DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 17 and 19-30 are pending in this 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen (Patent No. 4,694,489) in view of Wajs et al. (EP-1134977-A1) [hereinafter “Wajs”].
As per claim 1, Frederiksen teaches a device, comprising: an input configurable to couple to a sensor and receive analog data from the sensor; an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to the input (Col. 4, lines 4-10, taking TV station output as input into a analog-to-digital converter), wherein the ADC is configurable to receive the analog data and provide a data block based on the analog data (Col. 4, lines 10-25, converting analog signal to digital samples to be further processed); a data scrambling circuit coupled to the ADC (Col. 4, lines 35-38, scrambler takes in digital data coming from A/D converter), wherein the data scrambling circuit is configurable to receive the data block, swap data at different bit positions of the data block based on a parameter (Col. 11, lines 40-60, samples are divided into sectors and certain bits are determined to be swapped), and provide a scrambled data block (Col. 12, lines 1-4, scrambled samples are generated).
Frederiksen does not explicitly teach a watermark insertion circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit, wherein the watermark insertion circuit is configurable to receive data blocks from the data scrambling circuit, insert watermark information into a data sequence between successive sets of the received data blocks, and provide output data; a data protection reporter circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit and the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the data protection reporter circuit is configurable to provide scrambling information to identify which data values are scrambled and how the scrambling is applied, and watermark information to indicate locations at which the watermark information is inserted; and an output coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the device is configurable to provide the output data at the output. Wajs teaches a watermark insertion circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit, wherein the watermark insertion circuit is configurable to receive data blocks from the data scrambling circuit, insert watermark information into a data sequence between successive sets of the received data blocks (Abstract and [0006], watermarking scrambled content data a predetermined bits), and provide output data ([0006], watermarked scrambled data is the output); a data protection reporter circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit and the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the data protection reporter circuit is configurable to provide scrambling information to identify which data values are scrambled and how the scrambling is applied ([0006]-[0007], descrambling the watermarked content would involve knowing how the scrambling is applied and to which value), and watermark information to indicate locations at which the watermark information is inserted ([0011], watermarks are applied to predetermined bits, i.e. locations in the content); and an output coupled to the watermark insertion circuit ([0007], a unique copy of a watermarked scrambled content is produced for a user), wherein the device is configurable to provide the output data at the output ([0011], watermarked scrambled copy is outputted).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen with the teachings of Wajs, a watermark insertion circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit, wherein the watermark insertion circuit is configurable to receive data blocks from the data scrambling circuit, insert watermark information into a data sequence between successive sets of the received data blocks, and provide output data; a data protection reporter circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit and the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the data protection reporter circuit is configurable to provide scrambling information to identify which data values are scrambled and how the scrambling is applied, and watermark information to indicate locations at which the watermark information is inserted; and an output coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the device is configurable to provide the output data at the output, to include additional safe guards to the transmission of a video signal that verifies various properties of the video signal.
As per claim 20, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Forder (WO-0195558-A1).
As per claim 2, the combination of Frederiksen and Waks teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Suh does not explicitly teach a circuit configurable to provide a parameter to the data scrambling circuit. Forder teaches a circuit configurable to provide a parameter to the data scrambling circuit (Page 12, lines 14-24, user selects a scrambling algorithm using a user interface which can be implemented completely or partly of hardware components, i.e. circuits) (Examiner Note: the scrambling input can be replace with sensor data instead of SMS data).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Forder, a circuit configurable to provide a parameter to the data scrambling circuit, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
As per claim 3, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Forder teaches the device of claim 2 wherein the circuit is configurable to control the data scrambling circuit to select among a plurality of scrambling methods based on the parameter (Forder; Page 12, lines 14-24, user selects a scrambling algorithm using a user interface.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Adams (WO-2021178083-A1).
As per claim 4, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach wherein the parameter further comprises stored values or pseudo-randomly generated values. Adams teaches wherein the parameter further comprises stored values or pseudo-randomly generated values ([0063], pseudo-randomly swap bit positions of the stored RCP).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Adams, wherein the parameter further comprises stored values or pseudo-randomly generated values, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
As per claim 6, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach wherein swapping the data includes swapping plural pairs of data within the data block. Adams teaches wherein swapping the data includes swapping plural pairs of data within the data block ([0063], pseudo-randomly swapping bits multiple times in the RCP).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Adams, wherein swapping the data includes swapping plural pairs of data within the data block, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Ueda et al. (US PGPUB No. 2007/0098167) [hereinafter “Ueda”].
As per claim 5, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach wherein swapping the data includes rotationally swapping data within the data block. Ueda teaches wherein swapping the data includes rotationally swapping data within the data block ([0282], scrambling by rotating bits in position based on a scramble rule).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen, Wajs, Forder and Adams with the teachings of Ueda, wherein swapping the data includes rotationally swapping data within the data block, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claims 9-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Sugahara et al. (US PGPUB No. 2004/0120404) [hereinafter “Sugahara”].
As per claim 9, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach a circuit having configurable to provide a second parameter to the watermark insertion circuit. Sugahara teaches a circuit having configurable to provide a second parameter to the watermark insertion circuit ([0460], coding selection signal determining a particular type of encoding can be selected based on user inputting conditions which involves how to watermark content like video, see [0085]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Sugahara, a circuit having configurable to provide a second parameter to the watermark insertion circuit, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
As per claim 10, the combination of Frederiksen, Anna and Sugahara teaches the device of claim 9 wherein the circuit is configurable to control the watermark insertion circuit to select among a plurality of watermark insertion methods based on the second parameter (Sugahara; [0460], code selecting signal selects from a plurality of coding types, i.e. MPEG see [0085]-[0086]).
As per claim 23, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the first and second parameters are user configurable (Sugahara; [0460], selection of signals based on user input see also [0175]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Wajs and Sugahara in further view of Wendt (US PGPUB No. 2002/0126870).
As per claim 11, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Sugahara teaches the device of claim 10, wherein the plurality of watermark insertion methods include inserting a single-bit watermark indication between sets of multi-bit ADC data values ([0152], [0153] and [0212], coding selection signal embedded in picture signal as a single bit).
The combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Sugahara does not explicitly teach inserting an N-bit watermark between a same number of bits N as each of the multi-bit ADC data values. Wendt teaches inserting an N-bit watermark between a same number of bits N as each of the multi-bit ADC data values ([0042], wherein the watermark data is the same size as the frame of the content data, i.e. same bit size).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen, Wajs and Sugahara with the teachings of Wendt, inserting an N-bit watermark between a same number of bits N as each of the multi-bit ADC data values, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Cox et al. (US Patent No. 6,539,475) [hereinafter “Cox”].
As per claim 12, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the bit positions are a first set of bit positions (Wajs; Abstract, first set of bits are scrambled and watermarked).
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach the device further comprises a watermark configurator circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the watermark configurator circuit is configurable to determine in the data sequence, after successive sets of the scrambled data blocks, to insert at which the watermark information is inserted. Cox teaches the device further comprises a watermark configurator circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit (Page 5 lines 10-28 and claim 20, trigger inserter is configured to insert a watermark that verifies and triggers a descrambling of content data), wherein the watermark configurator circuit is configurable to determine in the data sequence, after successive sets of the scrambled data blocks, to insert at which the watermark information is inserted (Page 5 lines 10-28, trigger inserter determines locations in the scrambled data to enter the watermark/trigger data).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Cox, the device further comprises a watermark configurator circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the watermark configurator circuit is configurable to determine in the data sequence, after successive sets of the scrambled data blocks, to insert at which the watermark information is inserted, to improve flexibility in when and where security is implemented for copyright protections for valued content.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Ishiwaki (US PGPUB No. 2003/0156720).
As per claim 17, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the network-communicating device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs not explicitly teach a comparison circuit configurable to receive a first data value from the ADC and a threshold level, and based on a comparison of the first data value and the threshold level, provide an indication to the data scrambling circuit to enable data scrambling within the data block when the first data value exceeds the threshold value and otherwise cause the data block to pass through the data scrambling circuit without being scrambled. Ishiwaki teaches a comparison circuit configurable to receive a first data value from the ADC and a threshold level, and based on a comparison of the first data value and the threshold level, provide an indication to the data scrambling circuit to enable data scrambling within the data block when the first data value exceeds the threshold value and otherwise cause the data block to pass through the data scrambling circuit without being scrambled (Abstract and [0020]-[0021], low level used to bypass a scrambling process).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Ishiwaki, a comparison circuit configurable to receive a first data value from the ADC and a threshold level, and based on a comparison of the first data value and the threshold level, provide an indication to the data scrambling circuit to enable data scrambling within the data block when the first data value exceeds the threshold value and otherwise cause the data block to pass through the data scrambling circuit without being scrambled, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claims 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Wehrenberg (US Patent No. 6,523,113).
As per claim 19, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach a transmitter circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the transmitter circuit is configurable to receive the output data and transmit the output data via an antenna. Wehrenberg teaches a transmitter circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the transmitter circuit is configurable to receive the output data and transmit the output data via an antenna (Col. 5, lines 45-52, transmitting video data via an antenna after watermarking).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Anna with the teachings of Wehrenberg, a transmitter circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the transmitter circuit is configurable to receive the output data and transmit the output data via an antenna, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
As per claim 27, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the system of claim 20.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach wherein the device is a first device, and the system further comprises a second device coupled to the first device, wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data from the first device wirelessly. Wehrenberg teaches wherein the device is a first device, and the system further comprises a second device coupled to the first device, wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data from the first device wirelessly (Col. 5, lines 45-52, transmitting video data to another device wirelessly via an antenna after watermarking).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Wehrenberg, wherein the device is a first device, and the system further comprises a second device coupled to the first device, wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data from the first device wirelessly, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claims 22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Tanaka (US PGPUB No. 2002/0108043).
As per claim 22, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches the device of claim 1, comprising a memory configurable to store scrambling information and watermark information, wherein the scrambling information comprises an indication of which data values are scrambled and how the scrambling is applied (Wajs; Abstract, using a key a predetermined bits to scramble and de-scramble content), and watermark information comprises the watermark information (Wajs; [0004], tracking watermarked bits in a scrambled copy for each unique user copy).
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach threshold information to indicate after how many data blocks the watermark information is inserted. Tanaka teaches threshold information to indicate after how many data blocks the watermark information is inserted ([0080], setting threshold of 15 frames and inserting a watermark).
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Tanaka, threshold information to indicate after how many data blocks the watermark information is inserted, to improve flexibility in when and where security is implemented for copyright protections for valued content.
As per claim 24, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Cox teaches the device of claim 12.
The combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Cox does not explicitly teach wherein the parameter is a first parameter, wherein the circuit comprises a counter and a comparator, wherein the counter is configurable to provide a count to the comparator, wherein the circuit is configurable to receive a second parameter, and wherein the circuit is configurable to determine positions in the data sequence at which the watermark information is inserted by comparing the count from the counter and the second parameter. Tanaka teaches wherein the parameter is a first parameter, wherein the circuit comprises a counter and a comparator, wherein the counter is configurable to provide a count to the comparator, wherein the circuit is configurable to receive a second parameter, and wherein the circuit is configurable to determine positions in the data sequence at which the watermark information is inserted by comparing the count from the counter and the second parameter ([0080], tracking the frames of a video and comparing to a count parameter, i.e. 15 frames and inserting watermark data).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine, Frederiksen, Wajs and Cox with the teachings of Tanaka, wherein the parameter is a first parameter, wherein the circuit comprises a counter and a comparator, wherein the counter is configurable to provide a count to the comparator, wherein the circuit is configurable to receive a second parameter, and wherein the circuit is configurable to determine positions in the data sequence at which the watermark information is inserted by comparing the count from the counter and the second parameter, to implement a level of complexity and security required for various policies protecting video copyrights.
As per claim 25, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Tanaka teaches the device of claim 24, wherein the circuit is configurable to provide an indication to the watermark insertion circuit to insert a bit of the watermark information into the data sequence after a most recently received scrambled data block when the count equals the second parameter (Tanaka; [0080], tracking the frames of a video and comparing to a count parameter, i.e. 15 frames and when the most recently received frame is count 15, inserting the watermark data).
As per claim 26, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Tanaka teaches the device of claim 25, wherein the counter is configurable to reset to an initial value when the count equals to the second parameter (Tanaka; [0080], once 15 frames have been received and a watermark data inserted, count will start back at 1).
As per claim 28, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 22. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Wajs in further view of Kamijoh et al. (US PGPUB No. 2004/0223612) [hereinafter “Kamijoh”].
As per claim 29, the combination of Frederiksen and Wajs teaches system of claim 28.
The combination of Frederiksen and Wajs does not explicitly teach wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data and the scrambling information from the first device, detect or verify the watermark in the output data based on watermark information, and unscramble only the data values identified by the scrambling information. Cox teaches wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data and the scrambling information from the first device, detect or verify the watermark in the output data based on watermark information, and unscramble only the data values identified by the scrambling information (Abstract and claim 20, inserting watermark data including a trigger signal which triggers the descrambling of the scrambled data only).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Wajs with the teachings of Kamijoh, wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data and the scrambling information from the first device, detect or verify the watermark in the output data based on watermark information, and unscramble only the data values identified by the scrambling information, to include additional safe guards to the transmission of a video signal that verifies various properties of the video signal and efficiently reproduce the video content.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Wajs and Kamijoh in further view of Kwong et al. (US PGPUB No. 2007/0071067) [hereinafter “Kwong”].
As per claim 30, the combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Kamijoh teaches the system of claim 29 as well as the output data and the watermark information see above rejection of claim 29.
The combination of Frederiksen, Wajs and Kamijoh does not explicitly teach wherein the first device transmits data to the second device via a first wireless channel, and the first device transmits other associated data via a second wireless channel. Kwong teaches wherein the first device transmits data to the second device via a first wireless channel, and the first device transmits other associated data via a second wireless channel (Abstract and [0028], transmitting subcarrier sequence on a separate wireless channel for additional security).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen, Wajs and Kamijoh with the teachings of Kwong, wherein the first device transmits data to the second device via a first wireless channel, and the first device transmits other associated data via a second wireless channel, to include additional safe guards to the transmission of a video signal that verifies various properties of the video signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-12, 17 and 19-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, new prior art references, Wajs, Cox, Tanaka, Wendt and Ishiwaki have been introduced and cited to. See rejections above.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an interview to discuss claim amendments to overcome the current rejection and/or place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ogino (US PGPUB No. 2003/0081779), Fletcher et al. (US PGPUB No. 2003/0123660), Kunisa (US PGPUB No. 2003/0152225), Wajs Wang ("Digital Image Watermarking Using Dual-Scrambling and Singular Value Decomposition," 2017 IEEE Conference, Guangzhou, China, 2017, pp. 724-727, doi: 10.1109/CSE-EUC.2017.141), Huang ("Scrambling technology for restorable fragile watermarking," Proceedings 2011 International Conference on Transportation, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering (TMEE), Changchun, China, 2011, pp. 2178-2181, doi: 10.1109/TMEE.2011.6199651) and Vassaux et al. ("Scrambling technique for video object watermarking resisting to MPEG-4," International Symposium on VIPromCom Video/Image Processing and Multimedia Communications, Zadar, Croatia, 2002, pp. 239-244, doi: 10.1109/VIPROM.2002.1026662) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including using various scrambling and watermarking methods to protect sensor data including video and audio.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights