DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply to applicant communication filed on August 06, 2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 06, 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on August 06, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that the prior art on record fails to teach the amended limitation of independent claims. Hover, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made using the newly find prior arts to Leonard (US Pub. No. 2014/0049653) and Rodriguez (US Pub. No. 2014/0106710).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn (US Pub. No. 2012/0170069) in view of Rodriguezl (US Pub. No. 2014/0106710) and further in view of Leonard (US Pub. No. 2014/0049653).
.
As per claim 1 Cowburn discloses:
A method for authenticating an object, comprising: (paragraph 1 of Cowburn, the invention relates to security methods, more especially verification of authenticity of a printed document or other printed article such as a personal identification (ID) card, cardboard packaging item, or a unique document such as a bill of lading or document bearing an original signature, seal or stamp).
Receiving image data of an image comprising the object, (paragraph 85 of Cowburn, step S1 is a data acquisition step during which the optical intensity at each of the photodetectors is acquired approximately every 1 ms during the entire length of scan) and (paragraph 95 of Cowburn, an image file is then created by the application software using an appropriate printer driver).
Storing, by the device, the image data with the barcode, (paragraph 16 of Cowburn, the digital signature derived from the data points is stored in a database with an image of what was printed on the article) and (paragraph 25 of Cowburn, the label is thus characteristic of the intrinsic structure of the article. In this case, the signature is preferably encoded in the label using an asymmetric encryption algorithm. For example, the label may represent a cryptogram decipherable by a public key in a public key/private key encryption system. It is highly convenient for many printable materials, especially paper and cardboard, if the label is an ink label applied with a printing process, preferably in the same process as article creation, i.e. in the same process as printing the image onto the document. For example, a piece of paper could be printed on with the image and then fed again through the printer to have the signature-encoding label printed on using a duplex sheet feeding mechanism. The label may be visible, e.g. a barcode, or invisible, e.g. embodied as data in a smart chip when the article is a smart card).
Cowburn teaches the method of generating the digital signature of an image data received from a scanner/printer (see paragraph 85 of Cowburn) fails to disclose:
Capturing, by the device a barcode in the image data the barcode containing a third-party public key;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rodriguez teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 46 of Rodriguez, the first smartphone engages in a parallel operation. The first smartphone is positioned parallel to the second phone and captures an image from its screen display. The 2D barcode depicted in the captured image is decoded, and the first phone then employs the public key of the second phone to decrypt the decoded information. The recovered 3D pose information about the second smartphone is then compared with information about the pose of the first smartphone. If the two sets of orientation information agree, the second phone has been authenticated to the first).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cowburn to include the above limitation using the teaching of Rodriguez in order to verify the validity of an electronic document (see paragraph 81 of Rodriguez).
The combination of Cowburn and Rodriguez to teaches the method of generating the digital signature of an image data received from a scanner/printer (see paragraph 85 of Cowburn) fails to disclose:
Generating, by the device, a digital signature with the device’s own private key depending on the image data, received from the camera of the device, and receiving an image data from a camera;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Leonard teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 5 of Leonard, The imagery itself is watermarked with a unique identifier that is embedded in the image using a symmetric key generated by the smartphone or other camera device, and the watermarked image, metadata, and symmetric key are digitally signed and uploaded or transmitted to a central authentication and verification service for storage in a database upon authentication of the digital signatures of the watermarked imagery) and (claim 16 of Leonard, wherein the step of digitally signing the watermarked image, the symmetric key, and the metadata comprises the step of encrypting the image using a private key of a public key/private key cryptosystem to generate the digital signature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cowburn and Rodriguez to include the above limitation using the teaching of Leonard in order to verify the validity of the digital image using the generated digital signature (see paragraph 28 of Leonard).
Claims 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 2 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data are integrated into an image file and the digital signature is integrated into additional data, of the image file and the provision of the image data and the digital signature corresponds to the provision of the image file. (Paragraph 25 of Cowburn, a piece of paper could be printed on with the image and then fed again through the printer to have the signature-encoding label printed on using a duplex sheet feeding mechanism. The label may be visible, e.g. a barcode, or invisible, e.g. embodied as data in a smart chip when the article is a smart card).
As per claim 3 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the captured barcode comprises additional information, wherein the additional information comprises: data indicating a current time and/or date, and/or data indicating information about the device displaying the barcode, and/or data indicating information about a user of the device, wherein the additional information is extracted from the image data with the device. (Paragraph 124 of Cowburn, the second pass then immediately prints a barcode, or other encoding label, containing an encrypted version of the digital signature onto the paper. This gives the possibility of `without database` checks on the document, although clearly the stored image of the document could not be checked without reference to a database. It is also possible to add other information to the barcode. A specific example of where this might be useful is in printing of cheques. The value of the cheque and optionally also a hash of the drawer's name could be included in the barcode)
As per claim 4 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the digital signature is generated as a function of the extracted additional information. (Paragraph 113 of Cowburn, verification step V4 is the main comparison between the scanned digital signature obtained in Scan Step S5 and the corresponding stored values in the database record of the hit).
As per claim 5 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein: a) the digital signature corresponds to an image signature generated by encrypting the received image data with the device’s own private key, or b) the digital signature comprises an image signature and a key signature, wherein the image signature is generated by encrypting the received image data with the device’s own private key and the key signature by encrypting the third-party public key with the device’s own private key, or c) the signature corresponds to a combination signature generated by encrypting the combined image data received and the third-party public key, with the device’s own private key. (Paragraph 25 of Cowburn, the label is thus characteristic of the intrinsic structure of the article. In this case, the signature is preferably encoded in the label using an asymmetric encryption algorithm. For example, the label may represent a cryptogram decipherable by a public key in a public key/private key encryption system. It is highly convenient for many printable materials, especially paper and cardboard, if the label is an ink label applied with a printing process, preferably in the same process as article creation, i.e. in the same process as printing the image onto the document. For example, a piece of paper could be printed on with the image and then fed again through the printer to have the signature-encoding label printed on using a duplex sheet feeding mechanism. The label may be visible, e.g. a barcode, or invisible, e.g. embodied as data in a smart chip when the article is a smart card).
As per claim 6 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the device’s own barcode with the device’s own public key in a display of the device. (Paragraph 16 of Cowburn, the image is displayed together with other relevant bibliographic data relevant to the article. This provides a high security system which also includes human verification in the form of the visual comparison between the document or other printed article being examined and the document or other printed article shown on the display).
As per claim 7 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the device waits for a synchronization signal from another device after displaying the barcode and stores the received image data after receiving the synchronization signal, wherein the synchronization signal indicates that the further device has detected its own barcode. (Paragraph 71 of Cowburn, the functional components of a system for creating authenticatable articles. A printer 22 is connected to a personal computer (PC) 30 with a conventional connection 25. The detectors 16a . . . d of the detector module 16 are connected through respective electrical connection lines 17a . . . d to an analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) that is part of a programmable interrupt controller (PIC) 30. It will be understood that optical or wireless links may be used instead of, or in combination with, electrical links).
As per claim 8 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data and digital signature are third-party image data and a third-party digital signature, the method further comprising: checking whether the received third-party image data contains an image with a barcode, checking whether the barcode comprises the device’s own public key and storing the third-party image data and the third-party digital signature, in a database. (Paragraph 25 of Cowburn, the label is thus characteristic of the intrinsic structure of the article. In this case, the signature is preferably encoded in the label using an asymmetric encryption algorithm. For example, the label may represent a cryptogram decipherable by a public key in a public key/private key encryption system. It is highly convenient for many printable materials, especially paper and cardboard, if the label is an ink label applied with a printing process, preferably in the same process as article creation, i.e. in the same process as printing the image onto the document. For example, a piece of paper could be printed on with the image and then fed again through the printer to have the signature-encoding label printed on using a duplex sheet feeding mechanism. The label may be visible, e.g. a barcode, or invisible, e.g. embodied as data in a smart chip when the article is a smart card)
As per claim 9 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the database is a publicly accessible database to which unrestricted data access is possible, or the database is a protected database to which authorized users have access, wherein the database is stored locally on the device or in a memory of a remote computer. (Paragraph 16 of Cowburn, the digital signature derived from the data points is stored in a database with an image of what was printed on the article. At a later time, the authenticity of an article purported to be the originally printed article can be verified by scanning the purported genuine article to obtain its digital signature. The database is then searched to establish whether there is a match. If a match is found, the image stored in the database with the matched digital signature is displayed to the user to allow a further visual check that the article is genuine. The image is displayed together with other relevant bibliographic data relevant to the article).
As per claim 10 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the database provides an identifier for assessing the trustworthiness of the image data and the digital signature. (Paragraph 124 of Cowburn, the second pass then immediately prints a barcode, or other encoding label, containing an encrypted version of the digital signature onto the paper. This gives the possibility of `without database` checks on the document, although clearly the stored image of the document could not be checked without reference to a database. It is also possible to add other information to the bare ode).
As per claim 15 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The system according to claim 14, furthermore comprising a database in a memory of a remote computer, wherein the remote computer and each of the devices are set up to communicate with each other via a wireless interface of the device. (Paragraph 40 of Cowburn, the database may be part of a mass storage device that forms part of the reader apparatus, or may be at a remote location and accessed by the reader through a telecommunications link. The telecommunications link may take any conventional form, including wireless and fixed links, and may be available over the internet).
As per claim 16 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein capturing the barcode includes capturing a two-dimensional barcode. (Paragraph 136 of Cowburn, it will also be understood that the scan area is essentially arbitrary in terms of its size or location on the printable surface of an article. If desired, the scan could be a linear scan rostered to cover a larger two-dimensional area).
As per claim 18 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the device’s own barcode and the device’s own public key are displayed in the display of the device after providing the image data with the object and the digital signature. (Paragraph 16 of Cowburn, the image stored in the database with the matched digital signature is displayed to the user to allow a further visual check that the article is genuine. The image is displayed together with other relevant bibliographic data relevant to the article).
As per claim 19 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The method according to claim 7, wherein the device sends a further synchronization signal to the further device as soon as the device has captured the barcode and/or has stored the received image data. (Paragraph 46 of Rodriguez, the first smartphone engages in a parallel operation. The first smartphone is positioned parallel to the second phone and captures an image from its screen display. The 2D barcode depicted in the captured image is decoded, and the first phone then employs the public key of the second phone to decrypt the decoded information. The recovered 3D pose information about the second smartphone is then compared with information about the pose of the first smartphone. If the two sets of orientation information agree, the second phone has been authenticated to the first).
As per claim 20 Cowburn in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Leonard discloses:
The device according to claim 13, wherein the device is a mobile device, a mobile phone, a portable computer, or a tablet computer, that has a camera for recoding image data and a wireless interface. (Paragraph 71 of Cowburn, the PC 34 may be a desktop or a laptop. As an alternative to a PC, other intelligent devices may be used, for example a personal digital assistant (PDA) or a dedicated electronics unit. The PIC 30 and PC 34 collectively form a data acquisition and processing module 36 for determining a signature of the article from the set of data points collected by the detectors 16a).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn (US Pub. No. 2012/0170069) in view of Rodriguez (US Pub. No. 2014/0106710) and further in view of Leonard (US Pub. No. 2014/0049653) and Wentz (US Pub. No. 2019/0312734).
As per claim 11:
The combination of Cowburn, Rodriguez and Leonard teaches the method of generating the digital signature of an image data using a private key (see paragraph 25 of Cowburn) fails to disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein at least the device’s own private key is generated depending on a PUF of the device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wentz teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 24 of Wentz, secure proof may include be generated using a physically unclonable function and may utilize at least a random number generator (RNG), true random number generator (TRNG) or other source of entropy. For instance, and without limitation, an output of a PUF may be used to generate a private key for a digital signature as described above. Alternatively, or additionally, a PUF output may constitute a secret to be used as a basis for a zero-knowledge proof, which may be any zero-knowledge proof as described herein).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cowburn Rodriguez and Leonard to include the above limitation using the teaching of Wentz in order to securely generate a digital signature using a secure device information (see paragraph 24 of Wentz).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn (US Pub. No. 2012/0170069) in view of Rodriguez (US Pub. No. 2014/0106710) and further in view of Leonard (US Pub. No. 2014/0049653) and Gisolfi (US Pub. No. 2018/0341775).
As per claim 17:
The combination of Cowburn Rodriguez and Leonard teaches the method of generating the digital signature of an image data using a private key (see paragraph 25 of Cowburn) fails to disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein capturing the barcode includes capturing a QR code.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gisolfi teaches this limitation as, (paragraph 24 of Gisolfi, the privacy information 16, digital signatures 18 and/or unique ID 20 may be incorporated into a barcode or quick response (QR) code printed on a package, airline ticket or other substrate received from the SOR 10. In such a case, the second computing device 28 may include a scanner (e.g., camera and code recognition application) to capture the information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Cowburn Rodriguez and Leonard to include the above limitation using the teaching of Gisolfi in order to generate a digital signature and present it in a secure form (see paragraph 24 of Gisolfi).
Conclusion
The prior art made or record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure is Chandra (US Pub. No. 2020/0412555). Chandra’s reference discloses:
An anti-counterfeiting tag, system and method of manufacturing and authentication therefor are provided. The tag comprises a substrate; and a plurality of layers printed on at least a portion of the substrate; wherein one of said plurality of layers is configured to generate a self-forming three dimensional (3D) raised random pattern comprising physically unclonable function (PUF) and the other layers are configured to facilitate formation of the 3D pattern and/or to protect the formed 3D pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESHOME HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-3159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at (571) 270-1050. 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.
/TESHOME HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights