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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024 and 12/03/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claim 10 is directed to a digital content processing apparatus and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 11 and 14-19 are directed to an electronic device and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 12 and 20-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture;
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 The limitation of “decomposing and orchestrating a digital content processing process according to the acquired definition of the one-time processing step and the acquired definition of the one-time processing process” and “wherein, the decomposing and orchestrating comprises merging a plurality of same one-time processing steps in at least on one-time processing process into one processing node”, and similar limitations in claims 1, 10, 11 and 12, which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally evaluate, schedule, plan, and allocate processing steps, of a process, on processing nodes. This is a mental plan or schedule of how the process can be split into subprocesses and where those subprocesses should execute.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a digital content processing method, executed by an apparatus comprising at least one processor and a storage device” and “processing digital content according to the decomposed and orchestrated digital content processing process” (claim 1), and “a digital content processing apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory for storing execution instructions” (claim 10), and “an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor” (claim 11), and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer instruction” (claim 12), which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim 1 recites the additional elements “acquiring a definition of a one-time processing step and a definition of a one-time processing process”, and similarly claims 10, 11 and 12, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claims 1, 10, 11 and 12 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 12: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
With regards to claim 2, recites additional elements “wherein the one-time processing step is defined as taking one digital content as input, outputting other digital content generated according to processing method and processing parameter and then outputting it, and the one-time processing process is defined as processing one digital content by sequentially at least one one-time processing step to obtain output digital content” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
With regards to claim 3, recites additional abstract idea “orchestrating a digital content processing process into at least one one-time processing process according to the acquired definitions; decomposing the at least one one-time processing process into at least one one-time processing step; and merging a plurality of same one-time processing steps in the at least one one-time processing step into the processing node” which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally evaluate, schedule, plan, and allocate processing steps of a process on processing nodes and merging processing steps into one processing step. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 4, recites additional abstract idea “in the process of processing the digital content, calculating a digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step”, which as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate data, mentally or with a pen manipulate and calculate a fingerprint. Further, the claim elements are directed to performing mathematical calculation which correspond to mathematical concepts. The claim recites additional elements “performing output digital content storing or output digital content reading according to the digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data storage activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data storage activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
With regards to claim 5, recites additional elements “wherein the digital fingerprint comprises a first digital fingerprint and a second digital fingerprint, the first digital fingerprint is obtained according to digital content input in a one-time processing step, and the second digital fingerprint is obtained according to a processing method and a processing parameter in the one-time processing step” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
With regards to claim 7, recites additional abstract idea “constructing a digital fingerprint tree based on a first digital fingerprint corresponding to original digital content and a second digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step, wherein the original digital content is digital content that has not been processed by any one-time processing step” and “determining a target digital fingerprint corresponding to a target one-time processing step based on the digital fingerprint tree”, which as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally identify digital a digital fingerprint of a digital content and another digital fingerprint corresponding to each to each one-time processing step and structure in a tree. Further, for example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine a digital fingerprint corresponding to a processing step based on fingerprint tree data structure. The claim recites additional elements “acquiring a target output digital content corresponding to the target digital fingerprint; and taking the target output digital content as an input of the target one-time processing step”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”.
With regards to claim 8, recites additional abstract idea “wherein the constructing a digital fingerprint tree based on a first digital fingerprint corresponding to original digital content and a second digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step comprises: using the first digital fingerprint corresponding to the original digital content as a root node of the digital fingerprint tree; using a second digital fingerprint corresponding to a one-time processing step with a step serial number of 1 in each one-time processing process as a first-layer leaf node of the root node; using a second digital fingerprint corresponding to a one-time processing step with a step serial number of not 1 in each one-time processing process as a leaf node, other than the first-layer leaf node, of the root node; and establishing correlation between an output result of each one-time processing step and a corresponding layer leaf node of the respective one-time processing step according to the first digital fingerprint and the second digital fingerprint corresponding to the respective one-time processing step”, which as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally organize digital fingerprints and determine correlations. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 9, recites additional abstract idea “determining a matching path based on the all digital fingerprints; matching, the matching path, with the digital fingerprint tree, and using a one-time processing step corresponding to a terminal of the matching path successfully matched in the digital fingerprint tree as an interrupted processing step” which as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine a matching path based on digital fingerprints, match the matching path with the digital fingerprint tree and use a processing step corresponding to a terminal of the matching path successfully matched. The claim recites additional elements “acquiring all digital fingerprints corresponding to all one-time processing steps prior to the target one-time processing step; using a digital fingerprint of the interrupted processing step as the target digital fingerprint”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”.
Claims 14-15, 17-19 are electronic device claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 4-5, 7-9) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4-5, 7-9.
Claims 20-21 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims above (Claims 4-59) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 4-5.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onno et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120233617 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 111598575 A English Translation).
As per claim 1, Onno teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a digital content processing method (Abstract and par. 0016, a method of processing digital content according to a workflow), executed by an apparatus (par. 0044 The system comprises a server) …, comprising:
processing digital content according to … digital content processing process (par. 0016 processing contents according to a workflow, where a digital content is processed on one of a plurality of processing devices according to process definition associated to the content).
Onno does not expressly teach: an apparatus comprising at least one processor and a storage device, acquiring a definition of a one-time processing step and a definition of a one-time processing process; decomposing and orchestrating a digital content processing process according to the acquired definition of the one-time processing step and the acquired definition of the one-time processing process; and processing digital content according to the decomposed and orchestrated digital content processing process, wherein, the decomposing and orchestrating comprises merging a plurality of same one- time processing steps in at least one one-time processing process into one processing node.
However, Wang teaches: an apparatus comprising at least one processor and a storage device (par. 0189 one or more processors; and a memory for storing one or more instructions), acquiring a definition of a one-time processing step and a definition of a one-time processing process; decomposing and orchestrating a digital content processing process according to the acquired definition of the one-time processing step and the acquired definition of the one-time processing process; and processing digital content according to the decomposed and orchestrated digital content processing process (Fig. 7, for example describes a plurality atomic services A, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, where the atomic services A, D1, D1 and C represent pre-verification, SMS sending, SMS verification and SMS payment respectively [wherein each atomic service corresponds to definition of one-time processing step and definition of one-time processing process]; par. 0100-0101 taking the SMS payment process as an example, the flowcontrol strategy for the SMS payment process stored in the configuration center can be expressed as follows: smsPayFlow = Atomic Service 1 -> [[Atomic Service 2] -> Atomic Service 3] -> Atomic Service 4; par. 0109 the flow is expressed as a link "A->[[D1]->D2]->C" as middle flow in Fig. 7 [corresponds to decomposing and orchestrating the business processes according to the definitions of each atomic service [step] and definition of the atomic processes]; par. 0133 determined whether the business logic was executed successfully),
wherein, the decomposing and orchestrating comprises merging a plurality of same one-time processing steps in at least one one-time processing process into one processing node (par. 0104 wherein the atomic services marked in "[]" are repeatable atomic services; Figure 7, further describes the following pre-configured process control strategies: par. [0112] TestFlow1 = A->[B]->C; [0113] TestFlow2＝A->[[D1]->D2]->C; [0114] TestFlow3=A->[[E1->E2->E3]->D2]->C; wherein the flows smsPayFlow [testFlow2] and TestFlow1 have the same atomic service C, and the flows smsPayFlow and TestFlow3 also have the same atomic services D2 and C [corresponds to merging same one-time processing steps]).
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 technique of processing services of Wang with the system and method of Onno resulting in a system that provides for composing and orchestrating digital content processing process, and processing digital content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of achieving the technical effect guaranteeing business security and adapting to agile development and continuous delivery (par. 0021).
As per claim 2, Wang further teaches: wherein the one time processing step is defined as taking one … [data] as input, outputting other … [data] generated according to processing method and processing parameter and then outputting it, and the one time processing process is defined as processing one … [data] by sequentially at least one one-time processing step to obtain output … (Fig. 7, for example describes a plurality atomic services A, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, where the atomic services A, D1, D1 and C represent pre-verification, SMS sending, SMS verification and SMS payment respectively [wherein each atomic service is a definition of one-time processing step and definition of one-time processing process]; par. 0109). Onno further teaches: digital content; taking one digital content as input and obtain output digital content (par. 0016 where a digital content is processed on one of a plurality of processing devices according to process definition associated to the content; Fig. 2 and par. 0054 content C [input] is first treated at node 0 to produce processed content C.sub.0. … the processed content C.sub.0 is treated at node 4 to generate processed content C.sub.4. … Finally, node 6 processes processed content C.sub.4 … to generate processed content C.sub.6 [output]).
As per claim 3, Wang further teaches: orchestrating a … processing process into at least one one-time processing process according to the acquired definitions; decomposing the at least one one-time processing process into at least one one-time processing step; and merging a plurality of same one-time processing steps in the at least one one-time processing step into the processing node (Fig. 7, for example describes a plurality atomic services A, B, C, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, where the atomic services A, D1, D1 and C represent pre-verification, SMS sending, SMS verification and SMS payment respectively [each atomic service is a definition of one-time processing step and definition of one-time processing process]; par. 0100-0101 taking the SMS payment process as an example, the flowcontrol strategy for the SMS payment process stored in the configuration center can be expressed as follows: smsPayFlow = Atomic Service 1 -> [[Atomic Service 2] -> Atomic Service 3] -> Atomic Service 4; par. 0109 the flow is expressed as a link "A->[[D1]->D2]->C" as middle flow in Fig. 7; par. [0112] TestFlow1 = A->[B]->C; [0113] TestFlow2＝A->[[D1]->D2]->C; [0114] TestFlow3=A->[[E1->E2->E3]->D2]->C; wherein the flows smsPayFlow [testFlow2] and TestFlow1 have the same atomic service C, and the flows smsPayFlow and TestFlow3 also have the same atomic services D2 and C [corresponds to merging same one-time processing steps]). Onno further teaches: a digital content processing process (par. 0016 processing contents according to a workflow, where a digital content is processed on one of a plurality of processing devices according to process definition associated to the content).
As per claim 10, it is a digital content processing apparatus having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
As per claim 11, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
As per claim 12, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Wang further teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (par. 0190 a computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon). 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 method of using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Wang with the system and method of Onno resulting in a system that provides non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose using such non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing executable instructions to be accessed and executed by a processor (par. 0190).
Claims 4-5, 14-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onno in view of Wang, and further in view of Haslam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210335041 A1).
As per claim 4, Onno and Wang do not expressly teach: in the process of processing the digital content, calculating a digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step, and performing output digital content storing or output digital content reading according to the digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step.
However, Haslam teaches: calculating a digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step, and performing output digital content storing or output digital content reading according to the digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step (par. 0094 A hash file is generated at each of these steps in order to record these changes … Modifications to the file are stored and used to provide a trace of the provenance of the file. In this way the user can be assured of the providence of the file that they are using; par. 0096 Files can be stored on object file system like S3 along with hash of file; par. 0098 system ensures that only validated files can be printed [output]. Files are signed and only those that have passed the cryptographic challenge are accepted for printing).
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 technique of generating a hash file for each of plurality of transformations/steps of Haslam with the system and method of Onno and Wang resulting in a system and method which provides for generating hash files for each of a plurality of processing steps as in Haslam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of allowing the verification of files/data in a secure manner (par. 0095).
As per claim 14, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations as claim 4. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 4.
Claims 5, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onno in view of Wang and Haslam, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10528367 B1).
As per claim 5, Haslam further teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint comprises a first digital fingerprint …, the first digital fingerprint is obtained according to digital content input in a one-time processing step (par. 0093 Every time we upload or make changes to the file on the web app we need to create a new hash however the one that is created at the end of the process is a canonical hash for the printed file; par. 0094 A hash file is generated at each of these steps in order to record these changes. The process of identifying anatomy in the scan produces labels on the scan that are subsequently used to generate a print file. The hashing process records this and acts as a history of the changes).
Onno, Wang and Haslam do not expressly describe: a second digital fingerprint, and the second digital fingerprint is obtained according to a processing method and a processing parameter in the one-time processing step.
However, Liu teaches: a second digital fingerprint, and the second digital fingerprint is obtained according to a processing method and a processing parameter in the one-time processing step (col. 29, lines 30-38 wherein the hash comprises a first hash [first fingerprint] of a content and a second hash [second fingerprint] of an operation. In one embodiment, STEP 606 of recognizing the common step is based at least in part on a hash for each point in a given workflow, wherein the hash comprises a first hash of input data for the common step and a second hash based on the common step; col. 22, lines 33-36 The results at each point in the workflow may be identified by a “cache hash”, which is a function of the hash of the input data and the hashes of the steps that have been performed up to that point; col. 29, lines 51-53 track input data, the workflow, and parameters used to generate a derived object for the common step).
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 technique of generating a first and second hash values for an input command for Liu with the system and method of Onno, Wang and Haslam resulting in a system and method which provides for generating first hash value and second hash value according to a input data in processing step and processing method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of permitting to recognize steps and cache intermediate data to improve efficiency, it also allows for efficient automated re-execution of steps when a node goes through temporarily or permanently failure (col. 3 lines 62-65). Further, providing both a first hash of a content and a second hash of an operation would have provided more reliable verification capabilities.
As per claim 15, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
As per claim 21, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Claims 6-7, 9, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onno in view of Wang and Haslam, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN113064892A English Translation).
As per claim 6, Onno further teaches: processing a to-be-processed digital content by using a processing method and a processing parameter used in the current one-time processing step to obtain an output result (par. 0016 processing contents according to a workflow, where a digital content is processed on one of a plurality of processing devices according to process definition associated to the content; par. [0018] a) receiving from a server a signed workflow information, the workflow information comprising a status of the content processing, the signature of the process definition and a hash of the content … processing the content according to the process definition and according to status of the content processing),
Onno, Wang and Haslam do not expressly describe: in a case of performing a current one-time processing step, determining whether output digital content corresponding to a digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is comprised in a storage device; in response to that the output digital content corresponding to the digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is comprised in the storage device, reading the output digital content from the storage device, and taking the output digital content as an output result of the one-time processing step; and in response to that the output digital content corresponding to the digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is not comprised in the storage device, processing a to-be-processed digital content by using a processing method and a processing parameter used in the current one-time processing step to obtain an output result, and marking a digital fingerprint for the output result, storing the marked output result to the storage device.
However, Chen teaches: in a case of performing a current one-time processing step, determining whether output digital content corresponding to a digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is comprised in a storage device; in response to that the output digital content corresponding to the digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is comprised in the storage device, reading the output digital content from the storage device, and taking the output digital content as an output result of the one-time processing step (par. 0023 Step S35, fingerprint query: The input data fingerprint is compared with the fingerprint table in memory .If the fingerprint table contains the same fingerprint, it is a duplicate data block, and the data block pointer is returned); and in response to that the output digital content corresponding to the digital fingerprint corresponding to the current one-time processing step is not comprised in the storage device … and marking a digital fingerprint for the output result, storing the marked output result to the storage device (par. 0023 otherwise, it is a non-duplicate data block, the fingerprint table is updated, and the non-duplicate data block is stored on disk).
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 technique comparing input data fingerprint with a fingerprint table in memory of Haslam with the system and method of Onno, Wang and Haslam resulting in a system and method which provides for verifying an input data fingerprint with a fingerprint table in memory as in Haslam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving data transmission rates, and thus quickly respond to the needs of underlying devices, reduce user response time, and lower latency (par. 0004).
As per claim 7, Chen further teaches: constructing a digital fingerprint tree based on a first digital fingerprint corresponding to original digital content and a second digital fingerprint corresponding to each one-time processing step, wherein the original digital content is digital content that has not been processed by any one-time processing step (par. 0021 Step S33: The obtained fingerprints are hashed again to obtain an index (integer), which is then mapped to a fixed-size index table. Each index value corresponds to multiple fingerprints. A red-black tree (RBTree) is used as the data storage structure for the fingerprints, and the resulting fingerprint table is stored in memory as metadata); determining a target digital fingerprint corresponding to a target one-time processing step based on the digital fingerprint tree (par. 0023 Step S35, fingerprint query: The input data fingerprint is compared with the fingerprint table in memory); acquiring a target output digital content corresponding to the target digital fingerprint (par. 0023 If the fingerprint table contains the same fingerprint, it is a duplicate data block, and the data block pointer is returned). Onno further teaches: taking the target output digital content as an input of the target one-time processing step (0054] According to the process graph 200, content C is first treated at node 0 to produce processed content C.sub.0. The processed content C.sub.0 [target digital content] then passes through one of the two paths … If the first path is chosen, the processed content C.sub.0 [target digital content] is treated at node 4).
As per claim 9, Chen further teaches: acquiring all digital fingerprints corresponding to all one-time processing steps prior to the target one-time processing step; determining a matching path based on the all digital fingerprints (par. 0020 Step S32: Select the MD5 algorithm that generates the smaller fingerprint, perform hash calculation on the data blocks after segmentation to obtain the fingerprint of each data block, and store the fingerprint as the metadata of each data block in memory; par. 0021 Step S33: The obtained fingerprints are hashed again to obtain an index (integer), which is then mapped to a fixed-size index table. Each index value corresponds to multiple fingerprints. A red-black tree (RBTree) is used as the data storage structure); matching, the matching path, with the digital fingerprint tree, and using a one-time processing step corresponding to a terminal of the matching path successfully matched in the digital fingerprint tree as an interrupted processing step; and using a digital fingerprint of the interrupted processing step as the target digital fingerprint (par. 0023 Step S35, fingerprint query: The input data fingerprint is compared with the fingerprint table in memory. If the fingerprint table contains the same fingerprint, it is a duplicate data block, and the data block pointer is returned; otherwise, it is a non-duplicate data block, the fingerprint table is updated, and the non-duplicate data block is stored on disk).
As per claim 16, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
As per claim 17, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 7.
As per claim 19, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 9.
Claims 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onno in view of Wang, Haslam and Chen, and further in view of Juikun Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20200341960 A1, hereinafter Juikun).
As per claim 8, Chen further teaches: using the first digital fingerprint corresponding to the original digital content as a root node of the digital fingerprint tree; using a second digital fingerprint corresponding to a one-time processing step with a step serial number of 1 in each one-time processing process as a first-layer leaf node of the root node; using a second digital fingerprint corresponding to a one-time processing step with a step serial number of not 1 in each one-time processing process as a leaf node, other than the first-layer leaf node, of the root node (par. 0020 Step S32: Select the MD5 algorithm that generates the smaller fingerprint, perform hash calculation on the data blocks after segmentation to obtain the fingerprint of each data block, and store the fingerprint as the metadata of each data block in memory; par. 0021 Step S33: The obtained fingerprints are hashed again to obtain an index (integer), which is then mapped to a fixed-size index table. Each index value corresponds to multiple fingerprints. A red-black tree (RBTree) is used as the data storage structure for the fingerprints, and the resulting fingerprinttable is stored in memory as metadata. Compared with other data structures in memory, this method has lower time complexity; par. 0022 To ensure the persistence of the data structure in memory and prevent the loss of data in memory in the event of an operating system (OS)crash, the original data information of the fingerprint table is written to a mapping file through mapping).
Onno, Wang, Haslam and Chen not expressly teach: establishing correlation between an output result of each one-time processing step and a corresponding layer leaf node of the respective one-time processing step according to the first digital fingerprint and the second digital fingerprint corresponding to the respective one-time processing step.
However, Juikun teaches: establishing correlation between an output result of each one-time processing step and a corresponding layer leaf node of the respective one-time processing step according to the first digital fingerprint and the second digital fingerprint corresponding to the respective one-time processing step (par. 0004 determining, by the data processing hardware, that a search block comprising a plurality of media device fingerprints corresponding to sequential media device frames of the media device stream includes at least one media device fingerprint having a match correlation to at least one broadcast fingerprint; Claim 1, establishing, by the data processing hardware, based on the comparing, a match correlation between at least one media device fingerprint of the search block and at least one of the broadcast fingerprints, wherein the at least one media device fingerprint corresponds with at least one of the media device frames, and wherein the at least one broadcast fingerprint corresponds with at least one of the broadcast frames).
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 technique of establishing based on the comparing, a match correlation between at least one media device fingerprint of the search block and at least one of the broadcast fingerprints of Juikun with the system and method of Onno, Wang, Haslam and Chen resulting in a system and method that provides for establishing correlation based on comparing an output result of each processing step and a corresponding layer leaf node of the respective processing step according to the first fingerprint and the second fingerprint as in Juikun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of reduce the processing time of the candidate identification process while potentially increasing an accuracy of the match correlation process (par. 0046).
As per claim 18, it is an electronic device having similar limitations as claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20200380154 A1 teaches blockchain endorsement with approximate hash verification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights