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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment of February 27, 2026 does not overcome the following objection:
Objection of claim 5 because of informalities.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 as recited has an extra comma at the end of the sentence. For the record, the examiner recommends claim 5 to be rewritten as follow, and interpretation will be as such until clarification is made of record or applicant accepts this proposal and makes changes accordingly.
5. The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing comprises determining a context in which the video was found.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soryal (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0261580 A1), hereinafter Soryal, in view of Tsao (Mechanisms of face perception, Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008 ; 31: 411–437), hereinafter Tsao.
Regarding claim 1, Soryal teaches a computer implemented method of detecting a deepfake video, comprising: analyzing (Examples of the present disclosure provide techniques for detecting synthetic media. In some examples, these techniques may analyze newly obtained items of media in order to estimate the authenticity of the items of media. [0016]) a video (For instance, the test media clip may comprise a video that has been uploaded to a social media platform or a news web site. [0024]); annotating the video according to the analysis (In another example, the person's identity may be indicated in metadata associated with the test media clip and/or the historical media clip. [0044]); selecting a plurality of verification models (In one example, the identity of the person may be determined using facial recognition techniques to analyze the video of the test media clip and the video of the historical media clip. In another example, the identity of the person may be determined using voice recognition techniques to analyze the audio of the test media clip and the audio of the historical media clip. [0044]) according to the annotations (In another example, the person's identity may be indicated in metadata associated with the test media clip and/or the historical media clip. [0044]), wherein the plurality of verification models include at least one forensic model that is not trained to detect that the video comprises a deepfake video (In one example, the identity of the person may be determined using facial recognition techniques to analyze the video of the test media clip and the video of the historical media clip. [0044]), wherein outcome of the at least one forensic model applied to the video is compared to a ground truth obtained by applying the at least one forensic model to at least one other authentic video (In one example, the identity of the person may be determined using facial recognition techniques to analyze the video of the test media clip and the video of the historical media clip (i.e., to obtain the ground truth by applying facial recognition). [0044]) having at least one annotation of the video (In step 404, the processing system may acquire an historical media clip of a person depicted in a test media clip whose authenticity is being evaluated (e.g., according to the method 200). [0044]), and wherein a match between the indication and the ground truth increases a likelihood that the video is authentic, and a mismatch between the indication and the ground truth increases a likelihood that the video is a deepfake video (each authenticity algorithm of the plurality of authenticity algorithms generates a respective score of the plurality of scores which indicates a likelihood that the test media clip is authentic, testing each authenticity algorithm of the plurality of authenticity algorithms against a plurality of historical media clips, in order to determine, for the each authenticity algorithm, a reliability of the each algorithm in terms of being able to estimate authenticity. Abstract. It is common knowledge that a match between the indication and the ground truth increases a likelihood that the video is authentic, and a mismatch between the two increases a likelihood that the video is a deepfake video.); aggregating a plurality of outcomes of the plurality of verification models (computing a cumulative authenticity score for the test media clip, by aggregating the plurality of scores weighted by the plurality of weights. Abstract); and determining a probability that the video was created by a deepfake tool according to the aggregation (Alternatively, a threshold value may be established, where a cumulative authenticity score that falls below the threshold value may indicate that an associated media clip is unlikely to be authentic (e.g., is likely to be synthetic), and a cumulative authenticity score that is at least equal to the threshold value may indicate that an associated media clip is likely to be authentic (e.g., is unlikely to be synthetic). [0037]).
Soryal does not expressly teach the following limitations as further recited, but Tsao further teaches wherein the at least one forensic model (Mechanisms of face perception. Title) generates an indication of a physical property of a person or object depicted in the video (After a face has been detected, it must be measured in a way that allows for accurate, efficient identification. Page 2 5th paragraph. In feature-based methods, fiducial points (e.g., eyes, mouth, nose) are identified and used to compute various geometric ratios (which reads on “an indication of a physical property of a person”). Page 3 5th paragraph); wherein the ground truth comprises a value of the physical property of the person (After a face has been detected, it must be measured in a way that allows for accurate, efficient identification. Page 2 5th paragraph. In feature-based methods, fiducial points (e.g., eyes, mouth, nose) are identified and used to compute various geometric ratios. Page 3 5th paragraph) or object.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Soryal to incorporate the teachings of Tsao to utilize a forensic model to generate an indication of a physical property of a person depicted in the video to be compared with the ground truth in order to allow for accurate, efficient identification.
Soryal in the combination further teaches as determined from the at least one other authentic video (In one example, the identity of the person may be determined using facial recognition techniques to analyze the video of the test media clip and the video of the historical media clip. [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Soryal in the combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing comprises determining a context in which the video was found(For instance, referring again to the example test media clip of the political candidate making unrealistic promises, the test media clip may purport to have been filmed at a campaign rally one month before an election. [0059]).
Claims 3-4 and 6-17, unamended and are rejected based on the revised combination of Soryal, in view of Tsao as applied to claim 1 above. The grounds of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Apparatus claim 18 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Claim 19 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions stored for carrying out the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Claim 2, unamended and is rejected based on the revised combination of Soryal (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0261580 A1), hereinafter Soryal, in view of Tsao (Mechanisms of face perception, Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008 ; 31: 411–437), hereinafter Tsao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2022/0121868 A1), hereinafter Chen. The ground of rejection established in the last Office Action is fully incorporated herein.
Conclusion
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 LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights