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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the claim 1, and 3-20 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current combinations of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues on page 9 “These rejections are respectfully traversed, because the Office Action has not demonstrated that the cited combination either teaches or suggests each element of any rejected claim.”
In response the office does not find applicant’s argument persuasive. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language the prior art Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) teaches a method (Fig. 5B, Paragraph [0001]- Harvey discloses the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for securely distributing media programs, and in particular to a system and method for protecting the media programs via corrupting operations.), comprising:
wherein access to the set of registers in the hardware module is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module (Fig. 2A, #218 called a GPU. Paragraph [0024]) and one or more second trusted applications (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
blending, by the hardware module (Fig. 2A, #218 called a GPU. Paragraph [0024]), the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, the blended frame for display (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Although, Harvey teaches hardware module. Harvey fails to explicitly teach storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
However, Colombo et al. (US 20190007202 A1) explicitly teaches storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0095]- Colombo discloses the memory 110 may include a number of cryptographic keys being greater than the number of key slots in the key storage memory 1064, and the microprocessor 106b may decide the subset of cryptographic keys to be loaded into the key storage memory 1064.);
selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module (Fig. 10, Paragraph [0111]- Colombo discloses the processing unit 102a may write the content of the control register HOST_CTRL in order to: select the operation to be performed, such as CBC/EBC encryption or decryption; and select a cryptographic key, e.g. by specifying a slot number in the key storage memory 1064 (wherein a key is a parameter). Further in Fig. 5, paragraph [0094]- Colombo discloses the key storage memory 1064 may contain a plurality of slots, each adapted to store a respective cryptographic key. Generally, a key slot is a portion of the key storage memory. For example, each slot may include one or more memory locations of a RAM memory, or a register may be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Colombo storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more secure system, since both Harvey and Colombo are both systems for protecting data. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Colombo’s system provides an improvement to operations securing data. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Colombo et al. (US 20190007202 A1), Paragraph [0043].
Harvey in view of Colombo fails to explicitly teach reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
However, Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) explicitly teaches reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0019]- Tabata discloses a memory section that stores image data of a visible watermark pattern; a read-out section that reads out the image data of the visible watermark pattern that is stored in the memory section.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Tabata reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Tabata are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Tabata’s system provides a simple and efficient watermarking technique. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Tabata et al. (US 20060209349 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005].
The office advises the applicant to amend claims to overcome the prior arts of record.
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 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 of this title, 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, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata.
Regarding claim 1, Harvey teaches a method (Fig. 5B, Paragraph [0001]- Harvey discloses the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for securely distributing media programs, and in particular to a system and method for protecting the media programs via corrupting operations.), comprising:
wherein access to the set of registers in the hardware module is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module (Fig. 2A, #218 called a GPU. Paragraph [0024]) and one or more second trusted applications (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
blending, by the hardware module (Fig. 2A, #218 called a GPU. Paragraph [0024]), the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, the blended frame for display (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Although, Harvey teaches hardware module. Harvey fails to explicitly teach storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
However, Colombo explicitly teaches storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0095]- Colombo discloses the memory 110 may include a number of cryptographic keys being greater than the number of key slots in the key storage memory 1064, and the microprocessor 106b may decide the subset of cryptographic keys to be loaded into the key storage memory 1064.);
selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module (Fig. 10, Paragraph [0111]- Colombo discloses the processing unit 102a may write the content of the control register HOST_CTRL in order to: select the operation to be performed, such as CBC/EBC encryption or decryption; and select a cryptographic key, e.g. by specifying a slot number in the key storage memory 1064 (wherein a key is a parameter). Further in Fig. 5, paragraph [0094]- Colombo discloses the key storage memory 1064 may contain a plurality of slots, each adapted to store a respective cryptographic key. Generally, a key slot is a portion of the key storage memory. For example, each slot may include one or more memory locations of a RAM memory, or a register may be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Colombo storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more secure system, since both Harvey and Colombo are both systems for protecting data. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Colombo’s system provides an improvement to operations securing data. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Colombo et al. (US 20190007202 A1), Paragraph [0043].
Harvey in view of Colombo fails to explicitly teach reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
However, Tabata explicitly teaches reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0019]- Tabata discloses a memory section that stores image data of a visible watermark pattern; a read-out section that reads out the image data of the visible watermark pattern that is stored in the memory section.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Tabata reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein reading, by the hardware module, a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Tabata are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Tabata’s system provides a simple and efficient watermarking technique. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Tabata et al. (US 20060209349 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005].
Regarding claim 10, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the watermark graphic is blended by the hardware module with a number of sequential frames of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses a graphics processing unit 218 retrieves frames of the media program from the frame buffer 216 and processes them to overlay items to one or more of the frames),
and wherein the number of sequential frames is indicated in the current parameter set (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses a graphics processing unit 218 retrieves frames of the media program from the frame buffer 216 and processes them to overlay items to one or more of the frames).
Regarding claim 16, Harvey teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0001]- Harvey discloses the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for securely distributing media programs, and in particular to a system and method for protecting the media programs via corrupting operations.), comprising:
memory (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0005]- Harvey discloses a first processing unit communicatively coupled to a first memory; a second processing unit communicatively coupled to second memory and a frame buffer);
wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.),
blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.);
and provide the blended frame for display (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey is silent to explicitly teach a hardware module comprising a set of registers. Harvey fails to explicitly teach a secure processor separate from the hardware module, and store one or more parameter sets in the set of registers of the hardware module, wherein the hardware module is configured to: select a current parameter set from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers.
However, Colombo explicitly teaches a hardware module comprising a set of registers (Fig. 5, paragraph [0094]- Colombo discloses the key storage memory 1064 may contain a plurality of slots, each adapted to store a respective cryptographic key. Generally, a key slot is a portion of the key storage memory. For example, each slot may include one or more memory locations of a RAM memory, or a register may be used.);
and a secure processor separate from the hardware module (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0069]- Colombo the secure processing unit 106a, e.g. the microprocessor 106b, may send via the communication system 30 a response to the non-secure processing unit 102a indicating that the source data SD have been processed, and the processing unit 102a may use the processed data DD (e.g., control some actuators as a function of decrypted data or send encrypted data to another processing system 10).),
and store one or more parameter sets in the set of registers of the hardware module (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0095]- Colombo discloses the memory 110 may include a number of cryptographic keys being greater than the number of key slots in the key storage memory 1064, and the microprocessor 106b may decide the subset of cryptographic keys to be loaded into the key storage memory 1064.),
wherein the hardware module is configured to: select a current parameter set from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers (Fig. 10, Paragraph [0111]- Colombo discloses the processing unit 102a may write the content of the control register HOST_CTRL in order to: select the operation to be performed, such as CBC/EBC encryption or decryption; and select a cryptographic key, e.g. by specifying a slot number in the key storage memory 1064 (wherein a key is a parameter). Further in Fig. 5, paragraph [0094]- Colombo discloses the key storage memory 1064 may contain a plurality of slots, each adapted to store a respective cryptographic key. Generally, a key slot is a portion of the key storage memory. For example, each slot may include one or more memory locations of a RAM memory, or a register may be used.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Colombo a hardware module comprising a set of registers a secure processor separate from the hardware module, and store one or more parameter sets in the set of registers of the hardware module, wherein the hardware module is configured to: select a current parameter set from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein a hardware module comprising a set of registers a secure processor separate from the hardware module, and store one or more parameter sets in the set of registers of the hardware module, wherein the hardware module is configured to: select a current parameter set from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more secure system, since both Harvey and Colombo are both systems for protecting data. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Colombo’s system provides an improvement to operations securing data. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Colombo et al. (US 20190007202 A1), Paragraph [0043].
Harvey in view of Colombo fails to explicitly teach wherein the secure processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications to: store a watermark graphic in a location in the memory, read the watermark graphic from the location in the memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
However, Tabata explicitly teaches wherein the secure processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications to: store a watermark graphic in a location in the memory (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0019]- Tabata discloses a memory section that stores image data of a visible watermark pattern; a read-out section that reads out the image data of the visible watermark pattern that is stored in the memory section;),
read the watermark graphic from the location in the memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0019]- Tabata discloses a memory section that stores image data of a visible watermark pattern; a read-out section that reads out the image data of the visible watermark pattern that is stored in the memory section.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Tabata wherein the secure processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications to: store a watermark graphic in a location in the memory, read the watermark graphic from the location in the memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein the secure processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications to: store a watermark graphic in a location in the memory, read the watermark graphic from the location in the memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Tabata are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Tabata’s system provides a simple and efficient watermarking technique. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Tabata et al. (US 20060209349 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005].
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Epstein et al (US 20030031317 A1) hereafter referenced as Epstein.
Regarding claim 3, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata fail to explicitly teach wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
However, Epstein explicitly teaches wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]- Epstein discloses creates a linked list of sections of a data set, a linked list functions similar to how these parameters to since they need a pointer that points to the next member of the list similar to the index value indicating the next parameter set to use.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Epstein wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Epstein are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Epstein’s system provides an increase in efficiency of watermarking. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Epstein et al. (US 20030031317 A1), Paragraph [0004-006]).
Regarding claim 20, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata teach the electronic device of claim 16, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata fails to explicitly teach wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
However, Epstein explicitly teaches wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0016]- Epstein discloses creates a linked list of sections of a data set, a linked list functions similar to how these parameters to since they need a pointer that points to the next member of the list similar to the index value indicating the next parameter set to use.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Epstein wherein the current parameter set is selected from the one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein the current parameter set is selected from a plurality of parameter sets stored in the set of registers based on an index value indicated in a previous parameter set selected by the hardware module.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Epstein are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Epstein’s system provides an increase in efficiency of watermarking. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Epstein et al. (US 20030031317 A1), Paragraph [0004-006]).
Claims 4-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Luo et al (WO 2023136805 A1) hereafter referenced as Luo.
Regarding claim 4, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content. (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata fail to explicitly teach further comprising: resizing, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
However, Luo explicitly teaches further comprising: resizing, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0046]- Luo discloses if the second watermark 126 is larger than the size of the source image 128a, the second watermark 126 is cropped based on pre-defined rules. For example, the pre-defined rules can state that the second watermark 126 can be cropped from bottom-right so as to resize the second watermark 126 to the size of the source image 128 a.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Luo further comprising: resizing, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein further comprising: resizing, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Luo are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Luo’s system provides an improved way of displaying the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Luo et al. (WO 2023136805 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the cropped watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content. (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata fail to explicitly teach further comprising: cropping, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being smaller than a size of the watermark graphic.
However, Luo explicitly teaches further comprising: cropping, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being smaller than a size of the watermark graphic, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0046]- Luo discloses if the second watermark 126 is larger than the size of the source image 128a, the second watermark 126 is cropped based on pre-defined rules. For example, the pre-defined rules can state that the second watermark 126 can be cropped from bottom-right so as to resize the second watermark 126 to the size of the source image 128 a.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Luo wherein further comprising: cropping, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being smaller than a size of the watermark graphic.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein further comprising: cropping, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being smaller than a size of the watermark graphic.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Luo are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Luo’s system provides an improved way of displaying the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Luo et al. (WO 2023136805 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005]).
Claim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Wang et al (US 20160364826 A1) hereafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the attenuated watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey, in view of Colombo and Tabata fail to explicitly teach further comprising: attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
However, Wang explicitly teaches further comprising: attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0045]- Wang discloses the watermark module 100 generates a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates the strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Wang further comprising: attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein further comprising: attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Epstein are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides an increase robustness against attacks. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0003-0004].
Claims 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Cote et al (US 20110090351 A1) hereafter referenced as Cote and further in view of Wang et al (US 20160364826 A1) hereafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 7, Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata teaches the method of claim 1,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the attenuated watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content. (Fig. 2A. Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey, in view of Colombo and Tabata fail to explicitly teach further comprising: determining, by the hardware module, an attenuation factor based on a luma value from the frame of video content.
However, Cote explicitly teaches further comprising: determining, by the hardware module, an attenuation factor based on a luma value from the frame of video content (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0127]- Cote discloses the brightness of the current input pixel x(t) may be used to generate a luma index lookup in a luma table (L) 194. In one embodiment, the luma table may contain attenuation factors that may be between 0 and 1, and may be selected based upon the luma index. A second filter coefficient, K', may be calculated by multiplying the first filter coefficient K by the luma attenuation factor);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Cote determining, by the hardware module, an attenuation factor based on a luma value from the frame of video content.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein determining, by the hardware module, an attenuation factor based on a luma value from the frame of video content.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Cote are both systems for performing image processing media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Cote’s system provides a more accurate way to gather information. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Cote et al. (US 20110090351 A1), Paragraph [0004-6]).
Harvey, in view of Colombo and in further view of Tabata and Cote fails to explicitly teach attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
However, Wang explicitly teaches attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor, (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0045]- Wang discloses the watermark module 100 generates a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates the strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and in further view of Tabata and Cote of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Wang attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuating, by the hardware module, a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Wang are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides the improving of the robustness of ACF watermarking, the watermark module 100 includes a number of features that improve the unobtrusiveness of the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0045].
Regarding claim 8, Harvey in view of Colombo, and further in view of Tabata, and further in view of Cote, and Wang teaches the method of claim 7,
Harvey in view of Colombo, and further in view of Tabata fail to explicitly teach wherein attenuation factors are determined for respective pixels of the frame of video content.
However, Cote explicitly teaches wherein attenuation factors are determined for respective pixels of the frame of video content (Fig. 14-15, Paragraph [0133]- Cote discloses next, at sub-step 234, three collocated reference pixels 200, 202, and 204 from the previous frame corresponding to the selected set of three horizontally adjacent pixels 206, 208, and 210 are identified.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Cote wherein attenuation factors are determined for respective pixels of the frame of video content.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuation factors are determined for respective pixels of the frame of video content.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Cote are both systems for performing image processing media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Cote’s system provides a more accurate way to gather information. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Cote et al. (US 20110090351 A1), Paragraph [0004-0006].
Harvey in view of Colombo, and further in view of Tabata, and further in view of Cote fails to explicitly teach wherein attenuation factors are applied to respective brightness values of corresponding pixels of the watermark graphic.
However, Wang explicitly teaches wherein attenuation factors are applied to respective brightness values of corresponding pixels of the watermark graphic (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0019]- Wang discloses a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates a strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo, Tabata and Wang of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Wang wherein attenuation factors are applied to respective brightness values of corresponding pixels of the watermark graphic.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuation factors are applied to respective brightness values of corresponding pixels of the watermark graphic.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Wang are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides the improving of the robustness of ACF watermarking, the watermark module 100 includes a number of features that improve the unobtrusiveness of the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Harvey in view of Colombo, and further in view of Tabata, and further in view of Cote, and Wang explicitly teach the method of claim 7,
Harvey in view of Colombo and in further view of Tabata and Wang fail to explicitly teach wherein the attenuation factor is determined based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content
However, Cote explicitly teaches wherein the attenuation factor is determined based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content (Fig. 14-15, Paragraph [0133]- Cote discloses next, at sub-step 234, three collocated reference pixels 200, 202, and 204 from the previous frame corresponding to the selected set of three horizontally adjacent pixels 206, 208, and 210 are identified.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Tabata of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Cote wherein the attenuation factor is determined based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein the attenuation factor is determined based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Cote are both systems for performing image processing media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Cote’s system provides a more accurate way to gather information. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Cote et al. (US 20110090351 A1), Paragraph [0004-6]).
Regarding claim 19, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata teach he electronic device of claim 16, Harvey further teaches wherein the hardware module is further configured to: (Fig. 2A, #218 called a GPU. Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses a graphics processing unit 218.) wherein the attenuated watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content (Fig. 2A. Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata fails to explicitly teach determine an attenuation factor based on one or more luma values from the frame of video content.
However, Cote explicitly teaches determine an attenuation factor based on one or more luma values from the frame of video content (Fig. 14-15, Paragraph [0133]- Cote discloses next, at sub-step 234, three collocated reference pixels 200, 202, and 204 from the previous frame corresponding to the selected set of three horizontally adjacent pixels 206, 208, and 210 are identified.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Cote determine an attenuation factor based on one or more luma values from the frame of video content.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein determine an attenuation factor based on one or more luma values from the frame of video content.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Cote are both systems for performing image processing media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Cote’s system provides an more accurate way to gather information. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Cote et al. (US 20110090351 A1), Paragraph [0004-6]).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata and Cote fails to explicitly teach attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
However, Wang explicitly teaches attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0045]- Wang discloses the watermark module 100 generates a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates the strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata and Cote of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Wang attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Epstein are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides an increase robustness against attacks. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0003-0004]).
Claim 11 and 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Epstein et al (US 20030031317 A1) hereafter referenced as Epstein and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata.
Regarding claim 11, Harvey teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 1. Paragraph [0001]- Harvey discloses the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for securely distributing media programs, and in particular to a system and method for protecting the media programs via corrupting operations.), comprising:
wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses this secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.);
blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.);
and provide the blended frame for display (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey is silent to explicitly teach a hardware module comprising a set of registers Harvey fails to explicitly teach and circuitry configured to: select, from one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers by a trusted application running on a secure processor separate from the hardware module.
However, Colombo explicitly teaches a hardware module comprising a set of registers (Fig. 5, paragraph [0094]- Colombo discloses the key storage memory 1064 may contain a plurality of slots, each adapted to store a respective cryptographic key. Generally, a key slot is a portion of the key storage memory. For example, each slot may include one or more memory locations of a RAM memory, or a register may be used.),
and circuitry configured to: select, from one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers by a trusted application running on a secure processor separate from the hardware module (Fig. 6, Paragraph [0095]- Colombo discloses the memory 110 may include a number of cryptographic keys being greater than the number of key slots in the key storage memory 1064, and the microprocessor 106b may decide the subset of cryptographic keys to be loaded into the key storage memory 1064.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Colombo storing, by a trusted application running on a secure processor, one or more parameter sets in a hardware module separate from the secure processor; selecting, by the hardware module, a current parameter set from the one or more parameters sets stored in a set of registers in the hardware module.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein a hardware module comprising a set of registers and circuitry configured to: select, from one or more parameter sets stored in the set of registers by a trusted application running on a secure processor separate from the hardware module.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for a more secure system, since both Harvey and Colombo are both systems for protecting data. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Colombo’s system provides an improvement to operations securing data. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Colombo et al. (US 20190007202 A1), Paragraph [0043].
Harvey in view of Colombo fails to explicitly teach a current parameter set based on an index value indicated in a previously selected parameter set.
a current parameter set based on an index value indicated in a previously selected parameter set (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0016]- Epstein discloses creates a linked list of sections of a data set, a linked list functions similar to how these parameters to since they need a pointer that points to the next member of the list similar to the index value indicating the next parameter set to use.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Epstein a current parameter set based on an index value indicated in a previously selected parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein a current parameter set based on an index value indicated in a previously selected parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Epstein are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Epstein’s system provides an increase in efficiency of watermarking. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Epstein et al. (US 20030031317 A1), Paragraph [0004-006]).
Harvey in view of Colombo and in further view of Epstein fails to explicitly teach read a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
However, Tabata explicitly teaches read a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0019]- Tabata discloses a memory section that stores image data of a visible watermark pattern; a read-out section that reads out the image data of the visible watermark pattern that is stored in the memory section.),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and Epstein of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Tabata read a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein read a watermark graphic from a location in memory indicated by a parameter in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Tabata are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Tabata’s system provides a simple and efficient watermarking technique. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Tabata et al. (US 20060209349 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005].
Regarding claim 15, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata teach the semiconductor device of claim 11,
Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the watermark graphic is blended with a number of sequential frames of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses a graphics processing unit 218 retrieves frames of the media program from the frame buffer 216 and processes them to overlay items to one or more of the frames),
and wherein the number of sequential frames is indicated in the current parameter set. (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses a graphics processing unit 218 retrieves frames of the media program from the frame buffer 216 and processes them to overlay items to one or more of the frames).
Claim 12, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Epstein et al (US 20030031317 A1) hereafter referenced as Epstein and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Luo et al (WO 2023136805 A1) hereafter referenced as Luo.
Regarding claim 12, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata teach the semiconductor device of claim 11, Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: wherein the resized watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content. (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata fails to explicitly teach resize the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
However, Luo explicitly teaches resize the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0046]- Luo discloses if the second watermark 126 is larger than the size of the source image 128a, the second watermark 126 is cropped based on pre-defined rules. For example, the pre-defined rules can state that the second watermark 126 can be cropped from bottom-right so as to resize the second watermark 126 to the size of the source image 128 a.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Luo wherein resize the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein resize the watermark graphic based on a size of the frame being different than a size of the watermark graphic.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Luo are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Luo’s system provides an improved way of displaying the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Luo et al. (WO 2023136805 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005]).
Claim 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Epstein et al (US 20030031317 A1) hereafter referenced as Epstein and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Wang et al (US 20160364826 A1) hereafter referenced as Wang.
Regarding claim 13, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata teach the semiconductor device of claim 11, Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: wherein the attenuated watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content. (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata fails to explicitly teach attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
However, Wang explicitly teaches attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0045]- Wang discloses the watermark module 100 generates a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates the strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display the teachings of Wang attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on a bias value indicated in the current parameter set.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Wang are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides the improving of the robustness of ACF watermarking, the watermark module 100 includes a number of features that improve the unobtrusiveness of the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0045]).
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Epstein et al (US 20030031317 A1) hereafter referenced as Epstein and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Wang et al (US 20160364826 A1) hereafter referenced as Wang and further in view of Cote et al (US 20110090351 A1) hereafter referenced as Cote.
Regarding claim 14, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata teach the semiconductor device of claim 11, Harvey explicitly teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: wherein the attenuated watermark graphic is blended with the frame of video content (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0024]- Harvey discloses the GPU 218 may also alternatively watermark the media program and provide the watermarked media program (M*) to a screen 222 for display.).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata fails to explicitly teach determine an attenuation factor based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content.
However, Cote explicitly teaches determine an attenuation factor based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content (Fig. 14-15 Paragraph [0133]- Cote discloses next, at sub-step 234, three collocated reference pixels 200, 202, and 204 from the previous frame corresponding to the selected set of three horizontally adjacent pixels 206, 208, and 210 are identified.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and Tabata of having a semiconductor device comprising: wherein access to the memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and a secure processor; and circuitry, wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the semiconductor device and the secure processor; blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Cote determine an attenuation factor based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein determine an attenuation factor based on luma values from a plurality of adjacent pixels in the frame of video content.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Cote are both systems for performing image processing media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Cote’s system provides a more accurate way to gather information. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Cote et al. (US 20110090351 A1), Paragraph [0004-6]).
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Epstein and in further view of Tabata and Cote fails to explicitly teach attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
However, Wang explicitly attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0045]- Wang discloses the watermark module 100 generates a periodic watermark signal using a local weighing factor for the periodic watermark signal that attenuates the strength of the watermark signal in proportion to a pixel luminance level.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey of having a method comprising: wherein access to the location in memory is restricted to the hardware module and one or more first trusted applications, blending, by the hardware module, the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and providing, by the hardware module, and the blended frame for display with the teachings of Wang attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein attenuate a brightness value of the watermark graphic based on the determined attenuation factor.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Wang are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Wang’s system provides the improving of the robustness of ACF watermarking, the watermark module 100 includes a number of features that improve the unobtrusiveness of the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Wang et al. (US 20160364826 A1), Paragraph [0045]).
Claim 17, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Horne et al (US 20080028474 A1) hereafter referenced as Horne.
Regarding claim 17, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata teach the electronic device of claim 16,
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata fails to explicitly teach wherein the secure processor is further configured to execute the one or more trusted applications to generate the watermark graphic.
However, Horne explicitly teaches wherein the secure processor is further configured to execute the one or more trusted applications to generate the watermark graphic. (Fig.1A, Paragraph [0291]- Horne discloses the secret information could also be a parameter used in generating the marks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Horne wherein the secure processor is further configured to execute the one or more trusted applications to generate the watermark graphic.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein the secure processor is further configured to execute the one or more trusted applications to generate the watermark graphic
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Horne are both systems for protecting media. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Horne’s system provides an efficient way to create the watermark. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Horne et al. (US 20080028474 A1), Paragraph [0009]).
Claim 18, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1) hereafter referenced as Harvey in view of Colombo et al (US 20190007202 A1) hereafter referenced as Colombo and further in view of Tabata et al (US 20060209349 A1) hereafter referenced as Tabata and further in view of Hasan et al (US 20090132736 A1) hereafter referenced as Hasan.
Regarding claim 18, Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata teach the electronic device of claim 16, Harvey further teaches wherein the secure processor is further configured to execute the one or more trusted applications to: (Fig. 4D, Paragraph [0040]- Harvey discloses the TEE 407 environment may be implemented by use of a generic processor and “rich” operating system (OS), but with specific commands only permitted to run on a secure OS instead of the rich OS. This secure OS is smaller and more confined than the rich OS, and may for example (1) permitting only particular applications to be run by the secure OS, (2) restricting read and/or write operations to secure memory to only particular applications and only via the secure OS, or (3) permitting only a certain limited set of operations to be performed.”);
Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata fails to explicitly teach query a status indicator of the hardware module wherein the one or more parameter sets are stored in the set of registers based on the status indicator.
However, Hasan explicitly teaches query a status indicator of the hardware module, (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0029]- Hasan discloses commands sent to target memory devices 206, 208, and 210, for example, include data read and write commands, erase commands, parameter query commands, status requests and command any other action indicated by the device parameter information to be within the capability of the target memory)
wherein the one or more parameter sets are stored in the set of registers based on the status indicator (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0033]- Hasan discloses for example, the memory array 234 contained within memory 3 (210) is able to utilize the individual buffer_2 (242) of slave controller 3 (220). In one embodiment of the disclosure, if all other buffers are free the UMC 203 can allocate the buffers 240 and 238 in addition to the unified host buffer 236, which is the size of NAND, NOR and DRAM memory buffers. In another embodiment of the disclosure, when memory_2 (208) is accessed based on the status of a state machine 252 then the memory is transferred based on an id select or chips select (not shown) of the bus 224, for example.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Harvey in view of Colombo and further in view of Tabata of having an electronic device comprising: memory and a processor; wherein the processor is configured to execute one or more trusted applications, wherein access to the location in the memory is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, wherein access to the set of registers is restricted to the one or more trusted applications and the hardware module, blend the watermark graphic with a frame of video content and provide the blended frame for display with the teachings of Horne query a status indicator of the hardware module wherein the one or more parameter sets are stored in the set of registers based on the status indicator.
Wherein having Harvey’s system for protecting media wherein query a status indicator of the hardware module wherein the one or more parameter sets are stored in the set of registers based on the status indicator.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for more efficient and accurate watermarking, since both Harvey and Hasan are both systems for attributing ownership. Wherein Harvey’s system wherein improved the accuracy and better protection of a watermark, while Hasan’s system provides an efficient way to improve system utilization. Please see Harvey et al. (US 20190335233 A1), Paragraph [0004-0005] and Hasan et al. (US 20090132736 A1), Paragraph [0003-0005]).
Examiner’s Remarks
The office respectfully acknowledges the request for an interview and apologizes for not reaching out due to time constraints. The office respectfully looks forward to having an interview before a response to this action is submitted.
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
Srinivasan et al. (US 20050132217 A1)- A secure processor assuring application software is executed securely, and assuring only authorized software is executed, monitored modes and secure modes of operation. The former executes application software transparently to that software. The latter verifies execution of the application software is authorized, performs any extraordinary services required by the application software, and verifies the processor has obtained rights to execute the content. The secure processor (1) appears hardware-identical to an ordinary processor, with the effect that application software written for ordinary processors can be executed on the secure processor without substantial change, (2) needs only a minimal degree of additional hardware over and above those portions appearing hardware-identical to an ordinary processor. The secure processor operates without substantial reduction in speed or other resources available to the application software. Functions operating in secure mode might reside in an on-chip non-volatile memory, or might be loaded from external storage with authentication...................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Buer et al. (US 20100235647 A1)- A system and method for secure processing is provided, wherein a monitor application is injected into a secure application binary within the security perimeter of a secure processor. The components of the monitor application are injected into different portions of the application binary utilizing a seed value. In this manner, the positioning of the monitor application in the application binary is altered each time the application binary is booted. After the monitor application is inserted into the application binary, the secure process is passed to the host processor for execution. During execution of the secure process, a system and method is provided for the monitor application to communicate, to the secure processor, attempts to tamper with or attack the secure process...................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
MacKay et al. (US 20110246782 A1)- Systems and methods are provided for protecting electronic content from the time it is packaged through the time it is experienced by an end user. Protection against content misuse is accomplished using a combination of encryption, watermark screening, detection of invalid content processing software and hardware, and/or detection of invalid content flows. Encryption protects the secrecy of content while it is being transferred or stored. Watermark screening protects against the unauthorized use of content. Watermark screening is provided by invoking a filter module to examine content for the presence of a watermark before the content is delivered to output hardware or software. The filter module is operable to prevent delivery of the content to the output hardware or software if it detects a predefined protection mark. Invalid content processing software is detected by a monitoring mechanism that validates the software involved in processing protected electronic content. Invalid content flows can be detected by scanning the information passed across system interfaces for the attempted transfer of bit patterns that were released from an application and/or a piece of content management software....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Flaharty et al. (US 20180220177 A1)- A method, apparatus, article of manufacture, and a memory structure for inserting a watermark in a media program is described. In an exemplary embodiment, the method comprises the steps of receiving data comprising the media program in the receiver disposed at a subscriber station, generating a watermark, the watermark generated at least in part according to a secure data processor-unique identifier irreversibly stored in the secure data processor, processing the received data to reproduce the media program, and inserting portions of the generated watermark in the reproduced media program at locations determined at least in part according to the secure data processor-unique identifier to produce a watermarked media program provided for display....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIUS C.G. ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5987. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5pm (EST).
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571)272-9752. 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.
/LUCIUS CAMERON GREEN ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673