data (Le, 35-40, 90-92, Sancheti, 43-46).  
Regarding claim 12, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is non-temporal data, wherein the non-temporal data is data not associated with a point in time; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is the non-temporal data (Le, 35-40, 90-92, Sancheti, 43-46).  
Regarding claim 13, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein generating the assessment further comprises: determining a portion of the first content using optical character recognition; generating an authentication value corresponding to the portion; retrieving an authentication dataset, wherein the authentication dataset comprises a plurality of authentication values corresponding to fraudulent content; and generating the first weight based on comparing the authentication value to the authentication dataset (Le, 82-92, Sancheti, 10-13, 18-22, 43-48).  
Regarding claim 14, Le/Sancheti teaches wherein generating the assessment further comprises: generating a confidence metric based on the first weight; and providing the confidence metric in the assessment (Le, 44-50, 83-86, Sancheti, 20-30).  
Regarding claim 15, Le/Sancheti teaches determining a threshold confidence metric; and transmitting an alert to the user device when the confidence metric exceeds the threshold confidence metric (Le, 44-50, 83-86, Sancheti, 32-37).  
Regarding claim 16, Le/Sancheti teaches identifying an online identifier in the plurality of attributes corresponding to the user, wherein the online identifier corresponds to digital content; generating a plurality of extracted attributes by accessing the digital content pointed to by the online identifier corresponding to the first attribute; comparing each attribute of the plurality of extracted attributes to the first attribute; and updating the assessment when at least one of the plurality of extracted attributes matches the first attribute (Le, 44-50, Sancheti, 21-24, 46-49).  
Regarding claim 17, Le/Sancheti teaches generating a recommended action by: retrieving a third set of data, wherein the third set of data comprises a plurality of actions, and wherein each action of the plurality of actions in the third set of data corresponds to verifying the plurality of attributes; and determining the recommended action of the plurality of actions corresponding to the first attribute  (Le, 34-40, 48-50, Sancheti, 30-34).  
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le/Sancheti, and further in view of Kang (20220101547).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Le/Sancheti does not expressly disclose, however, Kang teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining a first length of time required to access the first set of data; and generating the first weight based on the first length of time.  / determining a first length of time required to access the first set of data; and generating the first weight based on the first length of time (par.30-35).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le/Sancheti to use time based weights as taught by Kang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support validation of content/images (Kang, par.20-30).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le/Sancheti, and further in view of Becerra (10686966).
Regarding claim 5, Le/Sancheti does not expressly disclose, however, Becerra teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining a first authorization level to access the first set of data; and generating the first weight based on the first authorization level (col.12, 35-67).  
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le/Sancheti to use authorization level’s confidence as taught by Becerra.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support validation of content/images (Becerra, col.12-13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le/Sancheti, and further in view of Ganti (20160012506).
Regarding claim 10, Le/Sancheti does not expressly disclose, however, Ganti teaches wherein determining the first weight further comprises: determining that the first attribute is a form of contactless technology; and generating the first weight based on determining that the first attribute is the form of contactless technology (par.50-54).  
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le/Sancheti to use proximity based weights as taught by Ganti.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to further support validation of linked information (Ganti, par.1-13, 83-93).
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 Garcia 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