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
Response to Amendment
2. In response to applicant’s amendment received on November 25, 2025, all requested changes to the claims have been entered.
Response to Argument
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue on pages 10-11 of the response that the disclosure of Smith does not disclose in its entirety at least, for example, the features of "generate a rectangular media frame based on the received set of data streams ... select, based on the determined set of first attributes, a sub-region from the generated rectangular media frame for respective data stream of the received set of data streams," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
The examiner disagrees. Specification of instant application disclose that “Herein, each data stream of the set of data streams 302A may correspond to a line of the image content. Each line of the image content may include the predefined number of contiguous data chunks.(para [0035]) . In order to receive video frame data multiple number of line are received. (for example HD video frame is characterized by 1920 *1080 pixels). Video frame itself can be interpreted as rectangular media frame.
Therefore, the disclosure of Smith does teach "generate a rectangular media frame based on the received set of data streams, as recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s argue on pages 12-13 of the response that the disclosure of Smith does not expressly or inherently describe “selecting a sub-region of a pixel stream based on a first color component, a second color component, and a third color component." as recited in amended independent claim 7.
The examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0051] of Smith state that In the case where the image features are color schemes, a suitable hash function may be a mathematical operation or combination of operations performed on the values (e.g., R values, G values, and B values) representing the color schemes of the video frame. So in order to compute the frame to frame color variation which is used for selection of sub region, each of color component should be used.
Therefore, the disclosure of Smith does teach " selecting a sub-region of a pixel stream based on a first color component, a second color component, and a third color component.", as recited in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2019/0286911).
With respect to claim 1, Smith et al teach circuitry configured to (Fig. 2):
receive a set of data streams (pixels) associated with a media content, wherein each data stream (video) of the received set of data streams corresponds to a specific number of contiguous data chunks (lines of pixels, video frame typically have specific number of data, (for example HD video frame is characterized by 1920 *1080 pixels) of the media content (para [0021]);
generate a rectangular media frame based on the received set of data streams (para [0035], specified video frame sequences, Fig. 3, 4 and 5);
determine a set of first attributes associated with each contiguous data chunk of the plurality of contiguous data chunks for each data stream of the received set of data streams (para [0038] frame to frame color variance of first region and second region);
select, based on the determined set of first attributes a sub-region from the generated rectangular media frame, for a respective data stream of the received set of data streams(para [0038], a first region of a video frame having a relatively higher expected frame to frame color variance as compared to a second region of the video frame is selected);
determine, based on the selected sub-region, a fingerprint value associated with the respective data stream of the received set of data streams,(para [0021], a signature of a video may be based on a small number of pixels of each video frame of the video. That is, the image features may be pixel values (small number of pixels are selected as above)); and
store the determined fingerprint value on a storage device associated with the electronic device (Fig. 2 ref label 218).
With respect to claim 2, Smith et al teach that the selection of the sub-region is based on at least one of: an offset from a starting location in the generated rectangular media frame, a length of the sub-region in the generated rectangular media frame, or a width of the sub-region in the generated rectangular media frame (para [0037] near the center of the image).
With respect to claim 3, Smith et al teach that the media content includes at least one of an audio content, a video content, an image content, and a textual content (para [0021], video).
With respect to claim 4, Smith et al teach that the circuitry is further configured to: determine a set of second attributes associated with a specific number of a plurality of data chunks, for the respective data stream of the received set of data streams, wherein the specific number of the plurality of data chunk is associated with the selected sub region; and determine the fingerprint value for the respective data stream based on the determined set of second attributes (para [0036] the image features may be pixel values from a suitable subset or collection of pixels in a video frame. In the case of a grayscale image, the pixel values may describe the grayscale intensity values, and in the case of a color image, the pixel values may describe the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) or other color intensity values. To this end, a reasonable presumption being made by feature selection module 214 is that, if selected carefully, a small number of pixels of a video frame may be suitable for generating a unique signature of a video of a suitable length ).
With respect to claim 5, Smith et al teach that the media content is verifiable based on the stored fingerprint value (para [0052], altered or changed or tampering).
With respect to claim 7, Smith et al teach that circuitry configured to (Fig. 2):
receive a set of pixel streams associated with an image wherein the image is associated with a media content (video), and each pixel stream of the set of pixel streams corresponds to a specific number of a plurality of contiguous pixels of the image(lines of pixels, video frame typically have specific number of data, (for example HD video frame is characterized by 1920 *1080 pixels) (para [0021]);
select a starting location within the received image (para [0038] when frame to frame color variance of first region and second region computed there should be starting location (eg (top left corner) );
determine each of a first color component, a second color component, and a third color component, wherein each of the first color component, second component and the third color component associated with the starting location (para [0038 and 0051], In the case where the image features are color schemes, a suitable hash function may be a mathematical operation or combination of operations performed on the values (e.g., R values, G values, and B values) representing the color schemes of the video frame. So in order to compute the frame to frame color variation which is used for selection of sub region, each of color component should be used);
select a sub-region for each pixel stream of the received set of pixel streams based on each of the determined first color component, the determined second color component, and the determined third color component (para [0038] and [0051], a collection of pixels in a region of a video frame having relatively higher expected frame to frame color variance is selected from which to obtain the image feature; In the case where the image features are color schemes, a suitable hash function may be a mathematical operation or combination of operations performed on the values (e.g., R values, G values, and B values) representing the color schemes of the video frame. So in order to compute the frame to frame color variation which is used for selection of sub region, each of color component should be used);
determine based on the selected sub-region, a fingerprint value associated with the respective pixel stream of the received set of pixel streams ,(para [0021], a signature of a video may be based on a small number of pixels of each video frame of the video. That is, the image features may be pixel values (small number of pixels are selected as above); and
store the determined fingerprint value on a storage device associated with the electronic device (Fig. 2 ref label 218).
With respect to claim 9, Smith et al teach that a size of the selected sub-region (tile) is based on the determined third color component (para [0023])
With respect to claim 10, Smith et al teach that a size of the selected sub-region corresponds to an offset of the selected starting location within the image (para [0037] near the center of the image).
With respect to claim 11, Smith et al teach that the circuitry is further configured to: determine a set of color components associated with each pixel of a specific number of plurality of pixels in the selected sub-region, for the respective pixel stream of the received set of pixel streams, and determine the fingerprint value for the respective pixel stream of the received set of pixel stream based on the determined set of color components associated with the specific number of plural pixels in the selected sub-region (para [0043])
With respect to claim 12, Smith et al teach that the media content is at least one of pre-recorded video content, live video content or image content (para [0021], video).
With respect to claim 13, Smith et al teach that the stored fingerprint value is used to verify whether the image is unchanged (para [0052], altered or changed or tampering).
Claim 15 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected as same reason as claim 2 above.
Claim 17 is rejected as same reason as claim 3 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as same reason as claim 4 above.
Claim 19 is rejected as same reason as claim 5 above.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2019/0286911) in view of Wang et al. (“Content-based image retrieval using block constrained fractal coding and nona-tree decomposition”, IEE Proc.-Vis. Image Signal Process., Vol. 147, No. I, February 2000)
Smith et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 6 respectively depend.
Smith et al. do not teach expressly that the selected sub-region corresponds to a fractal-geometry associated with the generated rectangular media frame.
Wang et al teach the selected sub-region corresponds to a fractal-geometry associated with the generated rectangular media frame (Fig. 2 and Page 10 right column, block-constrained fractal coding scheme).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have sub-region corresponds to a fractal-geometry associated with the generated rectangular media frame in the method of Smith et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to get shorter computing time and less storage space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang et al with Smith et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected same reason as claim 6 above.
With respect to claim 20, claim 6 is rejected same reason as claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable of rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
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).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667