DETAILED ACTION
In response to the amendment filed on 08/10/2026, all the amendments to the claims have been entered and the action follows:
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 .
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-19, and 21-24 are 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.
Limitations of claim 1 render the claim indefinite for the following reasons:
i) Regarding the limitation “similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors”, it is unclear and confusing from what comparison the similarities are derived from. For example, is the comparison between two or more whole frames, or a comparison of particular regions of frames? If so, how are frames or regions of frames, from which similarities are obtained from, selected for such comparison?
ii) It is unclear and confusing how the “inserting one or more templates, at one or more fixed locations” is performed. The applicant’s fig 6 describes templates 610-612 to be somehow coincidentally inserted over stationary objects located in frames. For example, is there an object detection/tracking performed on the frames to determine stationary objects in order to insert the template on such locations? The placement of templates appears to be an essential portion of the claimed invention, however, no additional description is provided regarding the placement of templates, failing to clearly provide the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. In addition, the newly added limitation of claim 1 (i.e., “templates are configured to be located”) describes detecting an already placed template, and does not describe inserting the template before such detection.
Similar reasons apply to claims 9, 15, and 18 that each recites subject matter similar to claim 1 (i.e., templates being inserted or occupying a fixed position in frames, and using similarities).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the hidden message is transmitted in a loop” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear and confusing from what/where the hidden message is transmitted from and transmitted to. Similar reasons apply to claim 22 that recites subject matter similar to claim 21.
The limitation “distinctive points, edges, and corners” of claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “distinctive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, how are the distinctive points, edges, and corners distinguished from non-distinctive points, edges, and corners? Is there some calculated number representing distinctiveness that is thresholded for such distinguishing? Please amend the claim for clarification. Similar reasons apply to claim 24 that recites subject matter similar to claim 23.
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, 9, 15, 18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt (US 7,433,489) in view of Chen et al. (“Screen-cam robust and blind watermarking for tile satellite images”).
Regarding claim 1, Wendt discloses:
inserting one or more templates, at one or more fixed locations, into each of one or more frames of the video (see 8:18-50, 10:29-34, 11:14-31, and fig 1, 6, and 7A, inserting a template in the same position over video frames),
wherein one or more templates are configured to be located in one or more captured frames based on similarities (see 10:18-44, 11:38-57, and fig 6 and 7B, the inserted template is to be detected from the frames (i.e., after embedding a watermark message in the frames, projecting the watermarked frames on a screen, and capturing the projected watermarked frames by a camera causing a perspective distortion) based on similarity between the location of the template and a reference location); and
inserting a hidden message into the one or more frames of the video (see 8:51-54 and fig 1, embedding the watermark message into the frames in addition to the template);
wherein, the one or more templates are used for correcting a perspective distortion caused by capturing one or more frames from the screen with the camera based on the located one or more templates (see 10:35-44 and 11:58-12:23, using the template to correct the perspective distortion caused by the camera capturing the projected watermarked frames).
However, Wendt does not disclose: based on similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors (i.e., Wendt rather discloses determining using similarity between template location and a reference location, rather than similarity in shape, color, or texture).
In a similar field of endeavor of embedding and extracting watermark message in video frames, Chen discloses: based on similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors (see section IV.C-E, similarly to Wendt, a template composed of template dots (i.e., “synchronization points”) forming squares are inserted into frames in addition to watermark messages, and similarly to Wendt, are to be used to correct perspective distortion caused by a camera capturing projected watermarked frames; wherein the perspective distortion is corrected based on similarity between the shape that the template dots form to a reference shape (i.e., quadrilateral vs square), as shown in fig 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt with Chen, and insert a template comprised of dots into frames, in addition to a watermark message, to be used in correcting perspective distortion caused by a camera that captures the frames when projected, as disclosed by Wendt, wherein using the template comprised of dots to correct the perspective distortion is based on similarity between the shape formed by the dots to a reference form, as disclosed by Chen, for the purpose of compensating for perspective distortions including depth-wise rotations (see Chen fig 11).
Regarding claim 9, Wendt discloses:
capturing, with the camera, one or more frames of a video displayed on the screen, the one or more frames comprising a hidden message (see 10:18-44, capturing, with a camera causing a perspective distortion, watermarked video frames projected on a screen);
identifying one or more templates that occupy fixed positions in the video by locating the one or more templates in one or more captured frames based on similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors (see 10:29-34, 11:38-57, and fig 6 and 7B, identifying a template that occupy the same position over the captured watermarked frames based on similarity between the placement of the template and a reference placement);
correcting perspective distortion caused by capturing the one or more frames from the screen with the camera based on the located one or more templates (see 11:28-12:15 and fig 7B, correcting the perspective distortion of the captured watermarked frames caused by the camera based on using the template); and
extracting the hidden message from the one or more corrected frames of the video (see 12:16-27 and fig 8, extracting the watermark message from the corrected captured watermarked frames).
Wendt does not disclose: based on similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors.
Chen further discloses: based on similarities in at least one of shapes, textures, and colors (see rejection of claim 1, wherein the perspective distortion is corrected based on similarity between the shape that the template dots form to a reference shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt with Chen, and insert a template comprised of dots into frames, in addition to a watermark message, to be used in correcting perspective distortion caused by a camera that captures the frames when projected, as disclosed by Wendt, wherein using the template comprised of dots to correct the perspective distortion is based on similarity between the shape formed by the dots to a reference form, as disclosed by Chen, for the purpose of compensating for perspective distortions including depth-wise rotations (see Chen fig 11).
Regarding claim 15, Wendt and Chen disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1). Wendt further discloses: at least one processor and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure the apparatus (see 23:10-18, a processor and a memory).
Regarding claim 18, Wendt and Chen disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 9). Wendt further discloses: at least one processor and at least one machine-readable medium storing executable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor configure the apparatus (see 23:10-18, a processor and a memory).
Regarding claim 23, Wendt further discloses: wherein locating one of the one or more templates in one of the one or more captured frames comprises detecting one or more interest points on the one of the one or more templates and the one of the one or more captured frames, wherein the one or more interest points comprise one or more of distinctive points, edges, and corners (see rejection of claim 1, detecting the template in the captured projected watermarked frames by detecting distinctive points of the template).
Regarding claim 24, Wendt and Chen disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claims 18 and 23).
Claims 2-6, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt and Chen in view of Yu et al. (USPAPN 2004/0064702).
Regarding claim 2, Wendt and Chen disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), however, does not disclose: dividing the hidden message into a plurality of message segments; and packetizing each message segment with control information.
In a similar field of endeavor of embedding and extracting watermark message in video frames, Yu discloses:
dividing the hidden message into a plurality of message segments (see [37], [39], and [42], dividing a watermark message into watermark sub-messages and embedding the watermark sub-messages into different frames (“different watermark segment embedding in different frames in different segments of the digital video”)); and
packetizing each message segment with control information (see [37], the watermark sub-messages have corresponding governing data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into different video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message accompanying corresponding governing data is divided into watermark sub-messages and embedded into different frames of the video frames, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
Regarding claim 3, Wendt, Chen, and Yu disclose: inserting each packetized message segment into a different respective frame of the video (see rejection of claim 2, the watermark sub-messages are embedded into different frames of the video).
Regarding claim 4, Yu further discloses:
converting each frame of the video from spatial domain to frequency domain (see [42], converting frames of the video to be watermarked from spatial domain to frequency domain);
inserting each packetized message segment into the frequency domain of a different respective frame of the video (see [42], embedding watermark sub-messages into the frequency domain of different frames by modulating frequency components); and
converting each frame of the video from the frequency domain back to the spatial domain (see [42], converting the watermarked different frames from the frequency domain to the spatial domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message accompanying corresponding governing data is divided into watermark sub-messages and embedded into different frames of the video frames in frequency domain, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
Regarding claim 5, Yu further discloses: selecting, from the frequency domain, frequency components for modulations; and modulating the selected frequency components to write in the frequency domain the said packetized message segment (see [42], appropriate frequency components are selected for embedding the watermark sub-messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message accompanying corresponding governing data is divided into watermark sub-messages and embedded into selective frequency components of different frames of the video frames, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu further discloses:
converting the one or more frames from spatial domain to frequency domain (see [42], converting frames of the video to be watermarked from spatial domain to frequency domain);
inserting the hidden message into the frequency domain of each of the one or more frames (see [42], embedding watermark sub-messages into the frequency domain by modulating frequency components); and
converting the one or more frames from the frequency domain to the spatial domain (see [42], converting the watermarked different frames from the frequency domain to the spatial domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message accompanying corresponding governing data is divided into watermark sub-messages and embedded into selective frequency components of different frames of the video frames, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Wendt, Chen, and Yu disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claims 2, 3, and 15).
Regarding claim 19, Yu further discloses:
the hidden message comprises a plurality of message segments (see [37], [39], and [42], the watermark is composed of watermark sub-messages embedded in different frames of the video (“different watermark segment embedding in different frames in different segments of the digital video”));
each message segment of the plurality of message segments is packetized with control information (see [37], each of the watermark sub-messages have corresponding governing data); and
the extracting the message comprises extracting, from a plurality of frames of the video, the plurality of message segments and the control information associated with each message segment (see [72], extracting and decoding the watermark sub-messages from the different frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message is composed of watermark sub-messages embedded in different frames of the video accompanying corresponding governing data, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
Regarding claim 21, Yu further discloses: wherein the hidden message is inserted into the one or more frames of the video such that the hidden message is transmitted in a loop (see [41], the watermark sub-messages repeat in a loop).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt and Chen with Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark sub-messages are repeated in a loop, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of embedding the watermark sub-messages over more than a few frames (see Yu [41]).
Regarding claim 22, Wendt, Chen, and Yu disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claims 15 and 21).
Claims 7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt, Chen, and Yu in view of Oh et al. (USPAPN 2014/0047475).
Regarding claim 7, Wendt, Chen, and Yu disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 2), however, do not disclose each packetized message segment comprises: a message segment of the hidden message; and one or more fields indicating one or more of: that the message segment is last message segment of the hidden message; an identifier (ID) of the message segment, wherein the ID indicates a position of the message segment within the hidden message; and a length of the message segment, the length measured in chunks.
In a similar field of endeavor of embedding and extracting a watermark message in a video, Oh discloses: each packetized message segment comprises: a message segment of the hidden message; and one or more fields indicating one or more of: that the message segment is last message segment of the hidden message; an identifier (ID) of the message segment, wherein the ID indicates a position of the message segment within the hidden message; and a length of the message segment, the length measured in chunks (see [269], [270], and fig 20-21, a watermark message embedded in different frames includes the watermark sub-messages A-D, and end tag 2002 for indicating end of the watermark message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt, Chen, and Yu with Oh, and embed watermark sub-messages in different frames of a video, as disclosed by Wendt, Chen, and Yu, wherein the watermark sub-messages are embedded with an end tag as disclosed by Oh, for the purpose of achieving efficient extraction (see Oh [269]-[270]).
Regarding claim 10, Yu further discloses:
the hidden message comprises a plurality of message segments (see [37], [39], and [42], the watermark is composed of watermark sub-messages embedded in different frames of the video (“different watermark segment embedding in different frames in different segments of the digital video”));
each message segment of the plurality of message segments is packetized with control information (see [37], [38], and [41], each of the watermark sub-messages have corresponding governing data); and
the extracting the hidden message comprises extracting, from a plurality of frames of the video, the plurality of message segments and the control information associated with each message segment (see [72], extracting and decoding the watermark sub-messages from the different frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt, Chen, and Yu, and embed a watermark message into video frames, as disclosed by Wendt and Chen, wherein the watermark message is composed of watermark sub-messages embedded in different frames of the video accompanying corresponding governing data, as disclosed by Yu, for the purpose of aiding in extracting the watermark sub-messages (see Yu [37]) and achieving improved imperceptibility (see Yu [42]).
However, Wendt, Chen, and Yu do not disclose: reordering the plurality of message segments according to the control information.
Oh discloses: reordering the plurality of message segments according to the control information (see [269], [270], and fig 20-21, watermark sub-messages are ordered and combined according to a start tag and an end tag each indicating a start and end of a watermark message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt, Chen, and Yu with Oh, and embed watermark sub-messages in different frames of a video, as disclosed by Wendt, Chen, and Yu, wherein the watermark sub-messages are embedded with a start tag and an end tag as disclosed by Oh, for the purpose of achieving efficient extraction (see Oh [269]-[270]).
Regarding claim 13, Wendt, Chen, Yu, and Oh disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claims 7 and 10, the end tag reads on the claimed “that the extracted message segment is last message segment of the message” and “an identifier (ID) of the associated message segment”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt in view of Tian (USPAPN 2004/0264732).
Regarding claim 14, Wendt discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 9), however, does not disclose: converting the one or more frames from spatial domain to frequency domain; de-modulating one or more frequency components of the frequency domain used to carry the hidden message; and extracting the hidden message from the de-modulated one or more frequency components of the frequency domain of the one or more frames.
In a similar field of endeavor of embedding and extracting watermark message in video frames, Tian discloses:
converting the one or more frames from spatial domain to frequency domain (see [82], converting watermarked video frames from spatial domain to frequency domain);
de-modulating one or more frequency components of the frequency domain used to carry the message (see [83], demodulating frequency components in the frequency domain); and
extracting the message from the de-modulated one or more frequency components of the frequency domain of the one or more frames (see [83], extracting an embedded watermark message from the demodulated frequency components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wendt with Tian, and extract an embedded watermark message from captured video frames after correcting perspective distortion using a visible template, as disclosed by Wendt, wherein the extraction is performed by demodulating frequency components in the frequency domain, as disclosed by Tian, for the purpose of improved robustness for watermarking (see Tian [71]).
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 112(b)
The applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the 112(b) rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as claim limitations still render the claim indefinite as recited in the 112(b) rejection above.
Arguments regarding prior art rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, 15, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, EMILY TERRELL can be reached at 571-270-3717. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights