DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 17 and 18-30 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 Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 refers to claim 20 as a device claim when it is defined as a system claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 12, 20-22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen (Patent No. 4,694,489) in view of Anan et al. (US PGPUB No. 2013/0170695) [hereinafter “Anan”].
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 insert a watermark to the scrambled data block and provide output data; and an output coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the device is configurable to provide the output data at the output. Anan teaches watermark insertion circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit, wherein the watermark insertion circuit is configurable to insert a watermark to the scrambled data block and provide output data ([0050] and, connecting a digital watermarking apparatus to a communication network transmitting a video signal see also [0037]); and an output coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the device is configurable to provide the output data at the output ([0054], outputting watermarked video data to display).
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 Anan, a watermark insertion circuit coupled to the data scrambling circuit, wherein the watermark insertion circuit is configurable to insert a watermark to the scrambled data block and provide output data; 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 12, the combination of Frederiksen and Anna teaches the network-communicating device of claim 1, wherein the bit positions are a first set of bit positions. see rejection of claim 1 above, and a circuit coupled to the watermark insertion circuit, wherein the circuit is configurable to determine a second set of bit positions of the scrambled data block to insert the watermark (Anan; [0106]-[0108], watermarking an image after scrambling using positions in the image).
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.
As per claim 22, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 1, comprising a memory configurable to store scrambling information and watermark information, wherein the scrambling information comprises bit positions of the scrambled data block at which data are swapped (Anan; [0100], scrambling includes mapping data with a scrambled image), and watermark information comprises the watermark and the bit positions of the output data at which the watermark is inserted (Anan; [0014], watermark with positional information with respect to the underlying image).
As per claim 24, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 12, 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 the second set of bit positions of the scrambled data block to insert the watermark by comparing the count from the counter and the second parameter (Anan; [0182], counting of pixels in target image compared to pixel location of previously performed processing like watermarking).
As per claim 25, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 to the scrambled data block when the count equals to the second parameter (Anan; [0106], watermark superimposed by counting to the watermark position in the image and inserting the watermark).
As per claim 26, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 (Anan; [0089], each time the watermark is found in an image, that position is set as the watermark position and the movement “counter” is set to zero when determining the next image in the video).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Anan in further view of Forder (WO-0195558-A1).
As per claim 2, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anan 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, Anan 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 Anan in further view of Adams (WO-2021178083-A1).
As per claim 4, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anan 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 Anan teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anan 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 Anan in further view of Ueda et al. (US PGPUB No. 2007/0098167) [hereinafter “Ueda”].
As per claim 5, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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, Anan, 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 Anan in further view of Sugahara et al. (US PGPUB No. 2004/0120404) [hereinafter “Sugahara”].
As per claim 9, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anan 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 Anan 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, Anan and Sugahara in further view of Moskowitz (US PGPUB No. 2008/0028222).
As per claim 11, the combination of Frederiksen, Anna and Sugahara teaches the device of claim 10.
The combination of Frederiksen, Anna and Sugahara does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of watermark insertion methods include inserting a single bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values and inserting a multiple-bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values. Moskowitz teaches wherein the plurality of watermark insertion methods include inserting a single bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values and inserting a multiple-bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values (Abstract and [0048], embedding a watermark into a multi-bit sample stream wherein the watermark can be one or more candidate bits in the sample stream).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen, Anna and Sugahara with the teachings of Moskowitz, wherein the plurality of watermark insertion methods include inserting a single bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values and inserting a multiple-bit watermark indication between multi-bit ADC data values, to give users some flexibility in the type of data security they would like for their particular applications.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Anan in further view of Davies (US PGPUB No. 2018/0270484).
As per claim 17, the combination of Frederiksen and Anna teaches the network-communicating device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anna does 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. Davies 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 ([0121], scrambling data based on signs of larger values or higher level bits).
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 Davies, 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, 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 Anan in further view of Wehrenberg (US Patent No. 6,523,113).
As per claim 19, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches the device of claim 1.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anan teaches the device of claim 20.
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan 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 Anna 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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen and Anan in further view of Kamijoh et al. (US PGPUB No. 2004/0223612) [hereinafter “Kamijoh”].
As per claim 29, the combination of Frederiksen and Anan teaches system of claim 28, wherein the second device is configurable to receive the output data and the scrambling information from the first device and unscramble the output data based on the scrambling information (Anan; [0108], descrambling a video image using scrambling data).
The combination of Frederiksen and Anan does not explicitly teach remove the watermark from the output data based on watermark information. Kamijoh teaches remove the watermark from the output data based on watermark information ([0098], using watermark position data to remove a watermark after receiving from a remote device).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Frederiksen and Anan with the teachings of Kamijoh, remove the watermark from the output data based on watermark information, to include additional safe guards to the transmission of a video signal that verifies various properties of the video signal.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frederiksen, Anan and Kamijoh in further view of Kwong et al. (US PGPUB No. 2007/0071067) [hereinafter “Kwong”].
As per claim 30, the combination of Frederiksen, Anan 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, Anan 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, Anan 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 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. In light of the new amendments, new citations, see rejections above, along with new references, Frederiksen, Wehrenberg, Kamijoh and Kwong have been provided. See rejections above.
To expedite prosecution, Examiner is open to conducting an after-final 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. Mun (US Patent No. 5,191,609), Ogino (US PGPUB No. 2003/0081779), Sun (US PGPUB No. 2007/0154060), Vassaux et al. ("Scrambling-based watermarking for MPEG-4 video," 2002 11th European Signal Processing Conference, Toulouse, France, 2002, pp. 1-4) and Zhang et al. ("Research and design of video watermarking DCT algorithm based on MPEG-4 compressed domain," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Information Theory and Information Security, Beijing, 2010, pp. 319-322, doi: 10.1109/ICITIS.2010.5689477) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including using various scrambling and watermarking methods to protect sensor data including video and audio.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 February 21, 2026