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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant attests on page 9 of the remarks filed 12/05/2025 that “Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application”. The Examiner respectfully submits that claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 are marked as “Canceled”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the traversal of the Office’s remarks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues on pages 9-11 that “the specification fully supports the recited features” and that “the Office Action merely relies on a few portions of the disclosure directed to the system storing the image segments, and recording pixel coordinate information. As an initial point, the reasoning behind the Office’s reliance on the use of the word ‘may’ in the specification in alleging that the disclosure in the specification is insufficient is unclear to Applicant. Nowhere do 35 U.S.C. § 112 or MPEP § 2100 appear to prohibit the use of the word ‘may’ in the specification, nor do they indicate that its use somehow connotes a lack of description of how a feature is performed with respect to the written description requirement”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, in the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025, the written description rejection remarks do not hinge their validity based upon the usage of the word “may” as Applicant contends. The written description rejection was made because it was clear that the originally filed disclosure merely describes, using functional language, a desired result, but does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the results is achieved. The amended claims recite the limitation “segment the image with the encryption key encoded therewithin into the predefined number of image segments”. Therefore, the claims clearly define a part of the invention in functional language (segment the image with encryption key), specifying a desired result (into the predefined number of image segments), and the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved as the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). The originally filed disclosure merely states that the claimed invention may perform the specialized claim function, does not describe or explain whatsoever how the specialized claim function is performed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how the inventor intended to achieve claimed function. Applicant is encouraged to see MPEP §§ 2161.01, 2163.02, and 2181 subsection IV for more information.
Secondly, Applicant’s specific remarks regarding how the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025, allegedly, “merely relies on a few portions of the disclosure directed to the system storing the image segments, and recording pixel coordinate information” and “outside of the specific portions of the disclosure narrowly relied upon by the Office Action, directed to the system storing the image segments, and recording pixel coordinate information, the specification clearly discloses how the sub-division/partitions for image segmentation guided by user input are performed” are unclear. The Applicant pointed to paragraphs [0056-0057] in the remarks filed 06/02/2025 (see page 11) as allegedly supporting the claim limitations at issue. The Examiner then responded to this argument by stating that the provided paragraphs (and passages particularly quoted by the Applicant) do not sufficiently disclose how the inventor intended to achieve the desired result in the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025. Now, in the remarks filed 12/05/2025, Applicant attempts to characterize the response to the reliance upon paragraphs [0056-0057] and its passages as “narrow”, and then immediately re-iterates the position that paragraphs [0056-0057] allegedly “clearly discloses how the sub-division/partitions for image segmentation guided by user input are performed”. The Examiner respectfully submits that paragraphs [0056-0057] do not “clearly” describe, in whole or in part, how the inventor intended to achieve the specialized claim function of segmenting the image, and instead the paragraphs merely recite that the claimed invention may perform the claimed function without disclosing any algorithm or steps/procedures. Applicant does not explain or respond to the explanation set forth by the Examiner in the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025, and instead reproduces the contents of paragraphs [0056-0057] and asserts with the conclusory statement that the specification allegedly fully satisfies the written description requirement.
Applicant next argues that the prior arguments presented by the Applicant are not admissions of prior art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner would like to quote the Applicant’s own remarks filed 06/02/2025, “A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that in order to determine pixel coordinates of image segments, the system must first partition the image into defined regions. This is a standard and well-documented procedure, as evidenced by general image segmentation literature and tools widely available to practitioners at the time of filing”, see page 11 (emphasis added). This statement clearly admits on the record that apparently such a system partitioning an image into defined regions exist is within the knowledge of prior art. A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as "prior art" is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where the admitted prior art anticipates the claim but does not qualify as prior art under any of the paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, the claim may be rejected as being anticipated by the admitted prior art without citing to 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2129. As of the current record, the Applicant has already admitted during prosecution that a system partitioning an image into defined regions is within the prior art.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-15, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations “segment the image with the encryption key encoded therewithin into the predefined number of image components based on the user request” in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and “wherein the encryption key is encoded in one or more instances of an object in the image” in dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant first argues that what is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail, and that the written description is met if a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor is in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The Examiner respectfully submits original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant next argues citing to section § 2161.01 II. Best Mode of the MPEP. The Examiner respectfully submits that this argument is moot as the rejection was with respect to written description and not best mode.
Applicant next argues that if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform to achieve the claimed function, then the written description is satisfied. The Examiner respectfully submits that this is not the test, not within the MPEP, and that, once more, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant next argues that possession could be shown using reduction to practice, or by showing drawings or structural chemical formulas. The Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed invention is drawn to a computer-implemented invention and not chemical formulas.
Applicant finally alleges that the limitations at issue have written description support, reproduces paragraphs [0054-0057] and [0063] and then submits again that the limitations are fully supported by the originally filed disclosure. The Examiner respectfully submits that the provided paragraphs articulate desired results and purported advantages of a 24-bit RGB color image, and do not disclose how the inventor intended for the claimed system to perform the claimed function, outside of stating that it may do so.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-17, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant attests that the claims are not indefinite, cites to multiple court cases, reproduces the contents of paragraphs [0054-0055] and [0063], and then makes the conclusory statement that there is allegedly a clear cut indication of the scope , well-defined boundary, and alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art “would know” what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As presented in the Final Rejection mailed 08/20/2025, the recited function of now-amended claims 4, 11, and 18 recites “wherein the encryption key is encoded in only in each of the one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image”. Claims 4, 11, and 18 depend upon claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively. Each of the independent claims only recite that the image is received with an encryption key encoded within. Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “wherein the encryption key is encoded in only in each of the one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image” which is an instance of functional language. This claim element however does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it does not meet the three-prong analysis outlined in MPEP § 2181, as the claim does not recite “means” or a generic placeholder for “means”. Therefore, during examination the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of the functional language in this case is that the system must somehow encode the encryption key only in one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image. The structure, material, or act in the claim that is connected to (i.e., performs) the recited function is not recited. The claimed function of encoding the encryption key only in one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image is not performed by any structure recited in the claim. Claim language that merely states a result to be obtained without providing boundaries on the claim scope (e.g., by not specifying any way to achieve those results) is unclear. The boundaries of the functional language are unclear because the claim itself does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., the non-transitory storage device, the processor, or the computer program product, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the claimed system in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “in only in” should read “only in”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “receive an image with an encryption key encoded within color components of one or more pixels of the image comprising a red component, a green component, and a blue component, wherein each color component is associated with a numerical channel value of 8 bits, wherein the one or more pixels are associated with one or more instances of a predetermined object within the image”. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The paragraphs pointed out by the Applicant in the reply filed 12/05/2025 do not appear to contain written description regarding how the encryption key is encoded within color components of one or more pixels, wherein the one or more pixels are associated with one or more instances of a predetermined object within the image as filed.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 also recite “segment the image with the encryption key encoded therewithin into the predefined number of image segments based on the user request”. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the originally filed disclosure regarding how the inventor intended to achieve the specialized claim function of segmenting the image. For example, paragraphs [0056-0057] of the originally filed disclosure merely contain recitations of intended results that the claimed invention “may segment the image into a specific number of image segments based on a user input … the system may segment the image into various image components based on the number of image segments requested by the user” (emphasis added). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims are currently drawn to all conceivable ways of segmenting an image with an encryption key encoded therewithin into a user requested number of image components, while the originally filed disclosure is silent with regard to how the inventor actually intended to perform the image segmentation.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18:
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation “wherein the encryption key is encoded in only in each of the one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image”. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure of an algorithm or method step regarding how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function wherein the encryption key is encoded. For example, Figure 2 is deficient in providing support for the claim limitation as step 206 is a method step of a flow-diagram which recites “encoding the encryption key in an image”. This recitation fails to support the claimed function because it only comprises a repetition of claim language and is silent with regards to how the encryption key is successfully encoded in an image.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 also recite the limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the one or more instances of the predetermined object within the image based on (i) object localization comprising determining where the predetermined object is located in the image, and (ii) object classification comprising identifying the predetermined object within the image”. The limitation in question does not satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. The specification does not describe the limitation in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. There is no disclosure of an algorithm or method step regarding how the inventor intended to achieve the claimed function outside of declaring that it is an achieved desired result using “any suitable object recognition/detection algorithm” in paragraph [0055]; followed by a mere listing of the names of the myriad of object detection algorithms, all while not disclosing how the inventor intended to have the claimed processor be further configured implement any of the myriad of possible solutions to determine the one or more instances of the predetermined object within the image.
The dependent claims fall together accordingly.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “unique authentication requirement” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unique authentication requirement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no disclosure regarding what make one authentication requirement “unique” as compared to another authentication requirement. The originally filed disclosure is silent with regard to defining the metes and bounds of how the term “unique” limits the claim term “authentication requirement”, as the only mention of the term is found in paragraph [0058], “In some embodiments, each image component may be subject to a unique authentication requirement”.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation “wherein the encryption key is encoded in only in each of the one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image”. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the “device” in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more 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, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shillingford et. al. (US Publication No. US 2022/0014352 A1) hereinafter Shillingford in view of Pathak et. al. (US Publication No. US 20170011203 A1) hereinafter Pathak, further in view of Nakamura et. al. (US Publication No. US 2006/0193491 A1) hereinafter Nakamura, further in view of O’Hare et. al. (US Publication No. US 2012/0331088 A1) hereinafter O’Hare.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Claim 1. Shillingford discloses a system for encryption key encryption using image processing, the system comprising: a non-transitory storage device; and a processor coupled to the non-transitory storage device, wherein the processor is configured to (Shillingford Fig. 6, [0078]): … wherein the one or more pixels are associated with one or more instances of a predetermined object within the image (Shillingford [0081-0084] user may provide specific files, in respond to a request “the multi-object steganographic encryption subsystem may generate a requested number of steganographic objects and a corresponding number of encryption key components”; [0136-0139]); receive, from a first user input device, a user request from a first user to segment the image with the encryption key encoded therewithin into a predefined number of image segments (Shillingford [0081-0082] user may provide specific files, [0084] in respond to a request “the multi-object steganographic encryption subsystem may generate a requested number of steganographic objects and a corresponding number of encryption key components”; [0137-0138]), … segment the image with the encryption key encoded therewithin into the predefined number of image segments based on the user request (Applicant admitted prior art; Shillingford [0078-0081] encryption key components), … and storing the pixel coordinates corresponding to each image segmenting a key repository (Shillingford [0078-0082] “The encrypted content item can be stored or returned to the user. The system may generate a plurality of encryption key components that can later be used to reconstruct the encryption key.” [0114] may be remote locations as well); … and record information associated with the one or more end-point devices in the key repository (Shillingford [0115] “An access control module 686 may manage access to user-created content. For example, a user may set varying permissions and grant varying access rights to different friends and family members (other users). A user profile module 690 may facilitate updates and modifications to various user profile settings, such as password changes. A third-party integration module 694 may facilitate continuous integration and interoperability with third-party social media networks to help with duplicate posting and/or content transfers.”, [0085] may include an identifier), wherein the information comprises a number of end-point devices on which the information is recorded and a unique identifier associated with each end-point device (Shillingford [0085-0086] identifiers stored; [0108] and [0114] remote locations and users).
Shillingford does not explicitly disclose receive an image with an encryption key encoded within color components of one or more pixels of the image comprising a red component, a green component, and a blue component, wherein each color component is associated with a numerical channel value of 8 bits, … wherein each image segment comprises a predetermined number of pixels; … wherein segmenting further comprises: determining pixel coordinates associated with each image segment, wherein the pixel coordinates uniquely define a location of a pixel within the image; … assign, at random, one or more end-point devices for storage of the image segments; store the image segments in the one or more end-point devices such that each image segment is stored at a different end-point device of the one or more end-point devices, wherein storing further comprises establishing a unique authentication requirement for each image segment, such that access to the image segment requires validation of the associated authentication requirement.
Pathak teaches receive an image with an encryption key encoded within color components of one or more pixels of the image comprising a red component, a green component, and a blue component, wherein each color component is associated with a numerical channel value of 8 bits (Pathak [0031-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the encryption key encryption disclosed by Shillingford with the encoding within color components of pixels as taught by Pathak. The motivation for this combination would be to improve security by successfully encoding/encrypting data into the bits of color channels of images so that the data can be retained securely (Pathak [0022]).
Pathak does not explicitly teach wherein each image segment comprises a predetermined number of pixels; … wherein segmenting further comprises: determining pixel coordinates associated with each image segment, wherein the pixel coordinates uniquely define a location of a pixel within the image; … assign, at random, one or more end-point devices for storage of the image segments; store the image segments in the one or more end-point devices such that each image segment is stored at a different end-point device of the one or more end-point devices, wherein storing further comprises establishing a unique authentication requirement for each image segment, such that access to the image segment requires validation of the associated authentication requirement.
Nakamura teaches wherein each image segment comprises a predetermined number of pixels (Nakamura Figs. 10-12, 14, 16-20; [0225-0234] object component position information is found in order to cut a pixel block in the detected object image where in this case “NxN” pixels in size); … wherein segmenting further comprises: determining pixel coordinates associated with each image segment, wherein the pixel coordinates uniquely define a location of a pixel within the image; (Nakamura Figs. 10-12, 14, 16-20; [0225-0234] object component position information is found in order to cut a pixel block in the detected object image and the location of a pixel in the image is uniquely defined by its pixel coordinates by definition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the encryption key encryption disclosed by Shillingford with the encoding within color components of pixels as taught by Pathak, further with the image segmenting using pixel coordinates taught by Nakamura. The motivation for this combination would be to be able to quickly determine where the steganographic objects are located within image.
Nakamura does not explicitly teach assign, at random, one or more end-point devices for storage of the image segments; store the image segments in the one or more end-point devices such that each image segment is stored at a different end-point device of the one or more end-point devices, wherein storing further comprises establishing a unique authentication requirement for each image segment, such that access to the image segment requires validation of the associated authentication requirement.
O’Hare teaches assign, at random, one or more end-point devices for storage of the image segments (O’Hare [0127-0130] distributing randomly split sensitive data into randomly selected devices [“depositories”] is a known technique “each of the foregoing pairings is randomly distributed to one of the depositories D1 through D4. For example, during a first data splitting process 800, the pairing AC may be sent to depository D2, through, for example, a random selection of D2's IP address. Then, during a second data splitting process 800, the pairing AC may be sent to depository D4, through, for example, a random selection of D4's IP address. In addition, the pairings may all be stored on one depository, and may be stored in separate locations on said depository”); store the image segments in the one or more end-point devices such that each image segment is stored at a different end-point device of the one or more end-point devices (O’Hare [0127-0130] and [0133] distributing randomly split sensitive data into randomly selected devices [“depositories”] is a known technique “each of the foregoing pairings is randomly distributed to one of the depositories D1 through D4. For example, during a first data splitting process 800, the pairing AC may be sent to depository D2, through, for example, a random selection of D2's IP address. Then, during a second data splitting process 800, the pairing AC may be sent to depository D4, through, for example, a random selection of D4's IP address. In addition, the pairings may all be stored on one depository, and may be stored in separate locations on said depository”), wherein storing further comprises establishing a unique authentication requirement for each image segment, such that access to the image segment requires validation of the associated authentication requirement (O’Hare [0567] “the authentication/registration server 4806 verifies that the User 1 device 4802a is authorized to access files in the secure storage system 4800 or, more particularly, to access the data portions that can be used to restore ANYFILE1”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the encryption key encryption disclosed by Shillingford with the encoding within color components of pixels as taught by Pathak, further with the image segmenting using pixel coordinates taught by Nakamura, further with the storage techniques taught by O’Hare. The motivation for this combination would be to improve security by increasing the availability of data through the redundancy of random selection of endpoint devices and to improve security against potential insider threats since the randomly selected endpoints may be in different geographic locations (O’Hare [0125]).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales. Shillingford further discloses a method (Shillingford [0087]).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16:
Claim 2. The combination of Shillingford, Pathak, Nakamura, and O’Hare further teaches the system of claim 1 (Shillingford Fig. 6, [0078]), wherein, in segmenting the image into the one or more image components, the processor is further configured to: receive, from the first user input device, a number of image segments (Shillingford [0114]); and segment the image into the one or more image components based on at least the number of image segments (Shillingford [0114] “Specifically, the steganographic encryption and/or decryption module 698 may implement a multi-object steganographic encryption approach in which the encryption key used to encrypt a content item is divided or split into multiple encryption key components. The encryption key components may be steganographically encoded within steganographic objects. The steganographic objects may be distributed to remote locations and/or to different users.”); and record the number of image segments corresponding to the encryption key in the key repository (Shillingford [0114] “The encryption key can be reconstructed by the presentation of a minimum number of steganographic objects (e.g., two or more, three or more, or all the steganographic objects). The reconstructed encryption key can be used to decrypt the encrypted content item.”).
Claims 9 and 16 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18:
Claim 4. The combination of Shillingford, Pathak, Nakamura, and O’Hare further teaches the system of claim 1 (Shillingford Fig. 6, [0078]), wherein the encryption key is encoded in only in each of the one or more instances of the predetermined object in the image (Shillingford [0085], [0137-0138]), wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the one or more instances of the predetermined object within the image based on (i) object localization comprising determining where the predetermined object is located in the image, and (ii) object classification comprising identifying the predetermined object within the image (Shillingford [0085], [0137-0138]).
Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19:
Claim 5. The combination of Shillingford, Pathak, Nakamura, and O’Hare further teaches the system of claim 1 (Shillingford Fig. 6, [0078]), wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from a second user input device, a request from a second user to extract the encryption key (Shillingford Fig. 24B, [0137-0140] decryption system); determine an authentication level of second user (Shillingford Fig. 25 access control system; [0142-0142]); determine whether the authentication level of the second user matches an authentication requirement associated with extraction of the encryption key (Shillingford [0115] access control enforces granted access rights); and authorize an extraction of the encryption key in an instance where the authentication level of the second user matches the authentication requirement associated with the extraction of the encryption key (Shillingford Fig. 25; [0111] user-specified access control; [0114-0115] “An access control module 686 may manage access to user-created content. For example, a user may set varying permissions and grant varying access rights to different friends and family members (other users).”; [0143-0144] only provide access upon validation of required credentials).
Claims 12 and 19 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20:
Claim 6. The combination of Shillingford, Pathak, Nakamura, and O’Hare further teaches the system of claim 5 (Shillingford Fig. 6, [0078]), wherein, in authorizing the extraction of the encryption key, the processor is further configured to: retrieve, from the key repository, the information associated with the one or more end-point devices (Shillingford Fig. 24B encrypted user content that was stored is subject of decryption); retrieve, the one or more image components from the one or more end-point devices (Shillingford Fig. 24B steganographic objects provided, [0137] “As described herein, the encryption key 2420 may only be reconstructed if a minimum number of steganographic objects 2460 are presented to the multi-object steganographic decryption system 2450.”); and assemble the image using the one or more image components (Shillingford Fig. 24B, [0139]).
Claims 13 and 29 recite substantially the same content and are therefore rejected under the same rationales.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the submitted PTO-892 Notice of References Cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A LOPEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1241. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached on 5712727624. 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.
/M.A.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2496
/JORGE L ORTIZ CRIADO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496