DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-28 are canceled.
Claims 29-48 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 11 February 2026.
US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. is newly introduced to address the latest claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicant may have on moving prosecution forward.
Applicant argues:
To meet the claimed "domain identifier" and "sequence identifier," the Office Action
cites Bodin's discussion that a URL "typically includes" (a) a domain name/IP address and (b) a path/file name that identifies a particular resource ( e.g., JPEG). But that mapping is still a single URL string that directly resolves to a specific file/resource on a server. In Bodin, the "path name/file name" is not a "sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier" in Applicant's sense; it is simply part of a URL used to fetch the resource.
By contrast, claim 29 requires a payload in which:
1. the first field is a domain identifier (not a full URL and not necessarily a domain
name string);
2. the second field is a sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier that
distinguishes images sharing the same domain identifier; and
3. the first field provides a mapping to an Internet address of a domain lookup server
accessible to retrieve metadata associated with images identified by the watermark payload.
This is a different architecture than the "embed a URL" approach taught by the cited
references. In Applicant's approach, the watermark payload contains compact identifiers ( domain ID + sequence ID), and the address used for metadata retrieval is reached through a lookup/resolution layer (domain lookup server), rather than embedding a complete URL (domain+ path) in the payload. This has the technological advantage of requiring fewer bits of data to be embedded into the watermark. Bodin's URL model teaches away from Applicant's compact-ID indirection, because Bodin's whole point is that the URL itself is the mechanism for
direct retrieval ("HTTP GET" of the identified resource).
Accordingly, even if Bodin is combined with Aoshima, the combination would at most yield "extract a URL from a watermark and use it to retrieve a network resource." It would not yield the claimed indirection structure where a domain identifier maps to an address of a domain lookup server and the sequence identifier identifies content within that domain.
Furthermore, Office Action has incorrectly equated the claimed "domain identifier" to a URL "domain name" and the claimed "sequence identifier" to a URL "file name/path." Claim 29 does not recite "a domain name" and does not recite "a URL path/file name." It recites: • a domain identifier (first field), and • a sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier (second field), where the first field provides a mapping to an Internet address of a domain lookup server.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
While the instant claims recite “payload including a first field that includes a domain identifier and a second field that includes a sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier”, they do not recite the feature of compact identifiers or compact-ID.
The mere inclusion of a first field that includes a domain identifier and a second field that includes a sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier in a payload do not require any kind of compaction of those fields.
While the independent claims recite “numeric domain identifier providing a mapping to an Internet address of a domain lookup server accessible to retrieve metadata associated with images”, it does not specify that the address is reached through a lookup operation or a resolution layer. The independent claims merely require that a domain lookup server is accessible to retrieve said metadata. The independent claims do not require said domain lookup server to be a resolution layer or to perform lookup operation.
The independent claims also do not recite the features of “compact-ID indirection” and “indirection structure” as Applicant alleged.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues:
“A URL domain name is not a "domain identifier" as claimed when the claim requires the domain identifier to operate as an assigned identifier that maps (via lookup) to a server address.”
…
The amendment requires that the first field provides a mapping to an Internet address of a domain lookup server. This emphasizes the architectural separation between:
• a domain-scoped identifier layer ( domain ID + sequence ID), and • a resolution layer (domain lookup server) used to obtain metadata associated with content identified by the payload.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Claim 1 recites “the numeric domain identifier providing a mapping to an Internet
address of a domain lookup server”.
However, Claim 1 does not recite limitation(s) that require identifier that maps, via lookup, to an address of a server. Claim 1 also does not recite limitation(s) that require “a domain-scoped identifier layer” and “a resolution layer”.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: according to 608.01(m) of the MPEP, “each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).”
Claim 41 ends with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites “the numeric domain identifier providing a mapping to an Internet address of a domain lookup server accessible to retrieve metadata associated with images identified by the watermark payload”.
It is not clear whether it is the Internet address or the domain lookup server that is accessible to retrieve the recited metadata.
Claims 30-41 depend from claim 29, and are rejected for the same reason(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 42 recites “upon distribution of the image that includes the one or more watermark payloads, detection of the one or more watermark payloads from the image, and transmission of a query based on the domain identifier and at least one of the one or more sequence identifiers obtained from a first segment of the image, acquisition of metadata associated with the first segment from the metadata server is enabled”.
The claim does not recite, for example, “a metadata server”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the metadata server” in the claim.
Claims 43-48 depend from claim 42, and are rejected for the same reason(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 29-30, 32, 34, 39-40, 42, 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”).
As to Claim 29, Aoshima teaches a method for obtaining associated information for images comprising: receiving at least one image at a receiver device equipped with a watermark detector (Aoshima: at least ¶0101; “Web server 10' makes an information terminal 40' display a Web page, when the information terminal 40' accesses the Web server 10' through the Internet 50. Here, in the Web server 10', a Web page used for moving to a Web page to which Web page providing conditions are set includes an authentication mark that has been issued to the above-mentioned Web page to which the Web page providing conditions are set, or to a person concerned such as a sender or author of that Web page. The authentication mark is electronic image data in which Web page attribute information and a signature to the Web page attribute information are embedded utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like”; ¶0128 further discloses “detect an action of selecting the authentication mark displayed in the Web page of the user”);
performing watermark detection on the received image to extract a payload of one or more embedded watermarks (Aoshima: at least ¶0144; “the authentication mark verification requesting unit 407 extracts the Web page identification information embedded in the authentication mark 1601, utilizing the electronic watermark technique”; ¶0129 also discloses “extracts the Web page identification information and the signature of the authentication mark issuer, which are embedded in the authentication mark utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like”; ¶0101 also discloses “Web page identification information (such as URL)”);
based on the detected watermark payload, forming a query and transmitting the query to a server (Aoshima: at least ¶¶0082-0083, 0101, 0129, 0135-0137, 0144; “to send the above-mentioned browsing request”; “...generates a browsing request including the URL specified by the extracted Web page identification information, and sends the request to the service providing apparatus 30”; also, “generates a relation verification request” and “sends the generated relation verification request to the service providing apparatus 30"”).
Aoshima does not explicitly disclose, but Bodin discloses the payload including a first field that includes a domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0101 also discloses, for example, “one domain identified by the domain name `grandma.net,` and the other identified by the domain name `someother.net.”) and a second field that includes an sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier, the sequence identifier distinguishing the image from other images with the same domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”), the first field comprising a domain identifier not including a URL, the domain identifier providing a mapping to an Internet address of a server accessible to retrieve metadata associated with images identified by the watermark payload (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0098 further discloses “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “requesting the digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”; note: domain identifier may be part of URL but does not include URL; digital files such as image files include metadata such as file names);
transmitting the query to a server identified by the Internet address (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶¶0097-0098 further disclose “file system (350), the file system including file system storage locations (310), each file system storage location having a path name (311). FIG. 5 shows a more detailed example embodiment in which HTTP functionality within a service gateway is included in the send function (216) for transmitting digital files to a browser (128)” and “the browser uses the URL in another HTTP `get` message (322) requesting the digital file (212)”; note: request for resource as HTTP query that ask for resource at an internet protocol address); and receiving a response to the query from the server, the response including metadata associated with the image comprising the associated information (Bodin: at least ¶0098; “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “… digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”; note: downloaded digital files such as downloaded image files include metadata such as file names).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bodin’s features of the payload including a first field that includes a domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 00101) and a second field that includes an sequence identifier associated with the domain identifier, the sequence identifier distinguishing the image from other images with the same domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0074), the first field comprising a domain identifier not including a URL, the domain identifier providing a mapping to an Internet address of a server accessible to retrieve metadata associated with images identified by the watermark payload (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0098);
transmitting the query to a server identified by the Internet address (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0097-0098); and receiving a response to the query from the server, the response including metadata associated with the image comprising the associated information (Bodin: at least ¶0098) with Aoshima’s method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “distributes digital objects in HTML documents using HTTP” (Bodin: at least ¶0051).
Aoshima and Bodin do not explicitly disclose, but Cartmell discloses domain identifier that is a numeric domain identifier assigned by a registrar and not including a URL (Cartmell: at least ¶0007; “1-800-555-1212” and “lower-level domain names 123.123456.com” for example; ¶0015 further discloses “in addition to registering new domain names, registrars are also responsible for maintaining administrative information”; note: domain identifier may be part of URL but does not include URL) and server that is a domain lookup server (Cartmell: at least ¶0008; “("domain name servers") that maintain mappings from domain names to IP addresses”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cartmell’s features of domain identifier that is a numeric domain identifier assigned by a registrar and not including a URL (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0007, 0015) and server that is a domain lookup server (Cartmell: at least ¶0008) with the method disclosed by Aoshima and Bodin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to “request a particular resource (e.g., a Web page or a file) that is available from a server computer by specifying a unique Universal Resource Indicator ("URI"), such as a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"), for that resource” (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0005, 0010; “in order for a client computer to request a resource that is indicated by a URL containing a domain name, the client first determines the appropriate IP address for the domain name from one of the authoritative name servers for the zone that includes the domain name”).
As to Claim 30, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29, each domain registrant controlling an assignment and usage of the second field (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051 & 0077; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address, identifying a location where a resource is located on a network. URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files” and “encoding the digital file path name and the file name of the digital file into an HTML document typically includes encoding a URL (318)”).
Aoshima and Bodin do not explicitly disclose, but Cartmell discloses wherein value of the first field is assigned by a central authority to domain registrants (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0012, 0015; “Registrars often maintain a second-level domain name within the TLD (e.g., a hypothetical Registrar Company that acts as a registrar for the ".cc" TLD could maintain the RegistrarCompany.cc domain name 140), and provide an interactive Website at their domain name from which customers can register new domain names. A registrar will typically charge a customer a fee for registering a new domain name” and “in addition to registering new domain names, registrars are also responsible for maintaining administrative information (also referred to as "whois data" or a DNS whois record) about their domain names that identifies the current administrative contact for the domain name, and can include additional information such as the "registrant" (i.e., owner) of the domain name”).
As to Claim 32, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29, wherein the mapping is stored in the receiver device in a memory (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0098 further discloses “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “the browser uses the URL in another HTTP `get` message (322) requesting the digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”).
As to Claim 34, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29, wherein the query is a standardized query that is used to obtain the metadata corresponding to a particular value of the sequence identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶¶0097-0098 further disclose “file system (350), the file system including file system storage locations (310), each file system storage location having a path name (311). FIG. 5 shows a more detailed example embodiment in which HTTP functionality within a service gateway is included in the send function (216) for transmitting digital files to a browser (128)” and “the browser uses the URL in another HTTP `get` message (322) requesting the digital file (212)”; note: request for resource as standardized HTTP query that ask for resource at an internet protocol address; digital files such as image files include metadata corresponding to a particular file name or a particular identifier).
As to Claim 39, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29, wherein the first field specifies a domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0101 also discloses, for example, “one domain identified by the domain name `grandma.net,` and the other identified by the domain name `someother.net.”), the second field specifies a sequence identifier that is associated with the image (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”).
Aoshima and Bodin do not explicitly disclose, but Cartmell discloses each domain identifier is assigned by a central authority to one of a content producer, a content distributor, or a service provider (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0012, 0015; “Registrars often maintain a second-level domain name within the TLD (e.g., a hypothetical Registrar Company that acts as a registrar for the ".cc" TLD could maintain the RegistrarCompany.cc domain name 140), and provide an interactive Website at their domain name from which customers can register new domain names. A registrar will typically charge a customer a fee for registering a new domain name” and “in addition to registering new domain names, registrars are also responsible for maintaining administrative information (also referred to as "whois data" or a DNS whois record) about their domain names that identifies the current administrative contact for the domain name, and can include additional information such as the "registrant" (i.e., owner) of the domain name”; ¶0007 further discloses “the second-level domain names BCD-Corp.com 132, WebHostingCompany.com” and “Stanford.edu 136, Berkeley.edu 138”; note: provide education service and web hosting service).
