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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 20 November 2025.
The 112 rejection(s) to claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are withdrawn since the claim(s) has/have been amended accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 November 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here encoded information is sent to and from mobile devices. Both QR coding and steganographic encoding were known at the time on invention. Both use images to encode information, both use mobile devices to receive and send these images.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues differences in each individual references as compared to the present disclosure. However, it is the combination as a whole that teaches the aspects of the claimed invention.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 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(s) 4, 11 and 18 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. Examiner requests Applicant provide support in the specification of the “second portion” in the claims as “authorized user information”.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-21, 23, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20150129657-A1 to Rogers et al. (“Rogers”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20100293376-A1 to Colon et al. (“Colon”) in further view of US-20130254022-A1 to Rubrecht (“Rubrecht”).
As to claim 1, Rogers disclose(s) a method comprising:
generating, by a computing device, an encoded media file that comprises concealed access information for accessing a premises; (Rogers; QR code teaches an encoded media file generated by a server, encoding conceals information; [0014])
and sending, to a user device associated with a second user, the encoded media file to facilitate access to the premises. (Rogers; QR code is emailed to the mobile device; [0013])
Rogers does not expressly disclose generating an encoded media file based on a base media file of a computing device associated with a first user and doing so steganographically.
Colon discloses encoding a secret key into an image using steganography. (Colon; fig. 3)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the base media file and steganography of Colon and the encoding of Rogers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with encoding passcodes. Using the base media and stenography of Colon would allow for encoded passcode to be hidden.
Rubrecht discloses mobile devices association with users. (Rubrecht; mobile devices associated with a person [0138];[0062])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the mobile devices of Rubrecht and the base images of Roger-Colon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with storing images. Storing and selecting images in the mobile device of Rubrecht would allow for device image of Roger-Colon to be stored in a convenient manner. Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 2, Rogers-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the computing device is a mobile device of the first user. (Rubrecht; mobile devices associated with a person [0138];[0062])
As to claim 4, Rogers-Colon disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises generating the encoded media file by steganographically encoding the base media file with access restriction information in a first portion of the base media file and (Rogers; QR code teaches encoding check-in, check-out encoded teach access restriction by date; [0014]) authorized user information in a second portion of the base media file. (Rogers; QR code teaches encoding unique identifiers that identifies the lock; [0014])
As to claim 5, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the computing device comprises a second user device, and the method further comprising:
selecting the base media file from a photo album associated stored on the second user device, wherein the second user device is different from the user device.
Rubrecht discloses selecting an image from a photo album. (Rubrecht; [0062])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photo album of Rubrecht and the base image of Roger-Colon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with images. Storing and selecting images in a photo album of Rubrecht would allow for device image of Roger-Colon to be stored and selected in an efficient manner.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises generating the encoded media file by adjusting at least one range of pixel data of the base media file to steganographically conceal the access information. (Colon; pixels corresponding to one of leaves of tree; [0088]; and adjusting the bytes encoding intensity of pixels; [0089];[0090] )
As to claim 7, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the user device, a request to obtain access to the premises, wherein the request comprises the encoded media file; (Rogers; scan QR code teaches request access to room; [0015])
and granting, based on a comparison of the access information in the encoded media file and known access information, the access to the premises. (Rogers; detects a valid key, unlock the door; [0015])
As to claim 8, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors;
and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
generate, based on a base media file associated with the apparatus, an encoded media file that comprises steganographically concealed access information for accessing a premises;
and send, to a user device, the encoded media file to facilitate access to the premises.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 9, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the apparatus is a mobile device of the first user.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 2.
As to claim 11, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to generate the encoded media file by steganographically encoding the base media file with access restriction information in a first portion of the base media file and authorized user information in a second portion of the base media file.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 4.
As to claim 12, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the computing device comprises a user device, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
select the base media file from a photo album stored on the user device, wherein the second user device is different from the user device.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 5.
As to claim 13, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to generate the encoded media file by adjusting at least one range of pixel data of the base media file to steganographically conceal the access information.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 6.
As to claim 14, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive, from the user device, a request to obtain access to the premises, wherein the request comprises the encoded media file;
and grant, based on a comparison of the access information in the encoded media file and known access information, the access to the premises.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 7.
As to claim 15, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a computing device to:
generate, based on a base media file associated with the computing device, an encoded media file that comprises steganographically concealed access information for accessing a premises;
and send, to a user device, the encoded media file to facilitate access to the premises.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 16, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the computing device is a mobile device of the first user.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 2.
As to claim 18, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to generate the encoded media file by steganographically encoding the base media file with access restriction information in a first portion of the base media file and authorized user information in a second portion of the base media file.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 4.
As to claim 19, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the computing device comprises a user device, and wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to:
select the base media file from a photo album stored on the user device, wherein the second user device is different from the user device.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 5.
As to claim 20, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to generate the encoded media file by adjusting at least one range of pixel data of the base media file to steganographically conceal the access information.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 6.
As to claim 21, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to:
receive, from the user device, a request to obtain access to the premises, wherein the request comprises the encoded media file;
and grant, based on a comparison of the access information in the encoded media file and known access information, the access to the premises.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 7.
As to claim 23, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) method of claim 1, wherein the base media file is selected by the first user using the computing device. (Rubrecht; selecting photo from photo album [0138];[0062])
As to claim 24, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) method of claim 1, the sending occurs while at least one of the first user or the second user is remote from the premises. (Rogers; mobile devices are not fixed to a location and their users can be remote from a location when receiving or sending data; [0006])
As to claim 26, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) method of claim 1, wherein the base media file is from a photo album from a mobile phone of the first user. (Rubrecht; mobile devices associated with a person [0138];[0062])
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger-Colon-Rubrecht in further view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 20150178721 A1 to PANDIARAJAN et al. (“PANDIARAJAN”).
As to claim 22, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht disclose(s) method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the generating comprises generating, by a mobile device that captured the base media file, the encoded media file.
PANDIARAJAN discloses wherein the generating comprises generating, by a mobile device that captured the base media file, the encoded media file.(PANDIARAJAN; mobile device generated the QR code; [0017])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the base media file and steganography of Rogers-Colon-Rubrecht and the mobile device generation of PANDIARAJAN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with encoding passcodes for mobile devices. Rogers discloses the third parties’ servers may generate the codes. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would recognize the advantages and disadvantages of using third party servers rather than the device itself to generate the codes. Generating the codes on the mobile device itself would allow for codes to be generated locally on the device.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger-Colon-Rubrecht in further view of Non Patent Literature “Cover selection technique for secure transform domain image steganography” to Subhedar (“Subhedar”).
As to claim 3, Rogers-Colon disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
determining, prior to the generating, that the base media file is suitable to be encoded with the access information, based on at least one of:
a time associated with the base media file,
an amount of entropy or randomness in the base media file,
a location where the base media file was captured, or
previous usage of the base media file.
Subhedar discloses determining, prior to the generating, that the base media file is suitable to be encoded with the access information, based on at least one of:
a time associated with the base media file,
an amount of entropy or randomness in the base media file,
a location where the base media file was captured, or
previous usage of the base media file. (Subhedar; discloses cover selection analysis of images for steganographic efficacy; See abstract; using entropy as a basis; pg. 244)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the base media file and steganography of Rogers-Colon-Rubrecht and the cover selection analysis of Subhedar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with encoding images. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would recognize some images would be more appropriate for encoding than others. Analyzing images before encoding them would allow for improved cover image selection.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 10, Roger-Colon disclose(s) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
determine, prior to generating the encoded media file, that the base media file is suitable to be encoded with the access information, based on at least one of:
a time associated with the base media file,
an amount of entropy or randomness in the base media file,
a location where the base media file was captured, or
previous usage of the base media file.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 3.
As to claim 17, Roger-Colon disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the computing device to:
determine, prior to generating encoded media file, that the base media file is suitable to be encoded with the access information, based on at least one of:
a time associated with the base media file,
an amount of entropy or randomness in the base media file,
a location where the base media file was captured, or
previous usage of the base media file.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 3.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger-Colon-Rubrecht-PANDIARAJAN-Subhedar.
AAs to claim 25, Roger-Colon-Rubrecht-PANDIARAJAN-Subhedar disclose(s) method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, prior to the generating that the base media file is suitable to be encoded with the access information , based on a device that captured the base media file. (PANDIARAJAN; mobile device generated the QR code; [0017]) (Subhedar; discloses cover selection analysis of images for steganographic efficacy; See abstract; using entropy as a basis; pg. 244)
See similar motivation and rejection to claim(s) 3 and 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445