CTFR 18/631,155 CTFR 84552 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. FINAL ACTION This action is in response to applicant’s claim amendment(s) submitted on 03/16/2026. Claims 1, 10, 19 and 21-26 are amended. Claims 1-26 are pending. Response to Arguments Examiner’s remarks – Specification (Title) The examiner withdraws the objection in view of applicant’s title amendment. Examiner’s remarks - Claim Interpretation The examiner withdraws the claim interpretation in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s). Examiner’s remarks - 35 USC § 101 The examiner withdraws the rejection made under 35 USC § 101 in view of applicant’s claim amendment. Examiner’s remarks - 35 USC § 103 With regards to applicant’s argument of, “Jacobson is directed to a "TrueBadge" that captures ambient audio and displays encoded representations of signed audio slices. As acknowledged by Examiner, Jacobson signs audio data, not visual content that documents the speaker. The visual output in Jacobson is merely a carrier for encoded audio information intended to be decoded later. It does not constitute "digitally signing the content that visually documents the speaker expressing the verbal information," The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jacobson teaches as early as paragraph 10 of his disclosure the following: “contain digitally signed scene information certifying the veracity of the recorded scene”. The examiner notes that scene includes both video and audio. Applicant argues: “…as explicitly conceded in the Office Action. In Jacobson, the badge display functions as a transport mechanism for audio authentication data, not as a visual documentation of the speaker's statements.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jacobson teaches in par. 0010 the following: “Videographic and other scene recordings capture these SEDW device displays re-broadcasting cryptographically signed and encrypted valid scene information.”. Additionally, the examiner notes that applicant’s currently claim structure simply recites: “render the visual content, thereby digitally signing the content that visually documents the speaker expressing the verbal information”. The examiner contends that the current claim structure is board and encompassing and therefore the claim structure affords many reasonable implementations/interpretations. With regards to applicant’s argument(s) of, “This distinction is central. Claim 1 requires that the generated visual content itself serves as the authenticated representation of the speaker's verbal expression”, the examiner respectfully contends that the above claim 1 asserted requirement is not explicitly recited in the current claim structure. The applicant argues: “The claim does not merely require that audio be signed and displayed in some form; rather, it requires that the visual content generated by the device be cryptographically bound to the speaker's verbal expression and visually document that expression as it occurs. Jacobson does not do this.”. The examiner notes that applicant’s argued feature(s) of “a visual content generated by the device be cryptographically bound to the speaker's verbal expression and visually document that expression as it occurs”, is not explicitly recited in the current claim structure of applicant’s independent claims 1, 9, 19 and 21. (emphasis) Applicant argues: “Recognizing this deficiency, Examiner turns to Chen, citing paragraph 0026 for the proposition that digitally signed information may be displayed as images or audio and captured by a camera. However, Chen operates in a fundamentally different technical context. Chen is concerned with embedding verification signals into media content SO that, when the media is later viewed, a viewer can verify whether the recorded speech is authentic. The signed information in Chen is incorporated into the media stream itself, not into the physical environment of the speaker. Chen does not disclose a speaker-worn device that generates visual content in real time, nor does it disclose visual content that documents the act of speaking as it occurs.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s miss-characterization of Chen’s teachings. First, the examiner contends that applicant’s argued requirement of, “a speaker-worn device that generates visual content in real time”, is not currently recited in the current claim structure. Chen teaches in par. 0028 the following: “Example scenario 260 shows person 242 speaking 244 and body-worn authenticity accessory 247.”. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation of, “disclose visual content that documents the act of speaking as it occurs”, Chen teaches par. 0034 the following: “a client device displaying the video may be configured to decode the verification signal and include the indication about authenticity in the displayed video. In other examples, a verification service may receive the verification signal (and the video) and provide confirmation to the client device regarding the video’s authenticity. In further examples, a special purpose device (e.g., a plug-in module) may perform the verification for a client device. Whether the video is confirmed authentic or not may be indicated through a textual, graphic, color, or similar scheme. For example, a message may be displayed periodically or continuously with the video. In another example, a green graphic displayed periodically or continuously may indicate confirmed authenticity, whereas a red graphic may indicate the opposite. Audio indication or comparable ones may also be used.”. Moreover, the examiner contends that the current claim structure is board and encompassing and therefore the claim structure affords many reasonable implementations/interpretations. Applicant argues: “Importantly, Chen's "displayed" information is displayed within the media playback environment, not in the real-world environment being recorded.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that applicant’s argued feature(s) of, “real-world environment being recorded”, is not explicitly recited in applicant’s current independent claim structure. Again, Chen teaches par. 0034 the following: “a client device displaying the video may be configured to decode the verification signal and include the indication about authenticity in the displayed video. In other examples, a verification service may receive the verification signal (and the video) and provide confirmation to the client device regarding the video’s authenticity. In further examples, a special purpose device (e.g., a plug-in module) may perform the verification for a client device. Whether the video is confirmed authentic or not may be indicated through a textual, graphic, color, or similar scheme. For example, a message may be displayed periodically or continuously with the video. In another example, a green graphic displayed periodically or continuously may indicate confirmed authenticity, whereas a red graphic may indicate the opposite. Audio indication or comparable ones may also be used.”. Applicant argues: “Chen therefore does not teach, suggest, or motivate generating digitally signed visual content that becomes part of the physical scene contemporaneously with the speaker's speech.”. The examiner notes that applicant’s argued feature(s) of, “generating digitally signed visual content that becomes part of the physical scene contemporaneously with the speaker's speech”, is not explicitly recited in applicant’s current independent claim structure. Applicant argues: “Examiner's reliance on Chen effectively transforms Chen's post-capture verification mechanism into a real-time environmental authentication system, which is neither taught nor suggested by Chen itself.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees for reason(s) noted above. Applicant argues: “Moreover, the combination proposed by Examiner lacks a proper motivation under KSR. Jacobson already achieves its stated goal - audio authenticity - by signing and displaying encoded audio slices. Chen's teachings are directed to a different problem: enabling verification of recorded media during playback. Nothing in Jacobson would lead a person of ordinary skill to modify its audio-centric badge system to generate digitally signed visual documentation of speech, nor would Chen suggest such a modification. The proposed combination requires hindsight reconstruction of Applicants' invention by selectively extracting concepts from two references and reassembling them into a system neither reference contemplates.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s miss-characterization of Chen’s teachings. The examiner contends that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker , 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 07-37-03 AIA With regards to applicant’s “hindsight” remark, examiner notes that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argues: “Finally, Claim 1 recites a content authenticity mobile device that integrates sensing, cryptographic signing, and visual documentation into a single real-time system. Neither Jacobson nor Chen discloses or suggests such an integrated device. “. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that applicant’s argued feature(s) of “cryptographic signing, and visual documentation into a single real-time system”, is not explicitly recited in the current claim structure of applicant’s independent claims 1, 9, 19 and 21. (emphasis) Applicant argues: “Jacobson's device does not visually document speech, and Chen does not disclose a mobile device worn by the speaker at all. The asserted combination therefore fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jacobson teaches as early as paragraph 10 of his disclosure the following: “contain digitally signed scene information certifying the veracity of the recorded scene”. The examiner notes that scene includes both video and audio. Chen teaches in par. 0028 the following: “Example scenario 260 shows person 242 speaking 244 and body-worn authenticity accessory 247.”. Applicant argues: “Basis for the amendment can be found, inter alia, in paragraphs [0031]-[0035], [0042]-[0048], [0055]-[0060] and [0078]-[0082]. This amendment clarifies structural and functional aspects already inherent in the specification: The visual content is not arbitrary encoded data - it is a time-”. The examiner notes that the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the new feature(s) of, “… wherein the visual content comprises a time- indexed representation of extracted verbal information from the media signal, and is configured such that when captured in a recording of the speaker, authenticity of the recording is verifiable by extracting (i) verbal information from the recording and (ii) the visual content from the recording, and determining whether the extracted verbal information corresponds to the time- indexed representation.”. In view of the new claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference OLSHANSKY (WO 2021202300 A1) to the record. OLSHANSKY teaches time segmented audio and visual content. See rejection below. In view of the newly introduced teachings of prior art OLSHANSKY to record, applicant’s remarks, as they pertain Jacobson and Chen, in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) are now moot. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSON (WO 2023004159) in view of Chen (WO-2020197547) and further in view of OLSHANSKY (WO 2021202300 A1) . As to claim 1, JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device, comprising: a sensor configured to record a media signal originated from a speaker who is expressing verbal information in a language (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 202 states that the speaker wears a “TrueBadege” that receives the audio); a display (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio); and a processor configured to: generate visual content by signing the media signal with a key and a recording time of the media signal (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key); and instruct the display to render the visual content (i.e., …teaches in par. 0063 the following: “0063] For example, the Senator could use the TrueBadge to display encrypted, signed audio and post the public keys anywhere without any cloud or blockchain service, even DeepAuthentic’s cloud system. … the Senator could opt to buy, but not register the TrueBadge, set the badge to display signed audio and related encrypted meta-data including the device serial number, but post the decoding public key(s) anywhere or withhold them.”. …figure 2a fig. element 205 discloses display the audio signature). JACOBSON does not expressly teach: thereby digitally signing the content that visually documents the speaker expressing the verbal information. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0026 the following: “the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video.”. CHEN teaches in par. 0035 the following: “speech recognition may be performed on the video to obtain sentences spoken by the speaker while the video is being played, those sentences automatically compared with the sentences in the signatures, and an indication displayed as to whether there is a match with the signature information (whether the video has been forged/altered)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio forgery detection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further secure audio data, wherein the enhanced audio forgery detection process helps to prevent audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure audio data integrity. The system of JACOBSON and CHEN does not expressly teach: and a processor configured to: generate visual content by signing the media signal with a key and a recording time of the media signal, wherein the visual content comprises a time- indexed representation of extracted verbal information from the media signal, and is configured such that when captured in a recording of the speaker, authenticity of the recording is verifiable by extracting (i) verbal information from the recording and (ii) the visual content from the recording, and determining whether the extracted verbal information corresponds to the time- indexed representation. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference OLSHANSKY. OLSHANSKY teaches in par. 0098 the following: “The preference data 320 for time segment lb 422 indicates a preference for audio data 424 from microphone-1 122 and visual data 426 from camera- 1 112. This combination of audio and visual data 424, 426 creates video segment 427 for time segment lb. Time segment lb 422 is also associated with scores of 7, 4, and 4 for empathy, engagement, and technical competence, respectively.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON and Chen with the teachings of OLSHANSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced media comparison process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further process audio and video data, wherein the enhanced media comparison process helps to detect audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure data security. As to claim 2, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, further comprising a network interface configured to acquire the timestamped key via a network (i.e., …teaches in par. 0029 the following: “time signals (from clocks or GPS)”). As to claim 3, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, wherein the processor generates the visual content also based on geographic coordinates of the environment (i.e., …teaches in par. 0077 the following: “Meta-Data displaying an arbitrary session name amended with GMT start time or GPS location, or only be a file name including GMT or a GMT+GPS location time-place stamp.”). As to claim 4, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 3, wherein the geographic coordinates are received as a one-time code from a location module (i.e., …teaches in par. 0077 the following: “Meta-Data displaying an arbitrary session name amended with GMT start time or GPS location, or only be a file name including GMT or a GMT+GPS location time-place stamp.”). As to claim 5, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a microphone and the media signal is an audio signal (i.e. …teaches in par. 0070 the following: “a TrueBadge may receive ambient audio via a microphone 402”). As to claim 6, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a camera and the media signal is a video signal documenting lips movement of the speaker (i.e., …teaches in par. 0073 the following: “captured by video recording devices”). As to claim 7, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, further comprising an movement sensor configured to record movement of the speaker while the speaker expresses the verbal information (i.e., …teaches in par. 0029 the following: “accelerometer data”); wherein the visual content is generated based on the movement of the speaker (i.e. …teaches in par. 0114 the following: “feedback from a 3D accelerometer or even devices which monitor the movement”). As to claim 8, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, wherein the movement sensor is selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a magnetometer, and a gyroscope (i.e. …teaches in par. 0114 the following: “accelerometer”. … teaches in par. 0114 the following: “feedback from a 3D accelerometer or even devices which monitor the movement) As to claim 9, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 1 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a content authenticity mobile device of claim 1, wherein the content authenticity mobile device is a smartphone device (i.e., …teaches in par. 0045 the following: “a smart watch running”). As to claims 10 and 19, JACOBSON teaches a method for authenticating media content, comprising: receiving a recording imaging a speaker and a content authenticity mobile device in proximity to the speaker and a recording time of the recording (i.e., …teaches in par. 0048 the following: “saving a signed canonical recording, uploading live environment stamped recordings, contemporaneous radio broadcasting of the information in the visual display, dynamic illumination of the Senator or his background, and other protections”); extracting from the recording: verbal information expressed by the speaker in a language, using speech recognition and media content, from the recording, displayed on a display of the content authenticity mobile device (i.e., …teaches in par. 0047 the following: “since the decoder can extract all the speech audio encoded in the TrueBadge display frames along with ordering, session time, elapsed time information, identification and authenticating signatures. TrueBadge may include a SEDW device that allows anyone in the world to inspect and verify the veracity of the scene the recorded media purports to show. Because anyone can do it and the check does not require mediation through a human authority; it is ultimately democratic and objective.”); decoding the media content based on the recording time (i.e., …teaches in par. 0047 the following: “since the decoder can extract all the speech audio encoded in the TrueBadge display frames along with ordering, session time, elapsed time information, identification and authenticating signatures. TrueBadge may include a SEDW device that allows anyone in the world to inspect and verify the veracity of the scene the recorded media purports to show.”). JACOBSON does not expressly teach: speech recognition. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0030 the following: “when a viewer watches the video or listens to the audio using a client device, the client device may decode the associated signals to reconstruct the sentences spoken by the speaker at the time when the video was captured and compare those sentences with the sentences spoken by the speaker in the video content. Thus, whether the speaker did say sentences that appear in the watched video when video was captured can be verified.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio forgery detection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further secure audio data, wherein the enhanced audio forgery detection process helps to prevent audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure audio data integrity. The system of JACOBSON and CHEN does not expressly teach: wherein the displayed media content comprises a time-associated representation of verbal information previously extracted by the content authenticity device from the speaker, authenticating the recording by comparing the extracted verbal information from the recording to the time-associated representation in the decoded media content. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference OLSHANSKY. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the displayed media content comprises a time-associated representation of verbal information previously extracted by the content authenticity device from the speaker”, OLSHANSKY teaches in par. 0098 the following: “The preference data 320 for time segment lb 422 indicates a preference for audio data 424 from microphone-1 122 and visual data 426 from camera- 1 112. This combination of audio and visual data 424, 426 creates video segment 427 for time segment lb. Time segment lb 422 is also associated with scores of 7, 4, and 4 for empathy, engagement, and technical competence, respectively.”. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “authenticating the recording by comparing the extracted verbal information from the recording to the time-associated representation in the decoded media content”, teaches in par. 0059 the following: “This means, for example, that audio information recorded by all of the microphones 120 will be synchronized with the visual information recorded by all of the cameras 110 and the behavioral data taken from the sensors 130, so that all the data taken at the same time can be identified and compared for the same time segment.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON and Chen with the teachings of OLSHANSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced media comparison process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further process audio and video data, wherein the enhanced media comparison process helps to detect audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure data security. As to claim 11, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON does not expressly teach a method of claim 10, wherein the extracting or the authenticating comprises applying speech recognition to convert the media signal to text. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0035 the following: “speech recognition may be performed on the video to obtain sentences spoken by the speaker while the video is being played, those sentences automatically compared with the sentences in the signatures, and an indication displayed as to whether there is a match with the signature information (whether the video has been forged/altered)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further analyze audio data, wherein the enhanced audio analysis process helps to prevent audio mis-interpretation and makes it easier to ensure audio data security. As to claim 12, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 10, wherein the extracting comprises applying speech recognition to convert the media signal to Mel-Frequency cepstral coefficients (MCCC) with time slices corresponding a human speech. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0035 the following: “speech recognition may be performed on the video to obtain sentences spoken by the speaker while the video is being played, those sentences automatically compared with the sentences in the signatures, and an indication displayed as to whether there is a match with the signature information (whether the video has been forged/altered)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further analyze audio data, wherein the enhanced audio analysis process helps to prevent audio mis-interpretation and makes it easier to ensure audio data security. As to claim 13, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 10, wherein the speech recognition is based on perceptual Linear Prediction (PLP). In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0035 the following: “speech recognition may be performed on the video to obtain sentences spoken by the speaker while the video is being played, those sentences automatically compared with the sentences in the signatures, and an indication displayed as to whether there is a match with the signature information (whether the video has been forged/altered)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further analyze audio data, wherein the enhanced audio analysis process helps to prevent audio mis-interpretation and makes it easier to ensure audio data security. As to claim 14, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 10, wherein the verbal information is extracted from the recording by audio analysis (i.e. …teaches in par. 0047 the following: “the decoder can extract all the speech audio”). As to claim 15, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 10, wherein the verbal information is extracted from the recording by image analysis (i.e. …teaches in par. 0049 the following: “After extracting data…”). As to claim 16, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 10, further comprising using the recording time to acquire a timestamped key (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key). As to claim 17, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the timestamped key is used for decoding the displayed media content (i.e., …teaches in par. 0050 the following: “If an individual attempts to doctor the video recordings of Senator Alex, the TrueBadge would not verify the authenticity of the doctored media. Spliced or reordered video snippets could not be authenticated by the session ID, start and elapsed time information, and display frames with overlapping audio information”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSON and CHEN in view of OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Nichols et al. (US Patent No. 12,001,536 and Nichols hereinafter) . As to claim 18, the system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY as applied to claim 10 above teaches voice authentication, specifically neither JACOBSON nor CHEN expressly teaches a method of claim 10, further comprising: analyzing the recording in discrete time increments; for each time increment, comparing the verbal information extracted from the recording with the decoded media content displayed on the content authenticity mobile device; In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference OLSHANSKY. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “analyzing the recording in discrete time increments”, OLSHANSKY teaches in par. 0098 the following: “The preference data 320 for time segment lb 422 indicates a preference for audio data 424 from microphone-1 122 and visual data 426 from camera- 1 112. This combination of audio and visual data 424, 426 creates video segment 427 for time segment lb. Time segment lb 422 is also associated with scores of 7, 4, and 4 for empathy, engagement, and technical competence, respectively.”. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “for each time increment, comparing the verbal information extracted from the recording with the decoded media content displayed on the content authenticity mobile device”, teaches in par. 0059 the following: “This means, for example, that audio information recorded by all of the microphones 120 will be synchronized with the visual information recorded by all of the cameras 110 and the behavioral data taken from the sensors 130, so that all the data taken at the same time can be identified and compared for the same time segment.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON and Chen with the teachings of OLSHANSKY by having their system comprise an enhanced media comparison process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further process audio and video data, wherein the enhanced media comparison process helps to detect audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure data security. The system of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY does not expressly teach: identifying one or more specific time increments where there is a mismatch between the extracted verbal information and the decoded media content; and generating an authentication report indicating the overall authenticity of the recording and flagging the specific time increments where mismatches were identified as potentially inauthentic. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Nichols. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “identifying one or more specific time increments where there is a mismatch between the extracted verbal information and the decoded media content”, teaches in col. 12 lines 4-8 the following: “If the unknown ambient voice has been detected more than the threshold number of times,”. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and generating an authentication report indicating the overall authenticity of the recording and flagging the specific time increments where mismatches were identified as potentially inauthentic”, teaches in col. 11 lines 55-67 & col. 12 lines 1-5 the following: “If the unknown ambient voice has not been detected more than the threshold number of times, the privacy tool may, at operation 506, write a record of the detection of the unknown ambient voice. If the unknown ambient voice has not been previously detected, this may include writing a description of the unknown ambient voice, an indication that it was detected, and, in some examples, a date and them when the detection occurred.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON, CHEN and OLSHANSKY with the teachings of Nichols by having their system comprise an enhanced audio/video analysis process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further detect fake audio, wherein the enhanced audio/video analysis process helps to prevent system misinformation and makes it easier to ensure audio data security . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JACOBSON in view of Chen . As to claim 20, JACOBSON teaches a method for digitally signing content using a content authenticity mobile device, the method comprising: recording, by a sensor of the content authenticity mobile device, a media signal originated from a speaker who is expressing verbal information in a language (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 202 states that the speaker wears a “TrueBadege” that receives the audio); generating, by the processor, visual content by signing the media signal with a recording time of the media signal (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key); instructing, by the processor, a display of the content authenticity mobile device to render the visual content (i.e., …teaches in par. 0063 the following: “0063] For example, the Senator could use the TrueBadge to display encrypted, signed audio and post the public keys anywhere without any cloud or blockchain service, even DeepAuthentic’s cloud system. … the Senator could opt to buy, but not register the TrueBadge, set the badge to display signed audio and related encrypted meta-data including the device serial number, but post the decoding public key(s) anywhere or withhold them.”. …figure 2a fig. element 205 discloses display the audio signature). JACOBSON does not expressly teach: thereby digitally signing content that visually documents the speaker expressing the verbal information and the display. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. CHEN teaches in par. 0026 the following: “the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio forgery detection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further secure audio data, wherein the enhanced audio forgery detection process helps to prevent audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure audio data integrity. As to claim 21, JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system for authenticating a speaker's statements at a venue, comprising: a recording unit which comprises at least one of a microphone and a camera that captures verbal information expressed by the speaker (i.e., …teaches in par. 0063 the following: “0063] For example, the Senator could use the TrueBadge to display encrypted, signed audio and post the public keys anywhere without any cloud or blockchain service, even DeepAuthentic’s cloud system. … the Senator could opt to buy, but not register the TrueBadge, set the badge to display signed audio and related encrypted meta-data including the device serial number, but post the decoding public key(s) anywhere or withhold them.”. …figure 2a fig. element 205 discloses display the audio signature); a processing unit which includes at least one processor configured to: extract the verbal information from the captured audio signal (i.e., …teaches in par. 0047 the following: “since the decoder can extract all the speech audio encoded in the TrueBadge display frames along with ordering, session time, elapsed time information, identification and authenticating signatures. TrueBadge may include a SEDW device that allows anyone in the world to inspect and verify the veracity of the scene the recorded media purports to show. Because anyone can do it and the check does not require mediation through a human authority; it is ultimately democratic and objective.”); and a projection mechanism that projects the generated visual content onto the speaker's body or clothing (i.e., …teaches in par. 0063 the following: “0063] For example, the Senator could use the TrueBadge to display encrypted, signed audio and post the public keys anywhere without any cloud or blockchain service, even DeepAuthentic’s cloud system. … the Senator could opt to buy, but not register the TrueBadge, set the badge to display signed audio and related encrypted meta-data including the device serial number, but post the decoding public key(s) anywhere or withhold them.”. …figure 2a fig. element 205 discloses display the audio signature) . JACOBSON does not expressly teach: generate visual content by integrating the extracted verbal information with a digital signature associated with the venue, thereby embedding the digital signature of the speaker's statements into the visual environment. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference CEN. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “generate visual content by integrating the extracted verbal information with a digital signature associated with the venue”, CHEN teaches in par. 0026 the following: “the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video.”. With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “thereby embedding the digital signature of the speaker's statements into the visual environment”, CHEN teaches in par. 0026 the following: “the digitally signed information may be displayed in the form of images or audio so as to be captured by the camera. Thus, when watching the captured video, a viewer can verify the authenticity of the speech in the video using the signed information included in the video.”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teaching of JACOBSON with the teachings of CHEN by having their system comprise an enhanced audio forgery detection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to further secure audio data, wherein the enhanced audio forgery detection process helps to prevent audio signal forgery and makes it easier to ensure audio data integrity. As to claim 22, the system of JACOBSON and CHEN as applied to claim 21 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system of claim 21, wherein the digital signature is created using a private key associated with the venue's public key infrastructure (PKI) (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key). As to claim 23, the system of JACOBSON and CHEN as applied to claim 21 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system of claim 21, wherein the visual content comprises at least one of QR codes or time-modulated signals (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key …teaches in par. 0046 QR codes). As to claim 24, the system of JACOBSON and CHEN as applied to claim 21 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system of claim 21, wherein the processing unit is further configured to incorporate additional authentication data into the visual content, the additional authentication data comprising at least one of timestamps, location information, or event-specific identifiers (i.e., …figure 2a, fig. element 203 and 204 …States that the “TrueBadge” displays encoded timestamped audio slices and records a portion of the audio…figure 2a fig. element 204 states that the audio is signed with a key). As to claim 25, the system of JACOBSON and CHEN as applied to claim 21 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system of claim 21, further comprising a verification system configured to: receive captured video or images containing the projected visual content, extract the digital signature from the visual content, and validate the digital signature using a public key associated with the venue (i.e., …teaches in par. 0038” decodes the TrueBadge encoded audio using a public key, and compares the hashed portion to the decoded audio to determine if the video is authentic”). As to claim 26, the system of JACOBSON and CHEN as applied to claim 21 above teaches voice authentication, specifically JACOBSON teaches a digital signature system of claim 25, wherein the verification system is further configured to confirm the authenticity of the speaker's statements if the digital signature is valid (i.e. …teaches in par. 0071 the following: “TrueBadge encoded audio is then hashed 415, the images produced in the media each have a unique signature that is decrypted using the media provider’s public key 416, and the decrypted signature is compared with hashed audio portion 417 to determine if there is a match 418, and if so, the authentication may be displayed 419 on the user’s mobile device”). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Contact Information 07-100 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826. 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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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. /BRYAN F WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 2 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 3 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 4 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 5 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 6 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 7 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 8 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 9 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 10 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 11 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 12 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 13 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 14 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 16 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 17 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 18 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 19 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 20 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 21 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 23 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 24 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 25 Art Unit: 2497 Application/Control Number: 18/631,155 Page 26 Art Unit: 2497
Prosecution Insights