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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 04/19/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-8 filed on 04/19/2024 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 04/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/19/2024 have been reviewed by Examiner and they are acceptable.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheruvu et al. (US 2021/0390447), in view of Almgren et al. (US 2016/0182237).
As per claim 1, A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a program that, when executed, causes a server to perform: (Cheruvu, ¶[0024], ¶[0026],¶[0077] and ¶[0089].)
“displaying automatically generated content;”(Cheruvu, ¶[0028] discloses processing of ML data to generate content, The generated content may be multi-modal content, including, but not limited to, one or more of plaintext, image(s), video(s), audio, and/or any other form of content. where the content generation platform 110 provides for consumption of content generated by a content generation platform, such as content generated by processing of the ML data via ML model 116 at content generation platform 110. Consumption of content may include publishing content to a web page, adding the content into a monitoring system. For example, content consumer component 134 may include, but is not limited to, a web browser. )
“converting at least a portion of the automatically generated content into determination information for determining whether the content has been modified;”( Cheruvu, ¶[0034] discloses once content is generated by content generator 112, the hash generator 113 may utilize the ML model's 116 GUID, a ML model ID, the content (e.g., plain text, image, video, etc.), and/or a timestamp for a digital signature. The content deployer 114 may then transmit the digital signature to the verifier component, along with the content (e.g., plain text, image, video, etc.), timestamp, and model ID. In one implementation, the digital signature and content, timestamp, and model ID may be sent over an insecure communication channel 140 to the verifier (e.g., verification component 132). ¶[0035] discloses The verification component 132 verifies the digital signature of content to prove 1) if the content generation platform 110 and/or content generator 112 may have tampered the content. )
However Cheruvu does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Almgren from similar field of endeavor “generating a determination image from the determination information.”(Almgren, ¶[0117-0118] discloses embedding the time-stamping signal 402 into a digitally stored document 400, where the embedded time-stamping signal is in the form of a piece of information from which the value of the signal can be deduced. the time-stamping signal 402 is introduced in the form of a graphical element, such as a string of alphanumeric characters, a QR code or a barcode, into a visual representation of the document, which graphical element carries said piece of information.)
“and displaying the determination image together with the content”(Almgren, ¶[0186-0187] discloses pertinent information is presented in the web browser 803, possibly in the same web page 802, in that case preferably as an embedded part of the document, including in the form of a graphical element similar to the element 402(a QR code or a barcode) visually imbedded in the document, or presenting the document together with the pertinent information in the browser. Further see ¶[0188-0189].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Almgren technique of verifying the integrity of an information into Cheruvu technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Almgren technique over authenticating and verifying AI generated output technique of Cheruvu. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Almgren to Cheruvu in order to provide verifying integrity of large data sets in an uncomplicated and quick manner. (Refer to Almgren paragraph [0009].)
Claims 6 and 8 have been analyzed and are rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above. Additionally, the similar rationale and motivation to combine the references Cheruvu and Almgren would apply to these claims.
As per claim 2, The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed, causes the server to further perform: “converting the content into a hash value using a hash function.”(Cheruvu, ¶[0037] discloses the hash generator 113 and/or the verification component 132 can use a hash-based MAC (HMAC), which is a keyed hashing mechanism, as a basis for the digital signature. In the case of an HMAC, the GUID can act as key and at the same time uniquely identify the AI model that it is associated with. Further see ¶[0051].)
As per claim 4, The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed, causes the server to further perform: “specifying an arrangement region in which the determination image is configured to be arranged in a screen in either a content region in which the content is configured to be arranged or a region different from the content region; and displaying the determination image in the arrangement region.”(Almgren, ¶[0118] discloses the time-stamping signal 402 is introduced in the form of a graphical element, such as a string of alphanumeric characters, a QR code or a barcode, into a visual representation of the document. ¶[0186-0187] discloses pertinent information is presented in the web browser 803, possibly in the same web page 802, in that case preferably as an embedded part of the document, including in the form of a graphical element similar to the element 402(a QR code or a barcode) visually imbedded in the document, or presenting the document together with the pertinent information in the browser. Further see ¶[00188-00189].)
As per claim 6, The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, wherein the program, when executed, causes the server to further perform: “selecting information related to automatic generation of the content;” (Almgren, ¶[0058] discloses a digitally stored reference document is selected. ¶[0059] discloses the reference document is “selected” means that a reference source is selected. ¶[0060] discloses the selected reference document is used as one of at least one input values to the one-way function. ¶[0191] discloses metadata specific to the web page in which the document in question is shown, preferably also along with metadata specific to the activating user, is also sent to the system 100 for time-stamping in association with the document. ¶[0202-0205].)
“generating the determination image from the selected information and the determination information.”(Almgren, ¶[0060-0064] generating a one-way function i output or time sampling signal from selected reference document and related information of the one-way function is calculated for certain input data.)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheruvu et al. (US 2021/0390447), in view of Almgren et al. (US 2016/0182237), further in view of Filler et al. (US 2022/0331841.)
As per claim 3, The non-transitory computer readable medium according to claim 1, Cheruvu as modified as Almgren does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Filler form similar field of endeavor “wherein the determination image comprises a number of pixels corresponding to a number of bits of the determination information.”(Filler, ¶[0042] discloses message payload, is applied to an error correction coder. This coder transforms the symbols of the message payload into a much longer array of encoded message elements. The coder output may comprise hundreds or thousands of binary bits. ¶[0043] discloses Each bit of the scrambled signature modulates producing an enlarged scrambled payload sequence. This sequence is mapped to elements of a square block having 128×128 embedding locations yielding a 2D payload signature pattern.¶[0044] discloses Each location in the 128×128 block is associated with a waxel (chip) value of either 0 or 1. Each of these embedding locations may correspond to a single pixel, resulting in a 128×128 pixel watermark message block. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Filler technique of using AI and digital watermarking for detecting objects into Cheruvu as modified by Almgren technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Filler technique over authenticating and verifying AI generated output technique of Cheruvu. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Filler to Cheruvu in order to accurately detect differences between items. (Refer to Filler paragraph [0005].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and on the pending conditions of the rejected and objected matter set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the limitations set forth by claim 5.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights