The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 2/12/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations recite “if the comparison result at step (g) indicates that the hashes do not match, then a notification is provided to the video consumer device to notify the user that the digital video file has not been authenticated.”
However, claim 11 depends on claim 2, which recites “a user sends a user request from a video consumer device, to view the digital video file […] (e) the digital video file is again received by the video authentication data processing platform in response to the user request, (f) a hash is again generated of each of the plurality of fragments of the digital video file received at step (e); and (g) the hashes stored on the blockchain at step (d) are compared to the hashes generated at step (f)” (underline for emphasis)
Further, claim 2 depends on claim 1, which recites “(a) receiving a digital video file which is being introduced to the video authentication data processing platform; (b) processing the received digital video file […] resulting in identifying a plurality of fragments of the received digital video file […]; (c) generating a hash of each of the plurality of fragments of the received digital video file.”
It is clear that the digital video file received in claim 2 is the same digital video file received in claim 1. If the videos are the same, the hashes are then the same. However, in claim 11, the hashes may not match. It is unclear under what circumstances the hashes would not match if the videos of claim 1 and claim 2 are the same.
Further, assuming, that the first and second videos are potentially not the same (i.e., the video of claim 1 is the original, and the video of claim 2 is a faked version, e.g., a modified version), it would be unclear how the platform would know to compare the hashes of the second video with the hashes of the first video, as they are no longer the same video.
Therefore, subject matter enabling hashes that don’t match has not been enabled by the specification of the present application.
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.
Claims 2 and 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations recite “when a user sends a user request from a video consumer device, to view the digital video file, the further steps are carried out.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the further steps” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the further steps have been interpreted as steps e through h.
Regarding claims 11-12, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvochko (US 11368289 B1) in view of Black et al. (US 12081827 B2, hereinafter Black).
Regarding claim 1,Kvochko discloses a method of authenticating a digital video file on a video authentication data processing platform, comprising steps of:
(a) receiving a digital video file which is being introduced to the video authentication data processing platform (col. 8, lines 8-10, "registration server 102 receives a source video 114 and registers the source video in blockchain ledger 122");
(b) processing the received digital video file, resulting in identifying a plurality of fragments of the received digital video file which are determined as being authentication candidates which are representative of an entirety of the received digital video file (col. 8, lines 10-12, "registration server 102 splits source video 114 into a series of video segments, each of which may include a set number of video frames" - the segments are "are representative of an entirety of the received digital video file" because they authenticate the whole video);
(c) generating a hash of each of the plurality of fragments of the received digital video file (col. 8, lines 12-16, "Registration server 102 then generates one or more hash values for each video segment, by applying a hash function 130 to the video frames (either the full frames or regions of the frames) that make up each video segment"); and
(d) storing the generated hashes on a blockchain (col. 8, lines 19-22, "Registration server 102 then generates a blockchain transaction 140 for each video segment, which includes the hash value(s) generated from the video segment and stores each blockchain transaction 140 as a block 124 in blockchain 123").
Kvochko does not disclose that the segments are identified using an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, which includes an artificial neural network.
Black discloses that video segments may be identified using an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, which includes an artificial neural network (col. 9, lines 43-46, "deep video retrieval model 106 sub-divides a video into visual segments 302 and audio segments 303. In particular, as described in more detail below, the deep video retrieval model 106 is a self-supervised network" - where a self-supervised network is a term known in the art indicating neural network use - see also col. 10, line 16, "utilizing a visual neural network encoder"; col. 9, lines 41-42, "FIG. 3A details of an example pipeline and architecture of the deep video retrieval model 106", Fig. 3A, the model 106 includes visual neural network encoder).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kvochko and Black to arrive at a system in which the segments are identified using an artificial intelligence (AI) agent, which includes an artificial neural network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a robust for comparing videos while enabling the system to ignore small discrepancies that occur due to the nature of electronic video distribution (Black, col. 3, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein, after the steps a)-d) are performed, when a user sends a user request from a video consumer device, to view the digital video file, the further steps are carried out (Kvochko, col. 8, lines 30-33, "authentication server 104 receives requests 136 to authenticate target videos 137 and determines whether or not the target videos are authentic using blockchain 123"; col. 4, lines 63-65, "members of the public who view purported copies of the videos may submit such copies to the authentication server to determine their authenticity"; col. 18, lines 4-6, "authentication server 104 modifies a target video 137 to indicate that the target video is an altered version of a source video 114" (implying the user has not viewed the video at the time the request is made)):
(e) the digital video file is again received by the video authentication data processing platform in response to the user request (Kvochko, col. 4, lines 63-65, "members of the public who view purported copies of the videos may submit such copies to the authentication server to determine their authenticity"),
(f) a hash is again generated of each of the plurality of fragments of the digital video file received at step (e) (Kvochko, col. 15, lines 60-64, "In order to authenticate target video 137 as an authentic copy of source video 114a, authentication server 104 splits target video 137 into a set of video segments 408 in the same manner that registration server 102 split source video 114a into a set of video segments 206"; col. 16, lines 42-47, "After splitting target video 137 into a set of video segments 408, authentication server 104 obtains a hash value 410 for each segment by applying hash function 130a to the set of pixels included in the segment, where hash function 130a is the same hash function used by registration server 102 to generate hash values 208"); and
(g) the hashes stored on the blockchain at step (d) are compared to the hashes generated at step (f) (Kvochko, col. 16, line 55 to col. 17, line 7, "Authentication server 104 then compares hash values 410 to hash values 208, stored in blockchain 123. For example, authentication server 104 (1) compares hash value 410a to hash value 208a, stored in block 124a of blockchain 123, (2) compares hash value 410b to hash value 208b, stored in block 124b of blockchain 123, and (3) compares hash value 410c to hash value 208c, stored in block 124c of blockchain 123"); and
(h) if the comparison result at step (g) indicate a match, then a notification is provided to the video consumer device to notify the user that the digital video file has been authenticated (Kvochko, col. 16, line 55 to col. 17, line 7, "If all of the hash values match, authentication server 104 may determine that target video 137 is an authentic copy of source video 114a, and transmit a response 138 to user 106 indicating that target video 137 is authentic. On the other hand, if any of the hash values do not match, authentication server 104 may determine that target video 137 has been modified as compared to source video 114a, such that target video 137 is not an authentic copy of source video 114a. In response to determining that target video 137 is not authentic, authentication server 104 may transmit an alert 138 to user 106 indicating that target video 137 is not authentic").
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein at step (b), the plurality of fragments are vertical frames of the digital video file (Kvochko, col. 16, lines 9-12, "where each video segment 408 includes a portion of a set of sequential frames 402, where the portion and the set of sequential frames 402 are chosen to correspond to the portion and the set of sequential frames 202"; Fig. 2A, the frames are divided vertically, i.e., each frame is a vertical frame).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein at step (b), the plurality of fragments are horizontal fragments of the digital video file (Kvochko, col. 16, lines 9-12, "where each video segment 408 includes a portion of a set of sequential frames 402, where the portion and the set of sequential frames 402 are chosen to correspond to the portion and the set of sequential frames 202"; Fig. 2A, the totality of frames are shown as a horizontal sequence - see also Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein at step (a), metadata associated with the digital video file is also received and used by the AI agent at step (b) to identify the plurality of fragments (Kvochko, col. 2, lines 9-10, "The source video includes a first plurality of frames and a first set of metadata"; col. 2, lines 25-28, "The first processor additionally obtains an identifier for the first block in the blockchain ledger. The first processor further stores the identifier in the first set of metadata").
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 5, above, wherein the metadata includes any one of a name of the digital video file, a data when the digital video file was created, a data format of the digital video file, or a compression type of the digital video file (Black, col. 10, lines 18-35, "The system uses blockchains to store all the information needed for performing forensic analysis on a suspected news video clip. This information includes copies of all published editions of a video clip and their relevant metadata [...] Metadata includes information that is created by the capture hardware or editing software (e.g. file name, file type, GPS coordinate, camera settings, time stamp, duration, ownership, etc.). It also includes human generated information that describe the video (e.g. keywords, tags, and comments)"; ).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein at step (b) the AI agent identifies the plurality of fragments by recognizing specific characteristics of the digital video file (Kvochko, col. 8, lines 10-12, "registration server 102 splits source video 114 into a series of video segments, each of which may include a set number of video frames").
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein, at step (h), if the comparison result at step (g) indicates that the hashes do not match, then a notification is provided to the video consumer device to notify the user that the digital video file has not been authenticated (Kvochko, col. 16, line 55 to col. 17, line 7, "If all of the hash values match, authentication server 104 may determine that target video 137 is an authentic copy of source video 114a, and transmit a response 138 to user 106 indicating that target video 137 is authentic. On the other hand, if any of the hash values do not match, authentication server 104 may determine that target video 137 has been modified as compared to source video 114a, such that target video 137 is not an authentic copy of source video 114a. In response to determining that target video 137 is not authentic, authentication server 104 may transmit an alert 138 to user 106 indicating that target video 137 is not authentic").
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, further comprising the step (i) of providing the digital video file to the video consumer device (Kvochko, col. 4, lines 63-65, "members of the public who view purported copies of the videos").
Regarding claim 13, Kvochko discloses a system for authenticating a digital video file on a video authentication data processing platform, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed on the processor, cause the system to perform the steps (col. 3, line 41 to col. 4, line 36).
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 14, Kvochko discloses a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations (col. 3, line 41 to col. 4, line 36).
The remaining limitations of claim 14 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvochko (US 11368289 B1) in view of Black (US 12081827 B2), and further in view of Alattar et al. (US 11922532 B2, hereinafter Alattar).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined teachings of Kvochko and Black does not disclose that a hash is also generated of a sum of the hashes generated at step (c), and the hash of the sum of the hashes is also stored on the blockchain at step (d).
Alattar discloses that a hash may also generated of a sum of the hashes generated at step (c), and the hash of the sum of the hashes is also stored on the blockchain at step (d) (col. 5, lines 37-45, "detects fake content generated from existing authentic video clips […] the system ingests the media content (10)"; col. 6, lines 12-14, "chunks of the media content are hashed into hashes which then form a hash tree"; col. 7, lines 18-33, "the content provider can provide its users with a software application to view and authenticate videos coming from random sources. This software application may be downloaded and executed on a user's computer, or executed in a server (e.g., via cloud service)"; col. 11, line 66 to col. 12, line 6, "A root hash, in machine and human readable format that serves as a Content Identifier Number (CID), is used externally to identify and retrieve the entire file. The root hash is the root of a hash tree. A hash tree (e.g., a Merkle tree) is a tree in which every leaf node is labelled with the cryptographic hash of a data block, and every non-leaf node is labelled with the cryptographic hash of the labels of its child nodes" - Merkle trees are known in the art and to computer parent/root nodes, concatenation (joining) of the hashes of leaf nodes is necessary, and the result is hashed (see Tavares ("Diving into Merkle Trees", ordep.dev, 2022) pages 7-12) - a "sum" joins two values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kvochko, Black and Alattar to arrive at a system in which a hash is also generated of a sum of the hashes generated at step (c), and the hash of the sum of the hashes is also stored on the blockchain at step (d).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a system to " identify and retrieve the entire file" as necessary (Alattar, col. 12, line 1).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kvochko (US 11368289 B1) in view of Black (US 12081827 B2), and further in view of Clay (US 20230325481 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above.
The combined teachings of Kvochko and Black do not disclose that the specific characteristics of the digital video file include a specific color appearing in a specific portion of the digital video file.
Clay discloses that specific characteristics of the digital video file may include a specific color appearing in a specific portion of the digital video file (¶[0051], "Automated comparison of authentication video versus reference video (if reference video is available). This step uses standard technologies to perform voice and object recognition on the authentication video and accompanying audio, as well as the reference video and accompanying audio, for the purpose of comparing the two representations of the Subject. Assessments may be made about how closely the videos match when comparing features such as facial structure, eye color, hair style, voice attributes, etc. The processes that perform this analysis run on the Authentication Server").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kvochko, Black and Clay to arrive at a system in which the specific characteristics of the digital video file include a specific color appearing in a specific portion of the digital video file.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it "greatly improves the efficacy of authentication and reduces the chances of identity theft" (Clay, ¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Kvochko and Black disclose the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above.
The combined teachings of Kvochko and Black do not disclose that the specific characteristics of the digital video file include an identification of a particular person whose face appears in the digital video file, by using a facial recognition algorithm.
Clay discloses that specific characteristics of the digital video file may include an identification of a particular person whose face appears in the digital video file, by using a facial recognition algorithm (¶[0051], "Automated comparison of authentication video versus reference video (if reference video is available). This step uses standard technologies to perform voice and object recognition on the authentication video and accompanying audio, as well as the reference video and accompanying audio, for the purpose of comparing the two representations of the Subject. Assessments may be made about how closely the videos match when comparing features such as facial structure, eye color, hair style, voice attributes, etc. The processes that perform this analysis run on the Authentication Server").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kvochko, Black and Clay to arrive at a system in which the specific characteristics of the digital video file include an identification of a particular person whose face appears in the digital video file, by using a facial recognition algorithm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it "greatly improves the efficacy of authentication and reduces the chances of identity theft" (Clay, ¶[0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210127085 A1, which discloses "Processing server 104 functions to process video content (or a sequential series of frames representing video content) received as input, perform verification and authentication of video content, and optionally, provide an authentication result to one or more devices" (¶[0032]) and "a cryptographic representation is generated for different clips or segments of the video content. In some embodiments, the cryptographic representation is a progressive hash (i.e., a cryptographically scrambled representation of the data) generated using a hashing algorithm, or other suitable one-way function. In some embodiments, the hash of the video content segment is generated in such a way that a person or device can later ensure that the video content segment being accessed was hashed at a particular time and recorded at a particular time. For example, upon running the same segment of video content through the hashing algorithm again may result in different hashes if anything has changed in the file's audio or video data, indicating possible manipulation of the video content" (¶[0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights