DETAILED ACTION
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 the Amendment filed on 06/17/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 10, 12-13, and 19 have been amended; claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 07/07/2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which was necessitated by amendment.
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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minetomo (US 2024/0313980) in view of Jenks et al. (US 2024/0314367; Hereinafter “Jenks”) in view of Todd et al. (US 2025/0047758; Hereinafter “Todd”) in view of Miller et al. (US 2020/0162266; Hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 1, Minetomo teaches a networked computing device, comprising: a processor; and memory to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the network computing device to:
process the first data using a data transformation function to produce second data (Minetomo: Fig. 8, Fig. 14B, Para. [0098], In step S904, in response to an instruction from the C2PA data generation unit 611, the assertion generation unit 612 starts processing for generation of the assertions described in the assertion list 701. Para. [0105], In step S906, the assertion generation unit 612 generates the target assertion. Para. [0096]);
generate a second data provenance capsule for the second data (Minetomo: Para. [0106], In particular, a portion of the encoded media content is hashed (e.g., using alg & exclusions[ ] fields of a data structure that describes a content binding, or hashed in any other way), );
transmit the second data and the second data provenance capsule to a destination node (Minetomo: Para. [0107], In step S909, the assertion generation unit 612 reads the generated assertion and its hash value stored in the storage memory 506. Para. [0112], After completion of generation of the C2PA data as described above, in step S913, the C2PA data writing unit 617 writes the generated C2PA data to the meta data region 113 for image data (the image data generated in step S901).).
Minetomo does not explicitly teach bind the second data provenance capsule to the second data with a digital signature, the digital signature using the first data provenance capsule as an ingredient of the digital signature.
In an analogous art, Jenks teaches bind the second data provenance capsule to the second data with a digital signature, the digital signature using the first data provenance capsule as an ingredient of the digital signature (Jenks: Para. [0007], With the approaches described herein, a provenance claim generator uses an indirect hard binding assertion. With the portion signatures, the provenance claim generator asserts provenance in a way that is bound to the actual portions of the media content. The assertion is indirect, however. The long-term key associated with the sender does not directly sign the portions of the media content. Instead, the long-term key signs the live-stream public key, which is then used to sign the portions of the media content. Para. [0068], In contrast to prior solutions in which a provenance claim generator uses a “direct” binding in a hard binding assertion in a manifest for a stream (by signing, with a long-term secure key, a hash value derived from encoded media content for the entire stream), in the hybrid solutions a provenance claim generator uses an “indirect” hard binding assertion in a stream manifest. The provenance claim generator signs, with the long-term secure key, a stream manifest that includes the live-stream public key. The stream manifest can also include an indicator of the validity period, or the validity period can be implied by other information (e.g., information that designates a session as being a live-streaming session or designates a stream as being a live stream). Para. [0069], and then signed using the live-stream private key. Other data such as timestamp or sequence number can be hashed along with the portion of the encoded media content, with the resulting hash value being signed by the live-stream private key. In this way, portions of the encoded media content are asymmetrically signed—the live-stream private key is used for signing, but the live-stream public key is used for verification. Fig. 5a, Fig. 5b, Para. [0114]-[0116]); and
transmit the second data and the second data provenance capsule to a destination node (Jenks: Para. [0071], For verification, a provenance claim validator receives the signed stream manifest.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jenks with the system and method of Minetomo to include bind the second data provenance capsule to the second data with a digital signature, the digital signature using the first data provenance capsule as an ingredient of the digital signature because this functionality provides improved security with metadata that allows a receiver to establish provenance of the media content (Jenks: Para. [0002]).
Minetomo does not explicitly teach receive, over a network from an edge node, a first data and a first data provenance capsule for the first data, the first data provenance capsule having been generated at the edge node.
In an analogous art, Todd teaches receive, over a network from an edge node, a first data and a first data provenance capsule for the first data, the first data provenance capsule having been generated at the edge node (Todd: Para. [0025], Thus, the data 204a arrives at the edge node 208 and is already associated with the confidence information 232a. The edge node 208 may add apply additional trust insertion technologies such as provenance generation and immutable storage. These trust insertion technologies allow the confidence information to be augmented as illustrated by the confidence information 232b. Thus, the data 204b leaving the edge node 208 is associated with the confidence information 232b.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Todd with the system and method of Minetomo and Jenks to include receive, over a network from an edge node, a first data and a first data provenance capsule for the first data, the first data provenance capsule having been generated at the edge node because this functionality enables insertion of trust functions and allows data to be associated with a confidence score which allows applications or users to gauge the trustworthiness of the data (Todd: Para. [0003]).
Minetomo, in combination with Jenks and Todd, does not explicitly teach such that the second data provenance capsule includes the first data provenance capsule to maintain a chain of data provenance custody.
In an analogous art, Miller teaches such that the second data provenance capsule includes the first data provenance capsule to maintain a chain of data provenance custody (Miller: Para. [0110], At block 648, the primary node can generate a provenance chain of the digital document based on the identified one or more digitally-signed transactions. More specifically, the primary node can order and/or connect the identified one or more transactions to depict a version history of the digital document. Among other things, the generated provenance chain can include the first transaction, followed by (e.g., connected to) the second transaction, based on a determination that the second fingerprint of the second transaction corresponds to the first fingerprint of the first transaction.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Miller with the system and method of Minetomo, Jenks, and Todd to include such that the second data provenance capsule includes the first data provenance capsule to maintain a chain of data provenance custody because this functionality provides viable solutions for tracking digital assets to identify copies or similarities between two different digital documents, and to detect potential copyright infringement. (Todd: Para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, wherein the first data provenance capsule is formatted using a Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) manifest specification (Jenks: Para. [0067], In example implementations that use technology from the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (“C2PA”), an asset is a file or stream of data containing digital content, asset metadata and optionally, a manifest, where the file can be cloud native and dynamically generated data.).
Regarding claim 3, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, wherein the first data provenance capsule includes metadata about an environment that produced the first data, data provenance of the first data, and policies for access or use of the first data (Minetomo: Fig. 8, Para. [0073], In generation of an assertion, not only character string information specified by the C2PA standard but also information about setting values specific to a camera and data generated in the camera are used. In a case where the above-described data specific to the camera is referred to, an assertion parameter list 801 illustrated in FIG. 8 is used.).
Regarding claim 4, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 3, wherein the environment that produced the first data includes a computing environment and a workload environment (Jenks: Para. [0055], FIG. 2 shows an example network environment (200) that includes an encoding tool (210), a distribution tool (230), and multiple playback tools (270). The various tools connect over a network (290) such as the Internet or another computer network. Para. [0056]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 3, wherein the data provenance of the first data includes a place or device that originated the first data (Minetomo: Fig. 8, Para. [0073], In generation of an assertion, not only character string information specified by the C2PA standard but also information about setting values specific to a camera and data generated in the camera are used. In a case where the above-described data specific to the camera is referred to, an assertion parameter list 801 illustrated in FIG. 8 is used. [camera meets device that originated the first data limitation]).
Regarding claim 6, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 3, wherein the data provenance of the first data includes a data transformation used to obtain the first data (Minetomo: Para. [0074], For example, since the hash value of image data is calculated when a data hash assertion is generated, image data is registered as data to be requested.).
Regarding claim 7, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 3, wherein the data provenance of the first data includes a location of where the first data was stored (Minetomo: Para. [0131], More specifically, examples of data to be referred to by assertions include global positioning system (GPS) data. Location of positional information on a target by using GPS data is performed based on data transmitted from a satellite. Thus, the GPS data is updated at a timing of data reception from the satellite.).
Regarding claim 8, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, wherein the data transformation function includes use of data obtained by the networked computing device that is separate from the first data (Minetomo: Fig. 8, Fig. 14B, Para. [0098], In step S904, in response to an instruction from the C2PA data generation unit 611, the assertion generation unit 612 starts processing for generation of the assertions described in the assertion list 701. Para. [0105], In step S906, the assertion generation unit 612 generates the target assertion.).
Regarding claim 9, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, wherein to generate the second data provenance capsule for the second data, the networked computing device is to store an indication of the use of the data transformation function on the first data (Minetomo: Para. [0162], Data hash assertion stores therein the hash value calculated for data including image data itself, and includes information for the range of the hash value calculation. For example, the flags for the manual mode in the imaging-mode-based pre-calculation flag list 1301 in FIG. 13 indicate that only the imaging time among the parameters included in Exif Information cannot be pre-calculated. Including the imaging time in data hash assertion enables the pre-calculation of all the parameters included in Exif Information. Para. [0106]-[0108], [0125]).
Regarding claim 10, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, wherein the signature is generated using a cryptographic signing algorithm (Jenks: Para. [0123], This produces the manifest signature. For example, the system uses an implementation of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (“ECDSA”) to sign the reference hash value for the manifest metadata using the long-term key. Alternatively, the system can sign the manifest metadata in some other way.).
Regarding claim 12, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1, including instructions that cause the network computing device to transmit the second data and the second data provenance capsule to a provenance as a service (ProvaaS) system, to record the second data and second data provenance capsule for reference (Jenks: Para. [0071], For verification, a provenance claim validator receives the signed stream manifest. During live streaming, the provenance claim validator uses the live-stream public key to verify the portion signatures of the respective portions of the encoded media content. Para. [0072], The provenance claim validator can provide results that indicate whether provenance has been established or not established. Such results can be displayed concurrently with the reconstructed media content that is in scope for the results. For concurrent output, the rendering of reconstructed media content in a portion can be delayed until provenance has been established for that portion of the media content. If the portion is short, the provenance delay is also short. If the portion is longer, however, the provenance delay is longer.).
Regarding claims 13-16, Claims 13-15 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1-4, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 12.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minetomo (US 2024/0313980) in view of Jenks et al. (US 2024/0314367; Hereinafter “Jenks”) in view of Todd et al. (US 2025/0047758; Hereinafter “Todd”) in view of Miller et al. (US 2020/0162266; Hereinafter “Miller”) and in view of Benoliel et al. (US 2025/0392485; Hereinafter “Benoliel”).
Regarding claim 11, Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, teaches the networked computing device of claim 1. Minetomo, in combination with Jenks, Todd, and Miller, does not explicitly teach wherein the destination node is identified using a workflow that includes the edge node, the networked computing device, and the destination node as part of a data pipeline defined in the workflow.
In an analogous art, Benoliel teaches wherein the destination node is identified using a workflow that includes the edge node, the networked computing device, and the destination node as part of a data pipeline defined in the workflow (Benoliel: Fig. 1, Para. [0030], In at least one implementations, the one or more endpoint devices 105a-d may be referred to as edge devices (“ED”). In at least one implementation, the one or more endpoint devices 105a-d and the one or more intermediate devices 115a-d may collectively be referred to as edge devices (“EDs”). In some implementations, the network architecture 100 is capable of providing “hotspot” service to one or more of the edge devices ED directly or in-directly. Para. [0038], The edge devices ED (e.g., intermediate device 115a-d) may be included in the cloud network 200 for edge devices ED configured to collect and/or process desired data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Benoliel with the system and method of Minetomo, Jenks, Todd, and Miller to include wherein the destination node is identified using a workflow that includes the edge node, the networked computing device, and the destination node as part of a data pipeline defined in the workflow because this functionality provides the network environment to implement techniques to validate digital media (Benoliel: Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 11.
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 extension fee 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 Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights