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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 02/11/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in the application. Claims 7-9, 11 and 13 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 10 and 12 are amended.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues (see page 9) that the Office Action indicates that certain claim features have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Without conceding the propriety of the interpretation, the Applicant takes not position with regard to the interpretation at this time.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, claim 6 still recites the limitation “transmitting unit”, and therefore, claim 6 remains being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 10 and 12 have been amended to recite “one or more processors”. However, claims 10 and 12 do not recite that the steps in the claims are performed by the “one or more processors”. Therefore, the “one or more processors” in claims 10 and 12 are not the corresponding structures for performing the steps in the claims. Hence, claims 10 and 12 remain being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 10-13) with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New references, Chou (U.S. PGPub 2022/0012276) and Glazner et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0077170), are now relied upon to teach the features of amended claims 1, 10 and 12.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transmitting unit” in claim 6. In addition, claims 10 and 12 recite the limitation “step” and thus, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure and/or algorithm described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: "generates the hash value by executing the hash function with respect to the distribution data stored in the buffer (a step S306)” and “the present invention can also be realized by a computer…comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer executable instructions” (see paragraphs 0038 and 0088 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation " the transmitting unit". The limitation “transmitting unit” has been removed from independent claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (U.S. PGPub 2022/0012276) in view of Glazner et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0077170).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 12, Chou teaches An image pickup apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a communication interface, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: transmit, via the communication interface, distribution data used for live distribution of a video image, the distribution data including moving image data, audio data, and metadata; (Chou, see figs. 4-5; see paragraph 0061 where surveillance camera captures video and sound in real time and transmits multimedia stream to a encoder to encode and store encoded multimedia stream in a specified storage area S1 through a H.264 encoding protocol, generating ID UID_1 as the ID (metadata) of the multimedia stream...)
during a single live distribution session after starting transmission of the distribution data, generate a plurality of hash values of respective portions of the distribution data at a predetermined interval; and (Chou, see figs. 4-5; see paragraph 0061 where surveillance camera captures video and sound in real time and transmits multimedia stream to a encoder to encode and store encoded multimedia stream in a specified storage area S1 through a H.264 encoding protocol, generating ID UID_1 as the ID (metadata) of the multimedia stream...calculate hash values of the plurality of frames of data, and upload properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, and a hash value of the specified frame of data) of specified frame of data to the block chain system 1. The block chain system 1 can add a timestamp to the properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, a hash value of the specified frame of data, and a timestamp) of the specified frame of data.)
transmit, via the communication interface, to a content management apparatus that registers the hash value in a blockchain, (i) each of the plurality of hash values, and (ii) timing information associated with each hash value, (Chou, see figs. 4-5; see paragraph 0061 where surveillance camera captures video and sound in real time and transmits multimedia stream to a encoder to encode and store encoded multimedia stream in a specified storage area S1 through a H.264 encoding protocol, generating ID UID_1 as the ID (metadata) of the multimedia stream...calculate hash values of the plurality of frames of data, and upload properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, and a hash value of the specified frame of data) of specified frame of data to the block chain system 1. The block chain system 1 can add a timestamp to the properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, a hash value of the specified frame of data, and a timestamp) of the specified frame of data.)
However, Chou does not explicitly teach the timing information defining a portion of the distribution data for which the hash value is generated and including at least one of:(a) elapsed time from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(b) a number of frames elapsed from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(c) a movement distance of the image pickup apparatus, or (d) a subject switching event in the video image.
Glazner teaches the timing information defining a portion of the distribution data for which the hash value is generated and including at least one of:(a) elapsed time from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(b) a number of frames elapsed from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(c) a movement distance of the image pickup apparatus, or (d) a subject switching event in the video image. (Glazner, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0125 the video may begin to be played while the video is being streamed or while being broadcast via a broadcast network.; see paragraph 0038 obtain values of pixels associated with certain position(s) in a video... estimate elapsed time associated with a given frame, and/or a hash/other function applier 519 operative to apply a hash function such as SHA ...; see paragraphs 0129-0130 estimate the time that is to elapse from the beginning of the video until that frame will be played, based for instance on the frame rate. When the time has elapsed, device 130 or 140 may determine the current frame that is being played, and obtain value(s) of pixel(s)...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Chou and Glazner to provide the technique of the timing information defining a portion of the distribution data for which the hash value is generated and including at least one of:(a) elapsed time from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(b) a number of frames elapsed from the start of transmission of the distribution data,(c) a movement distance of the image pickup apparatus, or (d) a subject switching event in the video image of Glazner in the system of Chou in order to encourage users to view beneficial content to reduce network traffic and improve efficiency of applications (Glazner, see paragraphs 0013-0015).
Regarding claim 2, Chou-Glazner teaches wherein a timing for generating the hash values is a timing when a predetermined time has elapsed after starting transmission of the distribution data. (Glazner, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0125 the video may begin to be played while the video is being streamed or while being broadcast via a broadcast network.; see paragraph 0038 obtain values of pixels associated with certain position(s) in a video... estimate elapsed time associated with a given frame, and/or a hash/other function applier 519 operative to apply a hash function such as SHA ...; see paragraphs 0129-0130 estimate the time that is to elapse from the beginning of the video until that frame will be played, based for instance on the frame rate. When the time has elapsed, device 130 or 140 may determine the current frame that is being played, and obtain value(s) of pixel(s)...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 10 and 12 is also applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Chou-Glazner teaches wherein a timing for generating the hash values is a timing when a predetermined number of frames have passed after starting transmission of the distribution data. (Glazner, see fig. 5; see paragraph 0125 the video may begin to be played while the video is being streamed or while being broadcast via a broadcast network.; see paragraph 0038 obtain values of pixels associated with certain position(s) in a video... estimate elapsed time associated with a given frame, and/or a hash/other function applier 519 operative to apply a hash function such as SHA ...; see paragraphs 0129-0130 estimate the time that is to elapse from the beginning of the video until that frame will be played, based for instance on the frame rate. When the time has elapsed, device 130 or 140 may determine the current frame that is being played, and obtain value(s) of pixel(s)...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 1, 10 and 12 is also applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Chou-Glazner teaches wherein the transmitting unit also transmits the distribution data to the content management apparatus. (Chou, see figs. 4-5; see paragraph 0061 where surveillance camera captures video and sound in real time and transmits multimedia stream to a encoder to encode and store encoded multimedia stream in a specified storage area S1 through a H.264 encoding protocol, generating ID UID_1 as the ID (metadata) of the multimedia stream...calculate hash values of the plurality of frames of data, and upload properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, and a hash value of the specified frame of data) of specified frame of data to the block chain system 1. The block chain system 1 can add a timestamp to the properties (UID_1, a serial number of the specified frame of data, a hash value of the specified frame of data, and a timestamp) of the specified frame of data.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou-Glazner in view of Fujii et al. (JP 2019133650; see the English translated copy).
Regarding claim 4, Chou-Glazner teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Chou-Glazner does not explicitly teach wherein a timing for generating the hash values is a timing when the image pickup apparatus has moved by a predetermined distance or more.
Fujii teaches wherein a timing for generating the hash values is a timing when the image pickup apparatus has moved by a predetermined distance or more. (Fujii, see page 13, paragraph 4 numerical data obtained from a travel distance meter (predetermined distance) at each time point...data obtained from a sensor group arranged in the vehicle is included. Video data captured by an in-vehicle camera...including the hash value of the stored travel data and the location information indicating the location of the data to the distributed DB network 101...records that the data that is the basis of the hash value...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Chou-Glazner and Fujii to provide the technique of a timing when the image pickup apparatus has moved by a predetermined distance or more of Fujii in the system of Chou-Glazner in order to prevent falsification to the original data (Fujii, see page 16, paragraph 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou-Glazner in view of Hind et al. (U.S. PGPub 2003/0212893).
Regarding claim 5, Chou-Glazner teaches all of the features of claim 1. However, Chou-Glazner does not explicitly teach wherein a timing for generating the hash value is a timing when a subject of the video image photographed has been switched to another subject.
Hind teaches wherein a timing for generating the hash value is a timing when a subject of the video image photographed has been switched to another subject. (Hind, see paragraph 0050 add a camera module for recording images...; see paragraph 0028 a hash may operate periodically, upon expiration of an elapsed time value, to compute a hash value over each of a plurality of segments (over each subject/switch from one segment to the next segment (next subject)) of each data stream. In this case, the combining, hashing, and digitally signing all operate on the periodically-computed hash values for each data stream, and the digitally signed periodically-computed hash values, along with the periodically-computed hash values))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Chou-Glazner and Hind to provide the technique of a timing when a subject of the video image photographed has been switched to another subject of Hind in the system of Chou-Glazner in order to ensure the security of the device and the operations it performs (Hind, see paragraph 0018).
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 MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443