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 .
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on November 21, 2025.
Claims 1-3, 6, 21-23, 25-29, 31 have been amended. Claims 4, 8-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 21-32 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 8-9 of Remarks that prior art references Anan and Bhogal are not applicable prior art and do not teach the newly claimed limitations. Specifically, Applicant cites the abstract of both references and refer to both references as “old references” in Page 8 of Remarks to argue irrelevancy. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The relevance of a prior art reference is not determined by its age, and arguments regarding relevancy based on the age of a prior art reference are therefore moot. Furthermore, while the Applicant describes the abstract of both prior art references, the argument does not challenge the specific interpretations of the claimed limitations as presented by the previous office action, and the Examiner believes prior art references Anan and Bhogal do teach the newly amended limitations as argued below. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 21-32 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "such that the digital signature of the image is verified by one or more of a private key or a public key at the destination device" in lines 8-9 of Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim with regards to “the destination device” in particular. While the claim refers to communicating an SQR code, the claim does not recite “a destination device”, so it is ambiguous as to what “the destination device” specifically refers to, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. It is recommended by the Examiner to amend the limitation to recite “a destination device” beforehand, such as by amending the claim to include the limitations of Claim 5.
Claims 2-3, 5-7 are rejected by virtue of depending on Claim 1 above.
Claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons as above in claim 1 as it also recites “the destination device” with insufficient antecedent basis. Claims 22-26 are rejected by virtue of depending on Claim 21.
Claim 27 is rejected for similar reasons as above in claim 1 as it also recites “the destination device” with insufficient antecedent basis. Claims 28-32 are rejected by virtue of depending on Claim 27.
Claim 2 recites “the hash associated with the content” in line 2 of Claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends upon Claim 1 which does not previously recite a hash, so it is ambiguous as to what “the hash associated with the content” specifically refers to, therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 22 is rejected for similar reasons as above in claim 2 as it also recites “the hash associated with the content” with insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 28 is rejected for similar reasons as above in claim 2 as it also recites “the hash associated with the content” with insufficient antecedent basis.
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, 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 1-3, 5-7, 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0156257 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Anan”, in view of Bhogal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0323107 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Bhogal”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Anan teaches the following limitations:
A method comprising creating, by a computing device, a digital signature for content of an image using a private key such that the content is digitally signed (Par. [0042], Par. [0057], Par. [0063]). Anan teaches a tamper prevention system for captured images using a digital signature.
wherein the image having the content is captured using an image capturing device (Par. [0046], Par. [0051], Par. [0055], Par. [0056]). Anan teaches the image processing device having a camera for capturing images which may be stored on an SD card.
(taught by Bhogal below)
and communicating (Par. [0042], Par. [0057]). Anan teaches that image content is subject to tamper prevention in one device, and then transmitted to a second device for tamper detection.
(taught by Bhogal below)
such that the digital signature of the image is verified by one or more of a private key or a public key at the destination device (Par. [0043], Par. [0145], Par. [0152]). Anan teaches digital signature verification using a public key.
Bhogal teaches the following limitations:
generating a secure quick response (SQR) code of the digitally signed content representing the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024]). Bhogal teaches QR codes with digital signatures as an alternative method for accessing content.
the SQR code representing (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]). The QR code of Bhogal is generated for visual output. As Bhogal was combined with Anan in such a manner that the QR code acts as a carrier for digitally signed content for that which is transmitted in Anan, this teaches the claimed limitation.
wherein the image is retrieved based on the SQR code associated with the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]). Bhogal teaches retrieving content using the QR code, and this would be the image in combination with Anan above.
Anan teaches a system for detecting tampering in images, but does not teach using a QR code. Bhogal however teaches that digitally signed content can be transmitted using QR codes, and that using such QR codes is convenient for distributing content (Par. [0003]), and that such a QR code would allow for additional security by preventing potential malicious exposure to content (Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image tamper prevention system of Anan with the QR code of Bhogal in order to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the QR code of Bhogal is compatible with the tamper prevention system of Anan as Anan describes transmitting digitally signed content for verification in a similar manner to the QR codes containing digital signatures as Bhogal. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using such a QR code as an alternative method of data transmission that is popular and has the advantage of additional security through preventing exposure to malicious content.
Regarding Claims 2, 22, 28:
Anan teaches the following limitation:
wherein the content of the image is verified based on the hash associated with the content, wherein the hash is calculated specifically for the content (Par. [0085], Par. [0096], Par. [0145], Par. [0152]). Anan teaches digital signature verification using hashes.
wherein the image capturing device comprises a digital camera, wherein the content includes one or more of audio content or video content (Par. [0046], Par. [0051], Par. [0056], Par. [0175]). Anan teaches the device being a camera and recording video content.
Regarding Claims 3, 23, 29:
Anan teaches the following limitation:
further comprising storing the SQR code using a secure digital (SD) card (Par. [0054], Par. [0055], Par. [0137]). Anan teaches storage of data and the tamper prevention program using an SD card. As Anan and Bhogal were combined to create an SQR code for communicating a digital signature for tamper prevention, this suggests storage of the SQR code in the SD card.
Regarding Claims 5, 24, 30:
Anan teaches the following limitations:
wherein (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]). The content of Anan was transmitted to a tamper detection device, i.e. for consumption under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Bhogal teaches the following limitation:
the SQR code representing (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]).
The reasons for motivation/combination of references remain the same as above.
Regarding Claims 6, 25, 31:
Anan teaches the following limitations:
wherein the digitally signed content is verified using a public key at the destination computing device (Par. [0043], Par. [0145], Par. [0152]). Anan teaches digital signature verification using a public key.
Regarding Claim 7:
Anan teaches the following limitation:
wherein the computing device comprises processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry having one or more of application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry (Par. [0046], Par. [0047], Par. [0049], Par. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 21:
Anan teaches the following limitations:
An apparatus comprising: processing circuitry coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry to: (Par. [0046], Par. [0047], Par. [0049], Par. [0050]).
create a digital signature for content of an image using a private key such that the captured content is digitally signed (Par. [0042], Par. [0057], Par. [0063]).
wherein the image having the content is captured using an image capturing device (Par. [0046], Par. [0051], Par. [0055], Par. [0056]).
(taught by Bhogal below)
and communicate (Par. [0042], Par. [0057]).
(taught by Bhogal below)
such that the digital signature of the image is verified by one or more of a private key or a public key at the destination device (Par. [0043], Par. [0145], Par. [0152]).
Bhogal teaches the following limitations:
generate a secure quick response (SQR) code of the digitally signed content representing the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024]).
the SQR code representing (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]).
wherein the image is retrieved based on the SQR code associated with the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]).
Anan teaches a system for detecting tampering in images, but does not teach using a QR code. Bhogal however teaches that digitally signed content can be transmitted using QR codes, and that using such QR codes is convenient for distributing content (Par. [0003]), and that such a QR code would allow for additional security by preventing potential malicious exposure to content (Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image tamper prevention system of Anan with the QR code of Bhogal in order to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the QR code of Bhogal is compatible with the tamper prevention system of Anan as Anan describes transmitting digitally signed content for verification in a similar manner to the QR codes containing digital signatures as Bhogal. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using such a QR code as an alternative method of data transmission that is popular and has the advantage of additional security through preventing exposure to malicious content.
Regarding Claim 26:
Anan teaches the following limitation:
wherein the processing circuitry comprises one or more of application processing circuitry or graphics processing circuitry (Par. [0046], Par. [0047], Par. [0049], Par. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 27:
Anan teaches the following limitations:
At least one computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform operations comprising (Par. [0046], Par. [0047], Par. [0049], Par. [0050])
creating a digital signature for content of an image using a private key such that the captured content is digitally signed (Par. [0042], Par. [0057], Par. [0063]).
wherein the image having the content is captured using an image capturing device (Par. [0046], Par. [0051], Par. [0055], Par. [0056]).
(taught by Bhogal below)
and communicating (Par. [0042], Par. [0057]).
(taught by Bhogal below)
such that the digital signature of the image is verified by one or more of a private key or a public key at the destination device (Par. [0043], Par. [0145], Par. [0152]).
Bhogal teaches the following limitations:
generating a secure quick response (SQR) code of the digitally signed content representing the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024]).
the SQR code representing (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]).
wherein the image is retrieved based on the SQR code associated with the image (Par. [0004], Par. [0022], Par. [0023], Par. [0024], Par. [0046]).
Anan teaches a system for detecting tampering in images, but does not teach using a QR code. Bhogal however teaches that digitally signed content can be transmitted using QR codes, and that using such QR codes is convenient for distributing content (Par. [0003]), and that such a QR code would allow for additional security by preventing potential malicious exposure to content (Par. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image tamper prevention system of Anan with the QR code of Bhogal in order to gain the benefit of additional security. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the QR code of Bhogal is compatible with the tamper prevention system of Anan as Anan describes transmitting digitally signed content for verification in a similar manner to the QR codes containing digital signatures as Bhogal. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using such a QR code as an alternative method of data transmission that is popular and has the advantage of additional security through preventing exposure to malicious content.
Regarding Claim 32:
Anan teaches the following limitation:
wherein the computing device comprises one or more processors having one or more application processors or one or more graphics processors (Par. [0046], Par. [0047], Par. [0049], Par. [0050]).
Related Art
The following prior art made of record and cited on PTO-892, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Tsujimoto (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0310924 A1) – Includes methods regarding QR codes for captured images
Albertson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267036 A1) – Includes methods regarding QR code verification for digital recordings
Tang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0201377 A1) – Includes methods regarding using QR codes for digital signatures
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN V VO whose telephone number is (571)272-2505. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/E.V.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431