DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a final office action in response to communications received 04/23/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20 have been amended. Claims 6, 10, 14, 16 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and response to the claims are NOT sufficient to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in the previous office action. Examiner maintains the double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are not rejected under prior art(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11514342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of patent application contain every element of claims above instant application or vice versa, and as such they anticipate or anticipated by Instant Application. As to Claims 1, 10, 19, of the Pat. *342 anticipates the claims of the instant application. By way of illustration, consider the respective claim 1 from each disclosure:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘342 Patent
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a first computing device and from a second computing device, models that are each configured to receive given media content and output data indicating whether the given media content includes deepfake content; receiving, by the first computing device, media content associated with a third computing device; receiving, by the first computing device and from the second computing device, sensor data reflecting an attribute of the third computing device; selecting, by the first computing device, a model from the models based on the model being configured to receive the media content and not configured to receive the sensor data as an input; providing, to the model, the media content as an input to the model, wherein the sensor data is not provided as the input to the model; receiving, from the model, a validation score reflecting a likelihood that the media content includes deepfake content; adjusting, by the first computing device, the validation score by applying a validation rule to the sensor data; based on the adjusted validation score, determining, by the first computing device, whether the media content likely includes deepfake content; and providing, to a display of the first computing device, data indicating whether the media content likely includes deepfake content.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, media data that represents an item of media content detected by a receiving device and location data that indicates a location of the receiving device; providing, by the computing device, the media data that represents the item of media content and the location data that indicates the location of the receiving device as an input to a model that is configured to determine whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content; receiving, by the computing device and from the model, data indicating whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content; and based on the data indicating whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content, determining, by the computing device, whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the computing device, sensor data that reflects an attribute of a receiving device while the receiving device detected the item of media content or while the receiving device outputted the media data that represents the item of media content, wherein determining whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content is further based on the sensor data that reflects the attribute of the receiving device while the receiving device detected the item of media content or while the receiving device outputted the media data that represents the item of media content.
8. The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, by the computing device, additional media data that represents the item of media content; providing, by the computing device, the additional media data that represents the item of media content as an additional input to the model; and receiving, by the computing device and from the model, additional data indicating whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content, wherein determining whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content is further based on the additional data indicating whether the item of media content likely includes deepfake content.
Independent claims 1, 11, 20 of the instant application are substantially similar to independent claims 1, 10, 19, of the Pat. *342 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra. The amendments made to claims 1, 11, 20 of the instant application do not change the inventive concept and therefore they still cite the same inventive concept. Likewise, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15, 17-19 of the instant application are substantially similar to dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 (respectively) of the Pat. *342 and are rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO-form 892).
The following Patents and Papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention with respect to deepfake media content that is designed to deceive the user consuming the media content.
Horton et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0049366); “Detecting Fake Videos”;
-Teaches he authentication system may train the machine-learning model to determine whether a video is a genuine video. The machine-learning model may be trained based on a dataset that includes a set of verified videos…see par. 7.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GHAZAL B SHEHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-7479. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm PCT.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/GHAZAL B SHEHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights