CTFR 18/679,890 CTFR 79982 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. Detailed Action This office action is in response to the amendment filed on February 18, 2026. Clams 1-15 are currently pending of which claims 1, 3, 5-6, 9-12, and 14-15 are currently amended. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operation input unit configured to receive…” in claim 1. “reception unit configured to receive time information…” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-34-23 Claim limitation “operation input unit configured to” and “reception unit configured to” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear, based on the specifications, what scope of structures would properly constitute each of the claimed units and controller. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matischek (US PGPub No: 2014/0314235) in view of Zhang et al (US Patent No: 6,553,409), hereafter referred to as Matischek and Zhang, respectively . With regard to claims 1 and 14-15, Matischek teaches Zhang, a content generation apparatus comprising: an operation input unit configured to receive, from a user, an instruction to generate content ( Matischek teaches generating image data of an image (generate a content) and trust (authenticity) data; see paragraph 3, Matischek. Time data with confidence level (authenticity validity state) can also be added to the trust data to improve the trustworthiness; see paragraphs 5 and 63, Matischek ) , the operation input unit being further configured to receive, from the user, an instruction to change an authenticity guaranteeing mode for guaranteeing authenticity of the content to a valid state or an invalid state (see Zhang below) ; a reception unit configured to receive time information from an external system; and a controller comprising at least one processor and a memory, the controller being configured to: (i) in response to receiving the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state, control the reception unit to start receiving the time information from the external system (see Zhang below) ; (ii) upon successful reception of the time information from the external system by the reception unit, adjust a reference time of the content generation apparatus using the time information from the external system, set the authenticity guaranteeing mode to the valid state (see Zhang below) ; and (iii) in response to receiving the instruction to generate the content after the authenticity guaranteeing mode has been set to the valid state, generate the content including a generation time of the content based on the adjusted reference time (Matischek teaches adding time data to the trust data, the time being from a clock synchronized with an external clock; see paragraphs 6 and 53-54, Matischek) . While Matischek teaches providing content to a user by also adding time data to the content from an external source, Matischek does not explicitly cite the user setting a guaranteeing mode from an invalid state to a valid state to generate the content with the generation time. In the same field of endeavor, Zhang also teaches an approach to providing requested content to a user (via rendering), the content having a timestamp; see column 2, lines 23-35 and column 6, lines 14-16, Zhang. In particular, Zhang explains how a user can request the state in which the content is to be retrieved and if a synchronization is to be performed; see column 5, lines 60-65, Zhang. The states can be post-check or pre-check, where post-check checks the timestamp to validate the content in the background after providing the content and provides updated content afterwards; see column 2, lines 5-17 and column 6, lines 18-30, Zhang. Updated rendering/content (i.e. generated content) is then provided to the user; see column 7, lines 42-57 and claim 22, Zhang. Content validation can be slow since a request and response is needed for each content; see column 2, lines 1-3, Zhang. By allowing for selective content validation, there are fewer requests and responses, and greater efficiency; see column 10, lines 30-32, Zhang. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Zhang with those of Matischek to allow for select validation to improve efficiency. With regards to claim 2, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the controller generates the content including the generation time, a hash value generated by executing a hash function to the content, and a digital signature generated by encrypting the hash value using a secret key in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received and the instruction to generate the content is received (Matischek supports calculating a hash based on the image data and/or trust data and using it to obtain a digital signature; see paragraph 39, Matischek) . With regards to claim 3, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the a reception unit is further configured to receive a signal from an artificial satellite; wherein the time information received from the external is time information included in the signal received by the reception unit from the artificial satellite (Matischek supports use of GPS time signals and using GPS for time synchronization; see paragraphs 53 and 57, Matischek) . With regards to claim 4, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein reception of the signal from the artificial satellite by the reception unit is stopped in a case where an instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the valid state to the invalid state is received (Matischek teaches connection to the clock being lost and synchronization not occurring, lowering the confidence score; see paragraph 54, Matischek) . With regards to claim 5, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the time information received from the outside is time information included in a signal received from an artificial satellite by an accessory component that is connected to the content generation apparatus for extending a GPS function (Matischek supports use of GPS time signals and using GPS for time synchronization, with the use of a GPS receiver; see paragraphs 53 and 57, Matischek) . With regards to claim 6, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the time information received from the outside is time information received from an external apparatus connected to the content generation apparatus, wherein the time information received from the external apparatus is time information included in a signal received by the external apparatus from an artificial satellite, and wherein a controller included in the external apparatus controls a process of receiving a signal from the artificial satellite (Matischek supports use of GPS time signals and using GPS for time synchronization, with the use of a GPS receiver; see paragraphs 53 and 57, Matischek) . With regards to claim 7, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the user can change the reference time (Matischek supports various remote clocks for synchronization, including GPS, NTP, radio-controlled clock, and mobile provider; see paragraphs 53 and 57, Matischek) . With regards to claim 8, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the content generation apparatus is controlled to prohibit the user from changing the reference time in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received (Matischek supports the user being blocked from changing the clock; see paragraphs 48 and 75, Matischek) . With regards to claim 9, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the controller generates the content including position information obtained from the outside, and wherein an interval between timings at which the position information is obtained from the outside is changed to be shorter than an interval set in advance in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received (Matischek teaches assessing the delay between the time and position, with the events being close together increasing trustworthiness of the trusted image data; see paragraph 8, Matischek) . With regards to claim 10, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the authenticity guaranteeing mode is kept in the invalid state in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received and the reception of the time information from the outside fails (Matischek teaches lost connection/signal resulting in lower confidence level and lower trustworthiness; see paragraphs 48 and 54, Matischek) . With regards to claim 11, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein the controller generates the content including information indicating that the reference time has been changed by the user in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received, reception of time information from the outside fails, and the user changes the reference time (Matischek supports an internal clock and also accounts for signal loss, see paragraphs 48 and 54, Matischek) . With regards to claim 12, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus wherein a measure for successfully receiving the time information from the outside is notified in a case where the instruction to change the authenticity guaranteeing mode from the invalid state to the valid state is received and the reception of the time information from the outside fails (Matischek teaches generating image data of an image (generate a content) and trust (authenticity) data; see paragraph 3, Matischek. Use of time data and clock synchronization are optional) . With regards to claim 13, Matischek teaches Zhang, the content generation apparatus comprising an image capturing apparatus that generates image data by capturing an image of an object and generates an image file including the image data as the content (Matischek teaches generating image data of an image (generate a content) and trust (authenticity) data; see paragraph 3, Matischek. Time data with confidence level (authenticity validity state) can also be added to the trust data to improve the trustworthiness; see paragraphs 5 and 63, Matischek) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The following are the examiner’s responses to the applicant’s arguments . In light of the latest claim amendments, the 112 2 nd paragraph rejection directed towards the claim limitation of “…time information received from an outside in a case…” has been withdrawn. However, despite the claim amendments, some of the amended claim limitations still invoke 112(f) and create 112 2 nd paragraph indefinite concerns. These new concerns are addressed in the updated 112 rejections. Finally, considering the latest claim amendments, an updated search has been performed and the new Zhang prior art has been applied. Zhang explains how a user can request the state in which the content is to be retrieved and if a synchronization is to be performed; see column 5, lines 60-65, Zhang. The states can be post-check or pre-check, where post-check checks the timestamp to validate the content in the background after providing the content and provides updated content afterwards; see column 2, lines 5-17 and column 6, lines 18-30, Zhang. Updated rendering/content (i.e. generated content) is then provided to the user; see column 7, lines 42-57 and claim 22, Zhang. As such, the amended claims remain rejected. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, EMMANUEL MOISE can be reached at (571) 272-3865. 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. /AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 2 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 3 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 4 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 5 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 6 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 7 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 8 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 11 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 12 Art Unit: 2455 Application/Control Number: 18/679,890 Page 13 Art Unit: 2455
Prosecution Insights