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 the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18 and 20-23 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 20 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grewal et al. (US 20140044258 A1, hereinafter Grewal) in view of Carter et al. (US 20160358013 A1, hereinafter Carter) and Dorrell et al. (US 20030123701 A1, hereinafter Dorrell).
Concerning claim 1, Grewal teaches a method comprising:
sending, to one or more computing devices (fig. 1; ¶0020: on or more user devices), first information associated with one or more video frames generated by a camera device (¶¶0020-0026 : input video 112 includes metadata and/or identifiers);
receiving, from each of the one or more computing devices, second information that is based on the first information (¶¶0020-0026: metadata generated from input video 112);
encoding, based on the one or more video frames (figs. 2-3: encoder 120 or 240), video content comprising metadata indicating at least the first information and the second information (¶¶0020-0026: input video 112 comprising the metadata); and
sending, to a computing device, the encoded video content (figs. 1-3: encoded data sent to user devices). Not explicitly taught is selecting based on received data indicating that the one or more computing devices are located within a threshold distance of the camera device.
Carter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that devices that are within close proximity to each other take advantage of sharing localized relationship data with each other (¶0021). Devices whose footprints overlap are allowed to communicate and exchange metadata while devices that are outside of range cannot exchange metadata with the other devices (fig. 1 & ¶0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate the teachings of Carter to select one or more of the computing devices based on information indicating they are within a threshold distance. Such a modification would allow the Grewal invention to communicate with nearby devices and determine if a device nearby is known by the user or if the nearby device is permitted to perform a function (Carter, ¶0021). Grewal and Carter fail to explicitly teach the method, further comprising receiving, from each one of the one or more computing devices, second information comprising a signed version of the first information and wherein a match between at least a portion of the first information and a portion of decrypted second information indicates authenticity of the one or more frames.
Dorrell teaches the well-known concept using a metadata signature (¶¶0062-0064), wherein the second information comprises: a signed version of the first information (¶¶0062-0064: metadata signature) and wherein a match between at least a portion of the first information and a portion of decrypted second information indicates authenticity of the one or more frames (¶¶0089-0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Grewal system to use the image authentication process, as taught by Dorrell, in order to provide improved accuracy of the determinations of user authentication.
Concerning claim 2, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first information comprises a hash of the one or more video frames captured by the camera device (fig. 7: the hash is added to the associated metadata for the images).
Concerning claim 3, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the match is determined based on recalculating the hash of the one or more video frames (fig. 7: 705).
Concerning claim 4, Grewal in view of Carter and Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second information further comprises: one or more identifiers associated with the one or more computing devices (Grewal, ¶0020; Dorrell, figs.. 2-3: identifier for identifying the digital camera).
Concerning claim 5, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the match is determined based on:
decrypting each signed version of the first information (figs. 1, 4 and 7; ¶0089), and
determining that the first information matches each decrypted signed version (figs. 1, 4 and 7; ¶0089 - available metadata that matches the identifier contained in the metadata).
Concerning claim 6, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises a signed sequence of data (figs. 1, 4 and 7: metadata signature), wherein the signed sequence of data comprises: the first information, the second information, and an identifier of the camera device (figs. 1, 4 and 7).
Concerning claim 8, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the authenticity of the one or more frames indicates that the one or more video frames have not been altered after being generated by the camera device (fig. 7(b): 719; ¶¶0089-0090)
Concerning claims 9-14 and 16, this is a method that includes the same limitations as in claims 1-6 and 8 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein.
Concerning claim 17, Grewal teaches a method comprising:
receiving video content associated with a camera device, wherein the video content comprises metadata (figs. 1 & 3A; ¶0023);
based on the metadata, determining:
first information associated with one or more video frames of the video content (fig. 3A & ¶0029: metadata);
second information, generated, by one or more computing devices (¶0023; ¶0029; ¶0034: metadata and/or identifiers). Not explicitly taught is Not explicitly taught is wherein the one or more computing devices are selected based on received data indicating that the one or more computing devices are located within a threshold distance of the camera device.
Carter, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches that devices that are within close proximity to each other take advantage of sharing localized relationship data with each other (¶0021). Devices whose footprints overlap are allowed to communicate and exchange metadata while devices that are outside of range cannot exchange metadata with the other devices (fig. 1 & ¶0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, incorporate the teachings of Carter to select one or more of the computing devices based on information indicating they are within a threshold distance. Such a modification would allow the Grewal invention to communicate with nearby devices and determine if a device nearby is known by the user or if the nearby device is permitted to perform a function (Carter, ¶0021). Grewal and Carter fail to explicitly teach the method, further comprising generating, by the one or more computing devices, second information comprising a signed version of the first information and sending, based at least a portion of the first information matching a portion of decrypted second information, a message indicating the video content is authentic.
Dorrell teaches the well-known concept using a metadata signature (¶¶0062-0064), wherein the second information comprises: a signed version of the first information (¶¶0062-0064: metadata signature) and sending, based at least a portion of the first information matching a portion of decrypted second information, a message indicating the video content is authentic (fig. 7(b): 719; ¶¶0089-0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Grewal system to use the image authentication process, as taught by Dorrell, in order to provide improved accuracy of the determinations of user authentication.
Concerning claim 18, Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the message indicates that the one or more video frames have not been altered after being generated by the camera device (fig. 7(b): 719; ¶¶0089-0090).
Concerning claim 20, Grewal in view of Carter and Dorrell further teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the second information further comprises: one or more identifiers associated with the one or more computing devices (Grewal, ¶0020; Dorrell, figs.. 2-3: identifier for identifying the digital camera).
Concerning claim 21, Carter further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are associated with users shown in the one or more video frames (¶0044).
Concerning claim 22, Carter further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the received data is received from a server associated with a cloud service that stores location data of witness devices (¶0032: using web services in determining the location of devices).
Concerning claim 23, Carter further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more computing devices are associated with users shown in the one or more video frames (¶0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of the remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered, but they are partially moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Specifically, the Applicant argues
“The cited portions of Wang appear to describe user identification rather than "the one or more computing devices are selected based on received data indicating that the one or more computing devices are located within a threshold distance of the camera device" as claimed.
For example, Wang describes, in reference to FIG. 1(b) that "the image 120 can be fed to a facial recognition process, for example, that is operable to analyze the image to attempt to locate the user's face and any landmarks or features of the face that can be helpful in identifying the user." Wang col. 3, lines 9-13 (emphasis added). In another example, Wang describes, in reference to FIG. 3 that "[t]he verification service 310 (or a user device, etc.) can use any approach or combination of approaches discussed or suggested herein to attempt to authenticate the user." Wang at col. 7, lines 22-24 (emphasis added). In another example, Wang describes, in reference to FIGs. 4(a) - (d), that "[i]f the user is recognized and has performed the requested action, the user can be authenticated to the device, and the transaction can be completed without further action or input from the user." Wang at col. 8, lines 4-7 (emphasis added). In another example, Wang describes that "FIG. 6 illustrates an example process 600 for authenticating a user using image information that can be utilized in accordance with various embodiments." Wang at col. 9, lines 54-56 (emphasis added). However, Wang does not appear to describe "the one or more computing devices are selected based on received data indicating that the one or more computing devices are located within a threshold distance of the camera device" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).”
The Wang prior art is no longer relied upon in the rejection rendering these arguments moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered, but they are partially not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues
“The Office Action further relies on Dorrell for teaching "the well-known concept of the metadata [e.g. FIG. 1; metadata for image] is usable for authentication [e.g. FIG. 4; authentication metadata], based on at least a portion of the first information [image file with metadata] matching a portion of the second information [e.g. available metadata that matches the identifier contained in the metadata], of the one or more video frames [e.g. image file]." Office Action at page 3. At best, the cited portions of Dorrell merely describe accessing authentication metadata, and the authenticity of the authentication metadata is verified using signature values associated with the metadata. See Dorrell at FIG. 4 and paragraph [0082]. Verifying the authenticity of authentication metadata, as taught in Dorrell, is not the same as "metadata indicating at least the first information and the second information, wherein a match between at least a portion of the first information and a portion of decrypted second information indicates authenticity of the one or more video frames" as claimed (emphasis added).”
This is not persuasive. Dorrell explicitly indicates detecting whether or not an image has been modified (i.e., altered) through the authentication of metadata (see, fig. 7(b): 719 & ¶¶0089-0090). This is considered to be verifying the authenticity of the one or more video frames. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights