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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 23 June 2026 has been received and considered.
Claims 1 – 19 are pending.
Claims 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 7 remain withdrawn.
Claims 10 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 8 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 19, all of the remaining claims still pending in this application, have been rejected.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
In view of the Applicant’s arguments filed 23 June 2026, regarding amendments to independent claims 8 and 15, the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicant's arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 8 – 9, 11 – 16, and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2018/0130168 A1 to Nayshtut et al. (hereinafter Nayshtut) in view of US Publication No. 2021/0103647 A1 to Anderson et al. (hereinafter Anderson).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, an independent method claim, Nayshtut teaches a method of authenticating video (Abstract), comprising using a computing device of a receiving party, for: receiving, from a device of a sending party different from said receiving party, a video showing a light pattern being projected onto an area captured in the video, the video being associated with a time point (Figure 1; "The computers 106 and/or computer servers 104 may each comprise a plurality of VMs, containers, and/or other types of virtualized computing systems for processing computing instructions and transmitting and/or receiving data over computer networks 102. For example, the computers 106 and computer server 104 may be configured to support a multi-tenant architecture, where each tenant may implement its own secure and isolated virtual network environment. Although not illustrated in FIG. 1, the network infrastructure 100 may connect computer networks 102 to a variety of other types of computing device, such as VMs, containers, hosts, storage devices, electronic devices (e.g., wearable electronic devices), and/or any other electronic device capable of transmitting and/or receiving data over computer networks 102.", Paragraph [0020]…"The anti-spoof engine may provide instructions and/or modify the projection of a light source based on the selected optical patterns and/or data elements. For example, the anti-spoof engine may select a dot grid pattern for the light source to project into a scene.", Paragraph [0023}…The anti-spoof engine may store and/or have access to multiple optical patterns (e.g., a list of optical patterns) and/or various data element information, such as timestamp information, geolocation coordinates (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) coordinates), unique computer identifiers, random numbers, and/or one time password (OTP) sequences.", [0023]; “For instances, embodiments of the present disclosure may separate out one or more of the computing system components. For example, the projection units 212, 312, 412, and 512 and/or image capturing devices 214, 314, 414, and 514 may be separate and independent from the anti-spoof engines 206, 306, 406, and 506 that may be located on one or more remote devices. For example, the projection units 212, 312, 412, and 512 and/or image capturing devices 214, 314, 414, and 514 may be devices that are externally connected, such as externally wired and/or wireless connections, to the computing system 202, 302, 402, and 502. In this instance, the computing system 202, 302, 402, and 502 may remotely receive the captured image from the image capturing devices. Additionally, rather than using a single anti-spoof engine that manages both the emission and extraction of the optical watermark signals, other embodiments may use more than one anti-spoof engines, where each anti-spoof engine manages a portion of the optical watermark signal processing. For example, one anti-spoof engine may be configured to generate and cause emission of the optical watermark signal and a second anti-spoof engine may be configured to receive the reflected optical watermark signal and extract the watermark signal. The different anti-spoof engines may also be located on separate computing systems, for example, on separate trusted network devices.”, Paragraph [0026]);
extracting the light pattern from the received video (Figure 3; "Once the computing system receives the image source, the computing system analyzes the image source to extract the reflected optical watermark signal.", Paragraph [0018]);
Nayshtut teaches obtaining, from a server computer of a trusted third party that is external to both the sending party and the receiving party, a reference light pattern identifier that was previously generated and stored by the trusted third party, the light pattern identifier being selected by the server computer of the trusted third party ("Example 17, includes a method for preventing spoofing of visual authentication, comprising: receiving, at a trusted execution engine, an instruction to perform visual authentication operations for a visual authentication session; generating, with the trusted execution engine, an optical watermark signal based on receiving the instruction, wherein the optical watermark signal includes at least one optical identifier to authenticate images captured during the visual authentication session", Paragraph [0085]; “receive from a remote device a captured image for a visual authentication session; determine whether the image source includes a reflected optical watermark signal that includes at least one optical identifier for the visual authentication session; extract the at least one optical identifier from the captured image to generate an extracted watermark signal based on a determination that the image source includes the reflected optical watermark signal; and compare the extracted watermark signal with an expected watermark signal for the visual authentication session to determine whether the extracted watermark signal matches the expected watermark signal.”, Paragraph [0090]), wherein it is obvious to one skilled in the art that the trusted execution engine, also known as a trusted execution environment (TEE), can be an external server.
Nayshtut, although implied due to timestamp and unique computer identifiers (i.e. IP addresses), does not explicitly teach based on the time point associated with the video and on an identity of the sending party, by querying the server computer of the trusted third party using data indicating both the time point and the identity of the sending party;
However, Anderson teaches an “external” identity validation platform (Figure 1, showing two different networks using this external platform) that acts as an identity verification bridge between a sending party and a receiving party using associated party information and timestamps.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anderson further teaches (this platform, as explained above, being…) based on the time point associated with the video and on an identity of the sending party, by querying the server computer of the trusted third party using data indicating both the time point and the identity of the sending party ("The identity validation platform 120 also includes an association controller 124e configured to receive the endorsed electronic instrument(s) and corresponding identity verification information sent from the mobile device 140 (e.g., input through the endorsement interface), and to associate the received data with the corresponding requesting client records. In some embodiments, the association controller 124e is also configured to record additional information related to the received data, including time stamp(s), IP address(es), etc.).”, Paragraph [0026]; “In some embodiments, the validation platform 120 also includes a validation control 124g configured to compare verification information received from the mobile device 140 and which is associated with one or more endorsed electronic instruments, with endorser information 122b, activity logs 122c, and/or other information in order to determine the validity of the verification information.”, Paragraph [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nayshtut to incorporate the external server being able acquire “specific” timestamps and sender/receiver information, as disclosed by Anderson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to generate a watermark with the optical identifier that was unique to each specific address on the network using the information and timestamps associated to the respective sending/receiving parties.
Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, further teaches and verifying authenticity of the received video based on the extracted light pattern and on the reference light pattern identifier obtained from the server computer (Rejected for the same reasons applied directly above), wherein the comparison of the extracted and the generated light pattern for verifying authenticity are disclosed.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, dependent on claim 8, Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Nayshtut does not explicitly teach wherein said verifying further comprises verifying that the time difference between the time of receipt of the video by the receiving party and the time point is within a predefined limit.
However, Anderson further teaches wherein said verifying further comprises verifying that the time difference between the time of receipt of the video by the receiving party and the time point is within a predefined limit (“In other embodiments, the validation control 124g is configured to compare a time stamp associated with an image taken by the mobile device 140 with the current time, a time stamp associated with an endorsement request, and/or a time stamp associated with image data provided by the requesting client device 130, for example. Here, the validation control 124g can compare the two times/timestamps in order to provide some verification of the endorsement. This may be done, for example, to ensure the verification image is sufficiently recent and/or to prevent the unauthorized reuse of certain images (e.g. to prevent a user from using an old picture stored in a social media application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of Nayshtutin view of Anderson, to incorporate are comparison of the timestamps, as disclosed by Anderson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the prevention of a video to be manipulated.
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, dependent on claim 8, Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Nayshtut further teaches extracting a light pattern identifier from the extracted light pattern, and verifying that the extracted light pattern identifier is identical to the reference light pattern identifier (Rejected as applied to claim 1, specifically Paragraph [0090]).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, dependent on claim 8, Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Nayshtut further teaches selecting a second light pattern from a database of light patterns, using the reference light pattern identifier, and verifying that the selected light pattern is identical to the light pattern extracted from the received video ("Similar to computing system 202, for a given visual authentication sessions, the computing system 302 may emit a one or more optical watermark signals at one or more time durations. For example, for a visual authentication session, the computing system 202 may emit a first optical watermark signal for a duration of about a second, a second optical watermark signal for a duration of about two seconds, and a third optical watermark signal for a duration of about three seconds.", Paragraph [0037]).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, dependent on claim 8, Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Nayshtut further teaches wherein the time point is indicated in a timestamp embedded in the received video (Rejected as applied to claim 9).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, dependent on claim 8, Nayshtut, in view of Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8.
Nayshtut further wherein the time point is a time of broadcasting of the video (Figure 3; Paragraph [0023] and paragraph [0016]), wherein Paragraph [0016] discloses the image device can be a "video" recorder.
Claim 15, an independent system claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 8.
Claims 16 and 18 – 19, all of which are dependent on claim 15, are rejected for the same reasons as applied to the above claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN Publication No. 115396112 A to LIU et al. (hereinafter LIU).
Examiner note: A translated version of CN 115396112 A has been attached to this Office Action, hereinafter referred to as Translated Document 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
