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 .
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 20-25 and 33-37 along with their dependent claims 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.
Re claim 20 The examiner notes that the language “optionally” is confusing because it is unclear if this elements are actually required by the claim or not.
Re claim 20 the examiner notes the language “produces one or more encrypted or cryptographically derived values” followed by the language the “SEDW device further presenting into the physical scene a time-varying encoded representation of at least a portion of the encrypted values in a form detectable by independent recording devices” is confusing because the language “encrypted values” makes no sense is first recited in the alternative then subsequently included in a element which is not presented in the alternative. This is confusing because the claim appears to state that a encrypted value or “a cryptographically derived values” may be produced (a such an encrypted value may not exist) but then later in claim recites an element that explicitly requires the encrypted value. This is confusing. Further the claim is confusing because is recites “one or more encrypted or cryptographically derived values” the recites “encrypted values” are multiple encrypted values required by the claim or only one?
Re claim 20 the language “identifying a from the recorded media data at least one encrypted or cryptographically derived value” followed by the language “comparing the extracted encrypted or cryptographically derived value” is confusing because “the extracted encrypted or cryptographically derived value” lacks antecedent basis. The examiner believes that the “extracted” and “identified” values are meant to refer to each other, however this is unclear. The examiner suggest modifying the claim to use consistent language.
Re claims 21-24 and 33-37 these claims depend from claim 20 and are unclear for similar reasons
Re claim 21 claim 21 refers to “the first hash” the examiner notes that this lack antecedent basis in the claim as this element has been deleted from the claim. The examiner is not sure what applicant is attempting to claim here. The examiner believes this may be intended to refer to one of “identifying a from the recorded media data at least one encrypted or cryptographically derived value” or “the extracted encrypted or cryptographically derived value”.
Re claim 33 claim 33 depends from claim 21
Re claim 22 the element “wherein the hashing method is fingerprinting” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 its not clear to the examiner how this element relates to the amended claim.
Re claim 25 the language of “wherein the processing component is further configured, in at least some embodiments, to incorporate additional sensor data selected from video data, location data, and motion data into the first hash prior to generating the digital signature” the language “in at least some embodiments” creates a confusion as to if this element is required or not. The examiner suggests deleting this language.
Re claim 33 the element “the first hash” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 its not clear to the examiner how this element relates to the amended claim.
Re claim 34 the element “the first hash” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 it’s not clear to the examiner how this element relates to the amended claim.
Re claim 35 the element “the first hash” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 it’s not clear to the examiner how this element relates to the amended claim.
Re claim 36 the element “the first hash” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 it’s not clear to the examiner how this element relates to the amended claim.
Re claim 37 the elements “the first hash” and “the second hash” lack antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner notes that hashing has been deleted from claim 20 it’s not clear to the examiner how these element relates to the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Busch US 20220353082 A1.
Re claim 1 Busch discloses A wearable authentication device comprising: an audio detector configured to capture ambient audio of an actual event (see paragraph 117 microphone); a processor configured to compute a first hash of the captured audio (see paragraph 240, 234 note that audio data may be used a corroborating data see paragraph 231 note that corroborating data may be hashed into a cryptographic verification code ); and a display configured present a succession of images encoding the first hash of the ambient audio in near-real-time ( see paragraph 295 The encoded information is displayed on the display or a surface of the device note the verification code may be displayed see paragraph 393 this is done is near real time); wherein the processing component repeatedly updates the first hash and causes the display to successively present the images such that the ambient audio is optically represented, in real-time, during the event (see paragraph 250 “For example, if a world leader is giving a speech, a device placed on her desk may display a coded image encoded with a private key associated with a public key known to be associated with the world leader. As she speaks, the coded image may update frequently (every fraction, 1, 5, 10, 15 seconds, etc.).” ).
Re claim 28 Busch discloses wherein the processing component is configured to embed in the succession of images one or more time stamps indicating at least one of a current time or an elapsed time in the event (see paragraph 236 note that a current time stamp may be included as corroborating data).
Re claim 32 Busch discloses wherein the first hash is encoded in the images as a machine- readable two-dimensional barcode (see paragraph 294 note that the encoded information may be in the form of a QR code also see figure 2g).
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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch US 20220353082 A1 in view of Kursun US 20200186523 A1.
Re claim 26 Busch further discloses wherein the succession of images includes a (see paragraph 295 and 294 The encoded information is displayed on the display or a surface of the device) a unique device identifier associated with the authentication device (see paragraph 235 ) and account id (see paragraph 235) Busch does not expressly disclose in a registration code linking the device to an identity of a user. Kursun discloses a registration code linking the device to an identity of a user (see paragraph 5 note that a device identifier is encoded in the signature) (see paragraph 5 note a user identifier is encoded in the signature). The motivation to combine is to increases the security of device authentication by helping to prevent the use of device hijacking methods that exploit conventional authentication practices (see paragraph 4). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily added a devices and user identifier into the data of Busch using the teachings of Kursun. 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 Busch with Kursun to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch US 20220353082 A1 in view of Thorwirth US 20200186894 A1.
Re claim 27 Busch further discloses wherein the processing component is configured to embed in the succession of images a verification code (see paragraph 295 and 294 The encoded information is displayed on the display or a surface of the device) Busch does not expressly disclose session identifier that is unique to a recording session of the event. Thorwirth discloses a signature including session identifier that is unique to a recording session of the event (see paragraph 52). The motivation to combine is the mark can then be used by a player to control playback and/or recording of the media. (see paragraph 108). One of ordinary skill in the art could have added a session identifier into verification code of Busch using the teachings of Thorwirth. 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 Busch with Thorwirth to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busch US 20220353082 A1 in view of Bhogal US 20160323107 A1.
Re claim 30 Busch further discloses wherein the succession of images includes encoding a barcode for verifying the authenticity of the event(see paragraph 294 note that the encoded information may be in the form of a QR code also see figure 2g). Busch does not expressly disclose a QR code including information indicating a source for verifying authenticity, including at least one network address at which verification data or public keys are published. Bhogal US disclose a QR code including information indicating a source for verifying authenticity of the event, including at least one network address at which verification data or public keys are published (see paragraph 23 “the image capture device captures an image of the QR code and the QR code application decodes the QR code to extract the URL and the signature. The URL may then be used by the QR code application to access the linked website domain, e.g., “example.com”, to obtain the public key value” ) The motivation to combine is “The public key obtained from the website domain may then be used to decrypt the signature portion of the QR code and compare the decrypted signature with the URL to ensure that there is a match” see paragraph 23. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified Busch to include a network address on the QR code as described in Bhogal. 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 Busch with Bhogal to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 1 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen WO/2020/197457 in view of Massicot US 20240129131 A1.
Re claim 1 Chen et al discloses A wearable authentication (see figure 4 and paragraph 40) device comprising: an audio detector configured to capture ambient audio of an actual event (see paragraph 36 The authentication accessories worn, carried, or in a background of the speaker may include a detection component to detect an audio component also see figure 4);
a processor configured to compute a first signature of the captured audio (see paragraph 26 and figure 4 see also paragraph 40 “spoken sentences 412 of the speaker 404 may be captured as audio 410 and converted to text through a speech-to-text conversion. A digital signature 416 may then be generated based on the sentences 412 through an encryption or digital signing process 414. Subsequently, the signature may be transmitted by the authentication accessory 408 as verification signal 418”);
and a display configured to present an image that encodes the signature of the ambient audio present a succession of images encoding the first fingerprint of the ambient audio in near-real-time (see paragraph 26 “In some examples, the digital signature may be applied to every sentence that the person says by using accessories worn by the person, and the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video” see also paragraph 23 “ The verification signal 238 may also include a dynamically changing image or an invisible video signal such as an ultraviolet signal or an infrared signal” note that the verification signal may be a dynamically varying image/video see also paragraph 33 note that the verification signal is captured at the time of the capture of the video signal the examiner notes that this mean the verification signal will be displayed during the capture of the video to be verified and as such will be “ real time”);
wherein the processing component repeatedly updates the first signature and causes the display to successively present the images such that the ambient audio is optically represented, in real-time, during the event (see paragraph 26 “In some examples, the digital signature may be applied to every sentence that the person says by using accessories worn by the person, and the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video” note that each sentence may be encoded into a digital signature see also paragraph 23 “ The verification signal 238 may also include a dynamically changing image or an invisible video signal such as an ultraviolet signal or an infrared signal” note that the verification signal may be a dynamically varying image/video see also paragraph 33 note that the verification signal is captured at the time of the capture of the video signal the examiner notes that this mean the verification signal will be displayed during the capture of the video to be verified and as such will be “ real time”).
Chen does not disclose Does not disclose the signature is a hash value. Massicot discloses the signature encoded into a hash value (see paragraph 17) The motivation to combine is make it possible to limit the amount of data stored for while securely verifying (see paragraph 17). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily encoded the signature of Chen using a hash value as disclosed in Massicot to reduce the amount of data. 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 Chen and Massicot to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 32 wherein the first hash is encoded in the images as a machine- readable two-dimensional barcode (see paragraph 22 note the verification signal may be a QR code [i.e. 2d barcode]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen WO/2020/197457 in view of Massicot US 20240129131 A1 in view of Ali US 2008/0162943 A1.
Re claim 29 Chen discloses encoding data in the succession of images (see paragraph 26 some examples, the digital signature may be applied to every sentence that the person says by using accessories worn by the person, and the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera). Chen further does not disclose wherein the processing component is configured to embed one or more error-correcting codes to facilitate extraction of the first hash and to prevent insertion of false or non-matching information. Massicot discloses wherein the processing component is configured to embed one or more error-correcting codes to facilitate extraction of the first hash (see paragraph 111 note that wherein the processing component is configured to embed one or more error-correcting codes in the succession of images to facilitate extraction of the first hash and to prevent insertion of false or non-matching information). The motivation to combine is In this way, an error can be reported to the user (see paragraph 111). 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 Chan and Massicot to reach the aforementioned advantage..
Chen and Massicot do not expressly disclose and error correcting code to prevent insertion of false or non-matching information Al discloses to prevent insertion of false or non-matching information ( see paragraph 21 Additionally, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) or hash function may be used for tamper detection. CRCs and hash functions are mathematical operations that return a special number representing the content of a digital file. The special number is compared against an expected value, and if there have been any changes to the file (i.e. the file integrity has been compromised), the calculated number is unlikely to match the expected value.). The motivation to combine is to prevent tampering (see paragraph 21). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily added a CRC code to the signature of Chen. 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 Chen and Massicot with Ali to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen WO/2020/197547 in view of Massicot US 20240129131 A1 in view of Zhao et al US 20020122568 A1.
Re claim 38 Chen further disclose wherein the first signature is embedded as a digital mark on the display, the digital mark being configured such that changes in brightness, color, or other image parameters encode the signature in a manner that is detectable by an analyzer while being non-distracting or not readily noticeable to human observers viewing the display during the event(see paragraph 23 “The verification signal 238 may also include a dynamically changing image or an invisible video signal such as an ultraviolet signal or an infrared signal.“ ) Massicot discloses using a hash ( see paragraph 17 ). Chen and Massicot do not expressly disclose a digital watermark within a displayed graphical image or background. Zhao discloses a digital watermark within a displayed graphical image or background (see paragraph 76 note that a digital signature may be embedded into the background of an image, see paragraph 10 note that the watermark may be invisible.) The motivation to combine is to generate an invisible indication which cannot be removed. (see paragraph 10). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified Chen and Massicot to embed the signature into a watermark as described in Zhao. 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 Chen and Massicot with Zhao to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, and 31 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Re claim 25 While Chen discloses use of public and private keys (see paragraph 26) but does not expressly disclose wherein the processing component is further configured to generate a digital signature of the first hash using a private cryptographic key, and the display is configured to present the first hash together with the digital signature, and wherein the processing component is further configured, in at least some embodiments, to incorporate additional sensor data selected from video data, location data, and motion data into the first hash prior to generating the digital signature.
Re claim 31 Chen discloses encoding audio however the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the processing component is configured to compute the first hash for overlapping segments of the ambient audio such that consecutive images in the succession contain redundant information from a common portion of the audio.
Claim 20-24, 33-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Re claim 20 Chen discloses A method for authenticating media data of an, actual event, the event being monitored by a scene-embedded digital watermark (SEDW) device that, at the location of the event, captures or receives sensor data of the event and produces one or more encrypted or cryptographically derived values based on the sensor data, (see paragraphs 25 and 26)
the SEDW device further presenting into the physical scene a time-varying encoded representation of at least a portion of the encrypted values in a form detectable by independent recording devices, (see paragraph 26 and 25)
wherein a verifier, separate from the SEDW device, analyzes the recorded media data in real time or subsequently to extract and evaluate the encoded representation, (see figure 7 and 55-58 ) the method comprising: receiving recorded media data representing at least a portion of the event, the recorded media data having been captured by a recording device separate from or part of the SEDW device and including a capture of the encoded representation presented by the SEDW device, from the recorded media data at least one encrypted or cryptographically derived value presented by the SEDW device, (see paragraphs 25 and 26 see figure 7 and 55-58 ) deriving, from the recorded media data or from canonical sources referenced by the encoded representation, corresponding event data for comparison, comparing the extracted encrypted or cryptographically derived value with the derived corresponding event data or with the canonical signed versions referenced by the encoded representation, and determining, based on the comparing, whether the audio or recorded media data has been altered or whether the recorded media data corresponds to the actual event or whether it has been spoofed, spliced, re-ordered, substituted, or otherwise manipulated (see figure 7 and paragraphs 57 and 58),
the prior art of record does not disclose the combination of A method for authenticating media data of an, actual event, the event being monitored by a scene-embedded digital watermark (SEDW) device that, at the location of the event, captures or receives sensor data of the event and produces one or more encrypted or cryptographically derived values based on the sensor data, the encrypted values including encodings derived from overlapping temporal intervals of the sensor data, registration identifiers, timing information, location information, and optionally compressed representations of the sensor data or encrypted references to canonical, signed versions of the sensor data, the SEDW device further presenting into the physical scene a time-varying encoded representation of at least a portion of the encrypted values in a form detectable by independent recording devices, wherein a verifier, separate from the SEDW device, analyzes the recorded media data in real time or subsequently to extract and evaluate the encoded representation, the method comprising: receiving recorded media data representing at least a portion of the event, the recorded media data having been captured by a recording device separate from or part of the SEDW device and including a capture of the encoded representation presented by the SEDW device, from the recorded media data at least one encrypted or cryptographically derived value presented by the SEDW device, c deriving, from the recorded media data or from canonical sources referenced by the encoded representation, corresponding event data for comparison, comparing the extracted encrypted or cryptographically derived value with the derived corresponding event data or with the canonical signed versions referenced by the encoded representation, and determining, based on the comparing, whether the audio or recorded media data has been altered or whether the recorded media data corresponds to the actual event or whether it has been spoofed, spliced, re-ordered, substituted, or otherwise manipulated, wherein the encoded representation presented by the SEDW device comprises successive, time-varying encodings of overlapping temporal intervals of the sensed data and of associated timing, counter, location, or registration information, such that attempts to splice, re-order, or spoof portions of the recorded media disrupt multiple temporal dependencies and cryptographic bindings simultaneously.
Re claims 21-24, 33-37 depend from claim 20.
Cited Art
The following is a recitation of relevant prior art not cited in the rejections above:
Kronstadt US 20220067870 A1 Discloses “A user can wear a device which emits a visual and/or audible output. The output changes over time. A system is capable of predicting the output. Thus, the system can analyze a video and determine, based on observed output of the device, whether the video has been modified. The output can be particularly difficult for humans to modify, detect, understand, or recreate, further impeding attempts to disguise edits to the video.” See abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673