Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is in response to the filing with the office dated 01/29/2026.
Claims1, 16 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 16 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed Japanese patent Application number Jp2023-119089 filed on07/21/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1,16 and 17 recites the limitation “….does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value”. It is not clear if the content file does not include metadata and also does not include hash value or the content file does not include metadata but includes hash value.
For examination purpose Examiner interprets the content file does not include metadata and also does not include hash value
Response to amendment/arguments
5. Applicant’s amendment with respect to the objection of claims 1, 2, 16 and 17 have been fully considered. As a result the objection has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(i) and 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed towards amended claims, thus necessitated the new ground of rejection as 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAWA ATSURO (JP 2009225359 A) in view of Hayashi; Nobuhiro (US 20110193975 A1) and in further view of YOON; Kwanghyeok (US 20250181630 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, OKAZAWA et al teaches, a content generation apparatus comprising: one or more processors operating to: generate a content in response to a user shooting instruction (Page 2, Lines 40-43 discloses image file recording apparatus for generating a content);
generate metadata including original comparison information for grasping a change from a generation time point of a content file including the content (Page 3, Lines 20-22 discloses generating metadata such as recording information related to a date and time when the image processing is executed for each image processing code. Also see Page 3 Lines 39-47 discloses generating metadata that conforms to Exif standard. Examiner interprets EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data as metadata embedded in digital image files that contains information about the image, including camera settings, date/time, and location, which is used in detecting change in the content).
OKAZAWA et al fails to explicitly teach, generate a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and the content; generate a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; and generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated.
Hayashi; Nobuhiro (US 20110193975 A1) teaches, generate a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and the content(Paragraph [0035] discloses generating a hash value of the image data/ content and the metadata);
generate a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0039-[0041]] In a step S2, a decision is made as to whether the "image genuineness verification function" is ON or OFF. If it is ON, in a step S3 the main image data and the appended information are combined together and image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" included in the appended information is set to ON so as to prohibit falsification of the image data (Examiner interprets original comparison information as image genuineness verification function and appended information as metadata). [0040] In a step S5, a hash value of the image data created in the step S3 or S4 is created using a hash function algorithm);
generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information (Paragraph [0039] if it is decided in the step S2 that the image genuineness verification function is OFF, in a step S4 the image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" is set to OFF so as to permit falsification of the image data. [0043] On the other hand, if the item "image genuineness verification function" is OFF, in order to enhance the convenience of appending appended information, in a step S54 an appended information region D3 of a size that is determined in advance is expanded within the original image file F1, and processing is performed to create a new image file F2. The details of this processing are as described above. Next the flow of control proceeds to the step S55, and the new image file F2 after processing is stored in the storage device 31 (i.e., if falsification of the image data is permitted then, generating a second content file/ new content file/ new image file with new metadata and modifying the original image file without including the original comparison information/ image genuineness verification information/ original/ first file));
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by providing generate a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content; generate a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the original comparison information, wherein generating the first content file and generating the second content file are operated as part of a series of processes in response to a single shooting instruction, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraphs [0036], [0039-[0041]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, not only falsification of the said image file is detected, but also a change from a shooting time point of image data or metadata can be grasped by comparing the said image file with original comparison information.
OKAZAWA et al and Hayashi et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated.
YOON; Kwanghyeok (US 20250181630 A1) teaches, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0098] discloses, generating hash value based on the photographing date and time information which is the original comparison information and storing the image file/ content including the photographing date and time information and the hash value. Also see [0046]), and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated (Paragraph [0097] generating second content file/ copied file includes the content in which metadata does not include original comparison information/ photographing date and time information, a unique key value/ hash value for the second image file).
YOON et al also teaches, and generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0097] generating second content file/ copied file includes the content in which metadata does not include original comparison information/ photographing date and time information, a unique key value/ hash value for the second image file).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by and generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated, as taught by YOON et al (Paragraphs [0097], [0098]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, improves operation of the electronic device as taught by YOON et al (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further operate in a case where an instruction to perform predetermined processing is received from a user in a state where one of the first content file and the second content file is selected, control according to an operation content by the user whether to perform the predetermined processing on both the first content file or the second content file or to perform the predetermined processing on only one of the first content file and the second content file (Page 3, Lines, 28-38 teaches, According to the present invention, in the image file recording / editing apparatus according to the above-described invention, the image recording unit resizes and records the result image as the main image or the sub-image (Examiner interprets first content file as original image and the second content file as resized image)).
Regarding dependent claim 4, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further operate to control so as to perform predetermined processing on the first content file in a case where an instruction to perform the predetermined processing is received from a user in a state where one of the first content file or the second content file is selected (Page 3, Lines 43-51 discloses, instruction to perform predetermined processing which is editing the content file. Also see Page 5, Lines 21-24).
Regarding dependent claim 5, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 4.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein the predetermined processing is content file protection processing (Page 3, Lines 14-17 discloses processing/ editing of a file is based on the user authority to edit the image).
Regarding dependent claim 6, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein the one or more processors further operate to control so as to perform predetermined processing on both the first content file and the second content file in a case where an instruction to perform the predetermined processing is received from a user in a state where one of the first content file or the second content file is selected (Page 2, Lines 4-8 when registering image data to be subjected to image processing, two of an original image and an editing image copied from the original image are registered. Then, the image processing is performed on the editing image, and when the edited image is stored, the editing content is also stored).
Regarding dependent claim 7, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 6.
Hayashi et al further teaches, wherein the predetermined processing is processing of transferring the content file to an external device (Paragraph [0041], [0042] discloses, processing of transferring content to the external device. Also see Paragraph [0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by providing wherein the predetermined processing is processing of transferring the content file to an external device, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraphs [0041], [0042]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the original file never change, which is the file-date is always the same and reflect the time of capture).
Regarding dependent claim 8, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
Hayashi et al further teaches, wherein the first content file and the second content file are stored in different storage locations (Paragraphs [0021], [0022] discloses, the first content file is stored on the camera and the second content is stored on a disk storage).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by wherein the first content file and the second content file are stored in different storage locations, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraph [0021], [0022]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the original file never change, which is the file-date is always the same and reflect the time of capture).
Regarding dependent claim 9, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein the content is image data obtained by shooting a subject, and the original comparison information is a thumbnail image obtained by reducing image data generated by the operation to generate the content (Page 4, Lines 51-54 discloses, the JPEG header includes Exif data in which, for example, camera setting information at the time of shooting, shooting conditions, and thumbnails that are reduced images of the shot images are recorded).
Regarding dependent claim 10, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al also teaches, wherein the content is image data obtained by shooting a subject, and the original comparison information is metadata at the time of shooting, which includes information indicating a shooting place (Page 4, Lines 51-54 discloses, the JPEG header includes Exif data in which, for example, camera setting information at the time of shooting, shooting conditions, and thumbnails that are reduced images of the shot images are recorded. As one of the ordinary in the field, Examiner interprets EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data as metadata embedded in digital image files that contains information about the image, including camera settings, date/time, and location).
Regarding dependent claim 11, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, further comprising a memory, wherein the one or more processors further operate to record in the memory that the first content file and the second content file are data generated by the same shooting processing (Page 3 Lines 1-14 discloses playing back the result image corresponding the specified history information (i.e., recording the history of edits as the second content file to the original content file). Also see Page 8 Lines 1-7).
Regarding dependent claim 12, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
OKAZAWA et al further teaches, wherein a file name of the second content file is a file name made by adding a predetermined character string indicating relevance to the first content file to a file name of the first content file (Page 5, Lines 31-33 discloses, The multi-image header 30b is defined by an APP2 segment that is an application layer. Inside, APP2Length, identifier “MPF”, sub-image index IFD, Value, and identification IFD information for each sub-image are recorded. Also see Page 3 Lines 1-14).
Regarding dependent claim 13, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
Hayashi et al further teaches, wherein the second content file includes the content, metadata not including the original comparison information, and a hash value which is generated on a basis of the metadata not including the original comparison information and of the content (Paragraph [0039] if it is decided in the step S2 that the image genuineness verification function is OFF, in a step S4 the image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" is set to OFF so as to permit falsification of the image data. [0043] On the other hand, if the item "image genuineness verification function" is OFF, in order to enhance the convenience of appending appended information, in a step S54 an appended information region D3 of a size that is determined in advance is expanded within the original image file F1, and processing is performed to create a new image file F2. The details of this processing are as described above. Next the flow of control proceeds to the step S55, and the new image file F2 after processing is stored in the storage device 31 (i.e., if falsification of the image data is permitted then, generating a second content file/ new content file/ new image file with new metadata and modifying the original image file without including the original comparison information/ image genuineness verification information/ original/ first file)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by wherein the second content file includes the content, metadata not including the original comparison information, and a hash value which is generated on a basis of the metadata not including the original comparison information and of the content, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraph [0039]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the original file never change, which is the file-date is always the same and reflect the time of capture).
Regarding dependent claim 14, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 13.
OKAZAWA et al also teaches, wherein on a basis of predetermined identification information included in the metadata including the original comparison information and of predetermined identification information included in the metadata not including the original comparison information, whether or not the first content file and the second content file having the said metadata are data generated by the same shooting processing is determined (Page 5 Lines 31-45 discloses based on the predetermined identification included in the pre-edit file and the edited file, it is determined if the content files having the said metadata are data generated by the same shooting processing. Also see Page 9 Lines 9-11 discloses whether or not the result image is recorded in the history)).
Regarding dependent claim 15, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 1.
Hayashi et al further teaches, wherein the second content file includes the content, and does not include metadata not including the original comparison information, and does not include a hash value generated on a basis of metadata not including the original comparison information and of the content. Paragraph [0039] if it is decided in the step S2 that the image genuineness verification function is OFF, in a step S4 the image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" is set to OFF so as to permit falsification of the image data. [0043] On the other hand, if the item "image genuineness verification function" is OFF, in order to enhance the convenience of appending appended information, in a step S54 an appended information region D3 of a size that is determined in advance is expanded within the original image file F1, and processing is performed to create a new image file F2. The details of this processing are as described above. Next the flow of control proceeds to the step S55, and the new image file F2 after processing is stored in the storage device 31 (i.e., if falsification of the image data is permitted then, generating a second content file/ new content file/ new image file with new metadata and modifying the original image file without including the original comparison information/ image genuineness verification information/ original/ first file)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by wherein the second content file includes the content, metadata not including the original comparison information, and a hash value which is generated on a basis of the metadata not including the original comparison information and of the content, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraph [0039]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, the original file never change, which is the file-date is always the same and reflect the time of capture).
Regarding independent claim 16, OKAZAWA et al teaches, a control method of a content generation apparatus, the control method, being executed by one or more processors comprising:
generate a content in response to a user shooting instruction (Page 2, Lines 40-43 discloses, image file recording apparatus for generating a content);
generating metadata including original comparison information for grasping a change from a generation time point of a content file including the content Page 3, Lines 20-22 discloses generating metadata such as recording information related to a date and time when the image processing is executed for each image processing code. Also see Page 3 Lines 39-47 discloses generating metadata that conforms to Exif standard. Examiner interprets EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data as metadata embedded in digital image files that contains information about the image, including camera settings, date/time, and location);
OKAZAWA et al fails to explicitly teach, generating a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content; generating a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; generating a second content file which includes the content and does not include the original comparison information, wherein generating the first content file and generating the second content file are operated as part of a series of processes in response to a single shooting instruction.
Hayashi; Nobuhiro (US 20110193975 A1) teaches, generating a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content (Paragraph [0035] discloses generating a hash value of the image data/ content and the metadata);
generating a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0039-[0041]] In a step S2, a decision is made as to whether the "image genuineness verification function" is ON or OFF. If it is ON, in a step S3 the main image data and the appended information are combined together and image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" included in the appended information is set to ON so as to prohibit falsification of the image data (Examiner interprets original comparison information as image genuineness verification function and appended information as metadata). [0040] In a step S5, a hash value of the image data created in the step S3 or S4 is created using a hash function algorithm);
generating a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information (Paragraph [0039] if it is decided in the step S2 that the image genuineness verification function is OFF, in a step S4 the image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" is set to OFF so as to permit falsification of the image data. [0043] On the other hand, if the item "image genuineness verification function" is OFF, in order to enhance the convenience of appending appended information, in a step S54 an appended information region D3 of a size that is determined in advance is expanded within the original image file F1, and processing is performed to create a new image file F2. The details of this processing are as described above. Next the flow of control proceeds to the step S55, and the new image file F2 after processing is stored in the storage device 31 (i.e., if falsification of the image data is permitted then, generating a second content file/ new content file/ new image file with new metadata and modifying the original image file without including the original comparison information/ image genuineness verification information/ original/ first file));
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by providing generate a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content; generate a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the original comparison information, wherein generating the first content file and generating the second content file are operated as part of a series of processes in response to a single shooting instruction, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraphs [0036], [0039-[0041]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, not only falsification of the said image file is detected, but also a change from a shooting time point of image data or metadata can be grasped by comparing the said image file with original comparison information.
OKAZAWA et al and Hayashi et al fails to explicitly teach, when the user shooting instruction is received, both
YOON; Kwanghyeok (US 20250181630 A1) teaches, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0098] discloses, generating hash value based on the photographing date and time information which is the original comparison information and storing the image file/ content including the photographing date and time information and the hash value. Also see [0046]), and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated (Paragraph [0097] generating second content file/ copied file includes the content in which metadata does not include original comparison information/ photographing date and time information, a unique key value/ hash value for the second image file).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by and generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated, as taught by YOON et al (Paragraphs [0097], [0098]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, improves operation of the electronic device as taught by YOON et al (Paragraph [0141]).
Regarding independent claim 17, OKAZAWA et al teaches, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing computer-executable code of a program for executing a method for controlling a content generation apparatus, the control method comprising: generate a content in response to a user instruction (Page 2, Lines 40-43 discloses, image file recording apparatus for generating a content);
generating metadata including original comparison information for grasping a change from a generation time point of a content file including the content (Page 3, Lines 20-22 discloses generating metadata such as recording information related to a date and time when the image processing is executed for each image processing code. Also see Page 3 Lines 39-47 discloses generating metadata that conforms to Exif standard. Examiner interprets EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data as metadata embedded in digital image files that contains information about the image, including camera settings, date/time, and location).
OKAZAWA et al fails to explicitly teach, generating a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content; generating a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; generating a second content file which includes the content and does not include the original comparison information, wherein generating the first content file and generating the second content file are operated as part of a series of processes in response to a single shooting instruction.
Hayashi; Nobuhiro (US 20110193975 A1) teaches, generating a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content (Paragraph [0035] discloses generating a hash value of the image data/ content and the metadata);
generating a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0039-[0041]] In a step S2, a decision is made as to whether the "image genuineness verification function" is ON or OFF. If it is ON, in a step S3 the main image data and the appended information are combined together and image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" included in the appended information is set to ON so as to prohibit falsification of the image data (Examiner interprets original comparison information as image genuineness verification function and appended information as metadata). [0040] In a step S5, a hash value of the image data created in the step S3 or S4 is created using a hash function algorithm);
generating a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information (Paragraph [0039] if it is decided in the step S2 that the image genuineness verification function is OFF, in a step S4 the image data is created. In this case, the item "verifying image genuineness" is set to OFF so as to permit falsification of the image data. [0043] On the other hand, if the item "image genuineness verification function" is OFF, in order to enhance the convenience of appending appended information, in a step S54 an appended information region D3 of a size that is determined in advance is expanded within the original image file F1, and processing is performed to create a new image file F2. The details of this processing are as described above. Next the flow of control proceeds to the step S55, and the new image file F2 after processing is stored in the storage device 31 (i.e., if falsification of the image data is permitted then, generating a second content file/ new content file/ new image file with new metadata and modifying the original image file without including the original comparison information/ image genuineness verification information/ original/ first file)),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by providing generate a hash value on a basis of the metadata including the original comparison information and of the content; generate a first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value; generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the original comparison information, wherein generating the first content file and generating the second content file are operated as part of a series of processes in response to a single shooting instruction, as taught by Hayashi et al (Paragraphs [0036], [0039-[0041]]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, not only falsification of the said image file is detected, but also a change from a shooting time point of image data or metadata can be grasped by comparing the said image file with original comparison information.
OKAZAWA et al and Hayashi et al fails to explicitly teach, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated.
YOON; Kwanghyeok (US 20250181630 A1) teaches, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value (Paragraph [0098] discloses, generating hash value based on the photographing date and time information which is the original comparison information and storing the image file/ content including the photographing date and time information and the hash value. Also see [0046]), and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated (Paragraph [0097] generating second content file/ copied file includes the content in which metadata does not include original comparison information/ photographing date and time information, a unique key value/ hash value for the second image file).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al by and generate a second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, wherein, when the user shooting instruction is received, both the first content file which includes the content, the metadata including the original comparison information, and the hash value, and the second content file which includes the content and does not include the metadata including the original comparison information and the hash value, are generated, as taught by YOON et al (Paragraphs [0097], [0098]).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, improves operation of the electronic device as taught by YOON et al (Paragraph [0141]).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAZAWA ATSURO (JP 2009225359 A) in view of Hayashi; Nobuhiro (US 20110193975 A1), YOON; Kwanghyeok (US 20250181630 A1) and in further view of UENO DAIYU (WO 2022259940 A1).
Regarding dependent claim 3, OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, the content generation apparatus according to claim 2.
OKAZAWA et al, Hayashi et al and YOON et al teach, fails to explicitly teach, wherein the predetermined processing is processing of erasing a content file from a storage location.
UENO DAIYU (WO 2022259940 A1) teaches, wherein the predetermined processing is processing of erasing a content file from a storage location (Page 12 Lines 55-56, Page 13, Lines 1-2 Furthermore, in the present embodiment, the registered information-including image file is deleted from the recording medium 209 according to the user's instruction to delete the registered information-including image file. This makes it possible to easily delete the image file whose information has been registered in the blockchain from the recording medium 209. Also see Page 11, Lines 29-36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of OKAZAWA et al and Hayashi et al teaches, by providing wherein the predetermined processing is processing of erasing a content file from a storage location as taught by UENO et al (Page 12 Lines 55-56, Page 13, Lines 1-2).
One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, by doing so, makes it possible to easily delete the image file whose information has been registered in the blockchain from the recording medium 209 as taught by UENO et al (Page 12 Lines 55-56).
Closest Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
MAEDA YASUO (JP 2006133947 A) teaches, To provide portable equipment for easily and quickly retrieving a desired image file from an image file stored in portable equipment. SOLUTION: This portable equipment is provided with a photographic means for photographing an image, an image file storing means for storing a photographed image file, an image display means for displaying the image file for browsing the image file, a detecting means for detecting the current information, an information storing means for storing the photographic information of the image file and the browsing history information of the image file by associating them with each other for each image file and a retrieval processing means for retrieving a desired image file from the stored image file. The retrieval processing means is configured to retrieve the desired image file by using at least two information from the current information, the photographic information and the browsing history information (Abstract).
Hattori; Mitsuaki (US 20080244374 A1) teaches, A file editing apparatus is provided that edits a color-image processing file in which limitations can be imparted on the display of edit history information that corresponds to a new shooting mode. The apparatus includes an editing unit that edits a color processing file; a display control unit; and a storage unit that stores the color-image processing file including edit history information of the color processing file edited by the editing unit, and edit history display control information for the display control unit to control display of the edit history information (Abstract).
10. Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior arts of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and Figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior arts or disclosed by the examiner. It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments/Arguments necessitated new grounds of rejection as presented in this office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN RAJAPUTRA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4669. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi (571) 272-4078 can be reached. 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.
/S. R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163