As to Claim 40, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29, wherein the metadata includes instructions that allows the receiver device to execute particular interactive services associated with an image that is identified by the sequence identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”; ¶0098 further discloses “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “requesting the digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”).
As to Claim 42, Aoshima teaches a method for embedding a watermark message in images for facilitating acquisition of associated information, the method comprising:
obtaining, at a watermark embedder that is implemented at least partially in electronic circuits, a domain identifier for embedding in at least one image (Aoshima: at least ¶0101; “Web server 10' makes an information terminal 40' display a Web page, when the information terminal 40' accesses the Web server 10' through the Internet 50. Here, in the Web server 10', a Web page used for moving to a Web page to which Web page providing conditions are set includes an authentication mark that has been issued to the above-mentioned Web page to which the Web page providing conditions are set, or to a person concerned such as a sender or author of that Web page. The authentication mark is electronic image data in which Web page attribute information and a signature to the Web page attribute information are embedded utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like” and ““Web page attribute information is, for example, Web page identification information (such as URL)”; ¶0135 further discloses “the authentication mark 1601 is embedded with the Web page identification information of the Web page certified by the authentication mark”; ¶0059 further discloses “URL of the destination of the access”; note: URL would include domain identifier that identifies domain);
forming one or more watermark payloads (Aoshima: at least ¶0144; “the authentication mark verification requesting unit 407 extracts the Web page identification information embedded in the authentication mark 1601, utilizing the electronic watermark technique”; ¶0129 also discloses “extracts the Web page identification information and the signature of the authentication mark issuer, which are embedded in the authentication mark utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like”; ¶0101 also discloses “Web page attribute information and a signature to the Web page attribute information are embedded” and “Web page attribute information is, for example, Web page identification information (such as URL)”); and
embedding one or more watermark payloads in the image using the watermark embedder that is implemented at least partially in electronic circuits (Aoshima: at least ¶0101; “the authentication mark is electronic image data in which Web page attribute information and a signature to the Web page attribute information are embedded utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like”), and wherein
upon distribution of the image that includes the one or more watermark payloads (Aoshima: at least ¶¶0074 & 0129; “acquires the Web page having a desired URL designated by the user through the instruction receiving unit 402, and displays the acquired Web page on a display unit 404 comprising, for example, a liquid crystal panel” and “the extracted identification information and signature and the URL of the Web page displayed now by the Web page browsing unit 403”; ¶0135 further discloses “the authentication mark 1601 is embedded with the Web page identification information of the Web page certified by the authentication mark and the signature of the authentication mark issuer to the Web page identification information”), detection of the one or more watermark payloads from the image (Aoshima: at least ¶0129; “extracts the Web page identification information and the signature of the authentication mark issuer, which are embedded in the authentication mark utilizing the electronic watermark technique or the like”; ¶0101 also discloses “Web page identification information (such as URL)”), and transmission of a query based on the domain identifier and at least one of the one or more resource identifiers obtained from a first segment of the image (Aoshima: at least ¶¶0082-0083, 0101, 0129, 0135-0137, 0144; “to send the above-mentioned browsing request”; “...generates a browsing request including the URL specified by the extracted Web page identification information, and sends the request to the service providing apparatus 30”; also, “generates a relation verification request” and “sends the generated relation verification request to the service providing apparatus 30"”; note: URL comprises resource identifier (locator)).
Aoshima does not explicitly disclose, but Bodin discloses the domain identifier not including a URL, the domain identifier further providing a mapping to an Internet address of a metadata server that includes information associated with the image (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0098 further discloses “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “requesting the digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”; note: domain identifier may be part of URL but does not include URL; digital files such as image files include metadata such as file names);
obtaining one or more sequence identifiers for embedding into the image (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”);
each watermark payload including the domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶0101 also discloses, for example, “one domain identified by the domain name `grandma.net,` and the other identified by the domain name `someother.net.”) and a sequence identifier from the one or more sequence identifiers (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”); and
wherein each sequence identifier that is embedded in the image distinguishing the image from other images with the same domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”), and at least one of the one or more resource identifiers obtained from a first segment of the image is at least one sequence identifier (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “a URL typically includes an internet protocol address, or a domain name that resolves to an internet protocol address”; ¶¶0097-0098 further disclose “file system (350), the file system including file system storage locations (310), each file system storage location having a path name (311). FIG. 5 shows a more detailed example embodiment in which HTTP functionality within a service gateway is included in the send function (216) for transmitting digital files to a browser (128)” and “the browser uses the URL in another HTTP `get` message (322) requesting the digital file (212)”; note: request for resource as HTTP query that ask for resource at an internet protocol address), acquisition of metadata associated with the first segment from the metadata server is enabled (Bodin: at least ¶0098; “a URL (318) encoded (312) with the file system location (310), including the path name (311), where the digital file (280) is stored” and “… digital file (212) which is downloaded to the browser in a second HTTP `response` message (320)”; note: downloaded digital files such as downloaded image files include metadata such as file names).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bodin’s features of domain identifier not including a URL, the domain identifier further providing a mapping to an Internet address of a metadata server that includes information associated with the image (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0098);
obtaining one or more sequence identifiers for embedding into the image (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0074);
each watermark payload including the domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0101) and a sequence identifier from the one or more sequence identifiers (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0074); and
wherein each sequence identifier that is embedded in the image distinguishing the image from other images with the same domain identifier (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0074), and at least one of the one or more resource identifiers obtained from a first segment of the image is at least one sequence identifier (Bodin: at least ¶¶0051, 0097-0098), acquisition of metadata associated with the first segment from the metadata server is enabled (Bodin: at least ¶0098) with the Aoshima’s method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “distributes digital objects in HTML documents using HTTP” (Bodin: at least ¶0051).
Aoshima and Bodin do not explicitly disclose, but Cartmell discloses the domain identifier assigned by a registrar entity and not including a URL, the domain identifier identifying a particular domain name that is registered to a registrant entity (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0012, 0015; “Registrars often maintain a second-level domain name within the TLD (e.g., a hypothetical Registrar Company that acts as a registrar for the ".cc" TLD could maintain the RegistrarCompany.cc domain name 140), and provide an interactive Website at their domain name from which customers can register new domain names. A registrar will typically charge a customer a fee for registering a new domain name” and “in addition to registering new domain names, registrars are also responsible for maintaining administrative information (also referred to as "whois data" or a DNS whois record) about their domain names that identifies the current administrative contact for the domain name, and can include additional information such as the "registrant" (i.e., owner) of the domain name”; note: domain identifier may be part of URL but does not include URL); and metadata server that is a domain lookup metadata server (Cartmell: at least ¶0008; “("domain name servers") that maintain mappings from domain names to IP addresses”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cartmell’s features of the domain identifier assigned by a registrar entity and not including a URL, the domain identifier identifying a particular domain name that is registered to a registrant entity (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0012, 0015); and metadata server that is a domain lookup metadata server (Cartmell: at least ¶0008) with the method disclosed by Aoshima and Bodin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to “request a particular resource (e.g., a Web page or a file) that is available from a server computer by specifying a unique Universal Resource Indicator ("URI"), such as a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"), for that resource” (Cartmell: at least ¶¶0005, 0010; “in order for a client computer to request a resource that is indicated by a URL containing a domain name, the client first determines the appropriate IP address for the domain name from one of the authoritative name servers for the zone that includes the domain name”).
As to Claim 44, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 42, wherein the watermark embedder is one of a plurality of watermark embedders that are part of a hierarchical structure comprising: the registrar entity positioned at a top level of hierarchy (Cartmell: at least ¶0007; “TLDs include Stanford.edu 136, Berkeley.edu 138, and RegistrarCompany.cc 140”; note: top level domains), the plurality of watermark embedders positioned at a low level of hierarchy (Cartmell: at least ¶0007; “lower-level domain names”), and one or more domain managers positioned at a mid-level of hierarchy between the registrar entity and the plurality of watermark embedders (Cartmell: at least ¶0008; “authoritative domain name servers to maintain the appropriate mapping information for domain names”), the one or more domain managers allocating one or more blocks of sequence identifiers for embedding into the content (Cartmell: at least ¶0066; “stores DNS resource records 473 (e.g., in a database or zone data files) for registered domain names that have characters from the DNS subset of ASCII characters”).
As to Claim 46, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 42, wherein obtaining the one or more sequence identifiers includes receiving the one or more sequence identifiers from another entity (Bodin: at least ¶0051; “URLs directed to particular resources, such as particular HTML files, JPEG files, or MPEG files, typically include a path name or file name locating and identifying a particular resource in a file system coupled to a network”; ¶0074 further discloses “file names like MyFile.JPEG, where JPEG is a file name extension identifying the digital format of an image file”).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US Patent 10,848,301 by Fregly et al. (“Fregly”).
As to Claim 31, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Fregly discloses wherein a correspondence between the first field and the Internet addresses is pre-established at least in-part by a registrar server (Fregly: at least Col. 11 Lines 37-44; “Domain Name System 204 responds to queries for IP addresses associated with the domains. In some embodiments, DNS registrar 202 may register Internet domain names for client device 110. For example, client device 110 may request that DNS registrar 202 determine whether a domain name is already owned. DNS registrar 202 may refer to DNS 204 to determine whether an entry for the requested domain exists”; Col. 19 Lines 37-43 further disclose “… where DNS registrar 202, or DOA PKI registration system 206 acting as DNS registrar 202, registers into Domain Name System 204 the domain of DO registration engine 314. The registration binds the domain name to the domain of DO registration engine 314 by adding to the DNS registry a DNS entry that maps the assigned domain name to the IP address of DO registration engine 314”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fregly’s feature of wherein a correspondence between the first field and the Internet addresses is pre-established at least in-part by a registrar server (Fregly: at least Col. 11 Lines 37-44) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to translate “human-readable domain names into Internet Protocol (IP) addresses used to establish TCP/IP communication over the Internet” (Fregly: at least Col. 11 Lines 47-50; “Domain Name System 204 is part of the infrastructure of the World Wide Web that translates human-readable domain names into Internet Protocol (IP) addresses used to establish TCP/IP communication over the Internet”).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US Patent 10,164,943 by Phipps.
As to Claim 33, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Phipps discloses wherein the receiver device receives the mapping or the Internet address in response to a lookup request including the first field to a lookup server (Phipps: at least Col. 13 Lines 28-37; “client system performs a DNS lookup of the detection hostname contained within the detection URL (e.g., as a first step to retrieving a web page at the detection URL). In some embodiments, performing a DNS lookup of the detection hostname comprises providing the detection hostname to a DNS server for DNS lookup. In some embodiments, the DNS server further forwards the request before DNS lookup is performed. In 514, the client system receives an IP address for the detection hostname (e.g., as the response to the DNS lookup)”; Col. 14 Lines 51-53 also disclose “the client system performs a DNS lookup of the detection URL and receives in response the IP address of the web server”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Phipps’ feature of wherein the receiver device receives the mapping or the Internet address in response to a lookup request including the first field to a lookup server (Phipps: at least Col. 13 Lines 28-37; Col. 14 Lines 51-53) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to retrieve a web page at an URL (Phipps: at least Col. 13 Lines 30-32).
Claims 35-36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2007/0298773 by Uematsu et al. (“Uematsu”).
As to Claim 35, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Uematsu discloses wherein the payload includes a third field that is indicative of availability of the metadata associated with a content sequence that is identified by the sequence identifier (Uematsu: at least ¶0085; “when the image acquisition parameter data of the URL "www.hello.co.jp/news/today" is OFF as shown in FIG. 7, for example, the image size parameter data is automatically set at "N/A" (Not Available) since no image data is downloaded”; note: image metadata are available if image is available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Uematsu’s feature of wherein the payload includes a third field that is indicative of availability of the metadata associated with a content sequence that is identified by the sequence identifier (Uematsu: at least ¶0085) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to control “various steps executed for the acquisition of HTML documents of Web pages (page acquisition process) and for the display/reproduction of Web pages (layout process)” (Uematsu: at least ¶0002).
As to Claim 36, Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and Uematsu teach the method of claim 35, wherein the query is formed and transmitted to the server upon detection of a change in a value of the third field (Uematsu: at least ¶0084; “parameter regarding the image acquisition, parameter data representing whether to download an image file of a Web page image specified in the HTML document (ON) or not (OFF)”).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2019/0320241 by An et al. (“An”).
As to Claim 37, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but An discloses wherein the payload is further structured to include a payload type field that identifies the payload as corresponding to one of a small domain, a medium domain or a large domain (An: at least ¶0715; “URL: http://domain/path?cid=1233456&t=5005”; Claim 3 further discloses “the domain type information is used to identify a small domain or a large domain”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate An’s feature of wherein the payload is further structured to include a payload type field that identifies the payload as corresponding to one of a small domain, a medium domain or a large domain (An: at least ¶0715, Claim 3) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to generate “an URL by using information in the parsed watermark; and launching an application by using the generated URL, wherein the application provides the interactive services related to the uncompressed broadcast content” (An: at least ¶0008).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2019/0320241 by An et al. (“An”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2006/0239503 by Petrovic et al. (“Petrovic”).
As to Claim 38, Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and An teach the method of claim 37, wherein the payload type field is a 2-bit field (An: at least Claim 3 further discloses “the domain type information is used to identify a small domain or a large domain”).
Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and An do not explicitly disclose, but Petrovic discloses wherein the payload is 50 bits long (Petrovic: at least ¶0146; “multimedia content may contain both a copy control watermark, with a 3-bit payload, and one or more forensic or transactional watermarks with 50-bit payloads”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Petrovic’s feature of wherein the payload is 50 bits long (Petrovic: at least ¶0146) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and An.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “provide forensic or transactional capabilities” using watermarks (Petrovic: at least ¶0146).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2008/0307106 by Miller et al. (“Miller”).
As to Claim 41, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 29.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Miller discloses wherein the metadata identifies at least one of: an internet address of an interactive services server; one or more parameters that indicate when and how an interactive service can be configured; the date on which the image was produced (Miller: at least ¶0034; “client 100 can receive media content from the remote media server 250, such as by streaming or downloading”; ¶0042 further discloses “images can be related by attributes such as storage location, file type, file creation date, a common file identifier, and/or previous viewing patterns.”); the date on which the image was edited; the copyright information related to the image; the owner of the image; the producer of the image; the size of the image; the timecode of the image;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s feature of wherein the metadata identifies at least one of: an internet address of an interactive services server; one or more parameters that indicate when and how an interactive service can be configured; the date on which the image was produced (Miller: at least ¶¶0034, 0042) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for organization of images by “physical attributes and thematic attributes” (Miller: at least ¶0042).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2003/0138127 by Miller et al. (“Miller”).
As to Claim 43, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 42.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Miller discloses wherein the watermark embedder is one of a plurality of watermark embedders associated with one of a content producer (Miller: at least Claim 11; “P2P network comprising at least a first and a second computer, the first and second computer communicating with each other via the network, each of the computers including a watermark embedder” and “after receipt of the audio clip or video segment at the first computer, digitally watermarking the audio clip or video segment to include a second identifier, the second identifier uniquely identifying the first computer or a user associated with the first computer”; note: producing watermarked content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s feature of wherein the watermark embedder is one of a plurality of watermark embedders associated with one of a content producer (Miller: at least Claim 11) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to place watermarks in specific frames of video contents (Miller: at least ¶0024).
Claim 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2002/0046293 by Kabata et al. (“Kabata”).
As to Claim 45, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 44.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Kabata discloses wherein obtaining the domain identifier includes receiving the domain identifier from one of the domain managers that has obtained the domain identifier from the registrar entity (Kabata: at least Abstract & ¶0004; “when the DNS server which maintains fully qualified domain names assigned by the Internet service provider receives an inquiry using a host name from a user terminal, it returns a corresponding IP address” and “a sequence of characters called a fully qualified domain name is used. A fully qualified domain name is a sequence of characters (e.g., abc.ami.co.jp) consisting of a combination of a domain name (ami.co.jp) and a host name (abc)”; ¶0010 further discloses “a user terminal makes an inquiry using a fully qualified domain name or a URL”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kabata’s feature of wherein obtaining the domain identifier includes receiving the domain identifier from one of the domain managers that has obtained the domain identifier from the registrar entity (Kabata: at least Abstract & ¶¶0004, 0010) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow for receiving of “client information including an IP address assigned to a client terminal and an arbitrary host name from the client terminal through the Internet, and to return the IP address in response to an inquiry as to the host name from a user terminal connected to the Internet while the client terminal is connected to the Internet” (Kabata: at least ¶0007).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0064262 by Chen et al. (“Chen”).
As to Claim 47, Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell teach the method of claim 42.
Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell do not explicitly disclose, but Chen discloses wherein the one or more sequence identifiers are part of a block of sequence identifiers that are assigned to the watermark embedder (Chen: at least ¶¶0023, 0033; “base view watermark insertion unit 204, an enhancement view watermark insertion unit 206” and “base view video 310 comprises a plurality of pictures, of which, pictures 312-318 are illustrated. The enhancement view video 320 comprises a plurality of pictures, of which, pictures 322-328 are illustrated. Pictures in both base view video 310 and the enhancement view video 320 may be watermarked for copy-protection”; ¶0026 further discloses “BVWIU 204 and the EVWIU 206 may be operable to insert or splice watermarks extracted by the watermark extractor 203 into corresponding pictures in the extracted base view and enhancement view videos, respectively”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s feature of wherein the one or more sequence identifiers are part of a block of sequence identifiers that are assigned to the watermark embedder (Chen: at least ¶¶0023, 0026, 0033) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin and Cartmell.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform 3D content watermarking (Chen: at least ¶¶0010, 0017).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2003/0084294 by Aoshima et al. (“Aoshima”) in view of US PGPUB 2003/0135561 by Bodin et al. (“Bodin”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2004/0015584 by Cartmell et al. (“Cartmell”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2011/0064262 by Chen et al. (“Chen”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2013/0346379 by Loe et al. (“Loe”).
As to Claim 48, Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and Chen teach the method of claim 47.
Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and Chen do not explicitly disclose, but Loe discloses upon a determination that a number of unused sequence identifiers has reached a predefined number, receiving additional sequence identifiers from a domain manager in response to a request from the watermark embedder (Loe: at least ¶¶0036, 0038; “the recipe may typically contain a list of files to be included in the archive” and “zip constructor 402 reads the beginning of the recipe and sends a corresponding request for watermarking one or more files to be included in the archive to Watermarker 404”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Loe’s feature of upon a determination that a number of unused sequence identifiers has reached a predefined number, receiving additional sequence identifiers from a domain manager in response to a request from the watermark embedder (Loe: at least ¶¶0036, 0038) with the method disclosed by Aoshima, Bodin, Cartmell and Chen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform digital watermarking that is considered a passive means for protecting digital content and that “will not interfere with consumers' enjoyment of the content they consume” (Loe: at least ¶0007).
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 Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
26 March 2026
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168