DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 08/21/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the Provisional filed on August 25th, 2023.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9-14, and 16-20 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.
Claim 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation "the second copy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes that the claim is meant to claim, “a second copy”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 and 14 recites the limitation "a third copy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes that the claim is meant to be dependent on claim 2 or 4 which introduces a claimed second copy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9-13 recites the limitation "The method of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes these claims are meant to be dependent on independent claim 8 and claim 13 is meant to be dependent on claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15-20 recites the limitation "The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes these claims are meant to be dependent on independent claim 15 and claim 20 is meant to be dependent on claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torfs (US 12,580,773 B2), hereinafter Torfs in view of Drake (US 2020/0169411 A1 ), hereinafter Drake.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 Torfs teaches:
A system for establishing authenticity of image content, comprising: (Torfs Col. 1 Ln. 40-53 teaches, method for providing a proof of authenticity of image data generated by an image sensor.)
memory; and
at least one hardware processor couple to the memory and collectively configured to at least: (Torfs Col. 1 Ln. 55-67 teaches, the image sensor may integrate a logic processor and memory that can convert the image sensor into a microcomputer. the application processor may comprise hardware and/or software designed for an end-user. For example, the application processor may comprise a computer program (app) designed to help people perform an activity, such as providing authentic image data. The application processor may be external to the (secure) image sensor.)
capture an image using a camera; (Torfs Col. 1 Ln. 40-53 teaches, capturing image data with the image sensor,)
digitally sign the image using the camera to create a digital signature; and (Torfs Col. 1 Ln. 40-53 teaches, signing the image data (or a processed version thereof) and the authentic hash value using a cryptographic key of the image sensor to generate a signature of the image data, and providing the signature, the image data, and a unique identifier of the image sensor to an application processor.)
Torfs does not appear to explicitly teach saving signed data to a remote storage but in related art:
store a first copy of the image in remote storage with the digital signature. (Drake ¶ 23 teaches, the text editor application enables a user (i.e., an author) to cryptographically sign text documents with a private key and transmit the text document to other users (i.e., recipients). The other users of the text documents can verify the author's signature by using the author's public signing key. Preferably, the author can sign each updated version of the text document. Each signed transaction is subsequently recorded in the blockchain. The signature can be used to authenticate the content in the text documents and the identity of the author. Drake ¶ 25 teaches, The scanner is configured to optically scan images, printed text, handwriting or an object and convert it to a digital image.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Torfs with Drake, to modify the apparatus for providing authenticity of image data with the method for integrated signature for verification. The motivation to do so, Drake ¶ 13, to improve the integrity of documents and the verification of the identity of their authors.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 1, (Torfs in view of Drake) wherein the image and the digital signature are stored in a blockchain. (Drake ¶ 23 teaches, the text editor application enables a user (i.e., an author) to cryptographically sign text documents with a private key and transmit the text document to other users (i.e., recipients). The other users of the text documents can verify the author's signature by using the author's public signing key. Preferably, the author can sign each updated version of the text document. Each signed transaction is subsequently recorded in the blockchain. The signature can be used to authenticate the content in the text documents and the identity of the author. Drake ¶ 25 teaches, The scanner is configured to optically scan images, printed text, handwriting or an object and convert it to a digital image.)
The motive given in Claim 2 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further collectively configured to: (Torfs in view of Drake teaches the parent claim above.)
retrieve a second copy of the image; and (Drake ¶ 19 teaches, the first block can refer to transactions related to a text document. Subsequently, the text document can be duplicated to make a first set of changes to the first copy of the text document and a second set of changes to the second copy of the text document. Each of the first copy of the text document and the second copy of the document can be signed. Thereafter, the signed transaction for the first copy of the text document can be referenced in a first blockchain, and the signed transaction for the second copy of the text document can be referenced in a second blockchain. Both of the first blockchain and the second blockchain can be traced back to the first block.)
determine whether the second copy of the image is authentic based on the digital signature. (Drake ¶ 23 teaches, the text editor application enables a user (i.e., an author) to cryptographically sign text documents with a private key and transmit the text document to other users (i.e., recipients). The other users of the text documents can verify the author's signature by using the author's public signing key. Preferably, the author can sign each updated version of the text document. Each signed transaction is subsequently recorded in the blockchain. The signature can be used to authenticate the content in the text documents and the identity of the author.)
Regarding Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further collectively configured (Torfs in view of Drake teaches the parent claim above.) to generate an indicator that indicates to a person whether the second copy of the image is authentic.(Torfs Col.3 Ln. 1-13 teaches, The verifying entity may then indicate whether the signature (of the image data) was successfully verified.)
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further collectively configured to: (Torfs in view of Drake teaches the parent claim above.)
retrieve a second copy of the image; (Drake ¶ 19 teaches, the text document can be duplicated to make a first set of changes to the first copy of the text document and a second set of changes to the second copy of the text document. Each of the first copy of the text document and the second copy of the document can be signed. Thereafter, the signed transaction for the first copy of the text document can be referenced in a first blockchain, and the signed transaction for the second copy of the text document can be referenced in a second blockchain. Both of the first blockchain and the second blockchain can be traced back to the first block.)
perform an editing operation on the second copy of the image to form an edited copy of the image; and (Drake ¶ 19 teaches, the text document can be duplicated to make a first set of changes to the first copy of the text document and a second set of changes to the second copy of the text document. Each of the first copy of the text document and the second copy of the document can be signed. Thereafter, the signed transaction for the first copy of the text document can be referenced in a first blockchain, and the signed transaction for the second copy of the text document can be referenced in a second blockchain. Both of the first blockchain and the second blockchain can be traced back to the first block.)
store the edited copy of the image in the block chain. (Drake ¶ 19 teaches, the text document can be duplicated to make a first set of changes to the first copy of the text document and a second set of changes to the second copy of the text document. Each of the first copy of the text document and the second copy of the document can be signed. Thereafter, the signed transaction for the first copy of the text document can be referenced in a first blockchain, and the signed transaction for the second copy of the text document can be referenced in a second blockchain. Both of the first blockchain and the second blockchain can be traced back to the first block.)
The motive given in Claim 1 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torfs in view of Drake as applied to claim 1 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Miller US 2020/0162236 A1), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further (Torfs in view of Drake teaches the parent claim above.)
Torfs in view of Drake does not appear to explicitly teach storing indication that data has been edited but in related art:
collectively configured to store an indicator of edits made in the edited copy in the blockchain. (Miller ¶ 3 teaches, a fingerprint indicating the state of the document (e.g., a cryptographic hash of at least a portion of the document's contents) and/or an edit history of the document can be generated and stored within a block (or record) written to a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Torfs in view of Drake with Miller, to modify the apparatus for providing authenticity of image data with the method for integrated signature for verification of Drake with the edit history of Miller. The motivation to do so, Miller ¶ 3, to providing traceability of edits and/or alterations to a digital document.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torfs in view of Drake as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Moffat (US 12,166,739 B2), hereinafter Moffat.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 and 14 Torfs in view of Drake teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is further collectively configured (Torfs in view it of Drake teaches the parent claim above.)
Torfs in view of Drake does not appear to explicitly teach restricting edit operations of a copy but in related art:
to restrict which edit operations can be made in a third copy of the image. (Moffat Col. 16 Ln. 28-40 teaches, wherein the unencrypted data includes permission-related attributes specifying what operations a recipient is allowed, by the owner, creator or source of the information specified by unencrypted data, to perform on that copy of the original information concealed within the encrypted data packet, including, but not limited to permissions regarding the recipient's printing, saving to local storage, editing, saving to external storage (e.g. a USB drive, a writable DVD, etc.), etc., of the copy of the original information.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Torfs in view of Drake with Moffat, to modify the apparatus for providing authenticity of image data with the method for integrated signature for verification of Drake with the edit permissions of Moffat. The motivation to do so, Moffat Col. 83 Ln. 8, to improve the security and privacy of user data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0344653 A1 - A Quick Response (QR) code with a digital picture is embedded in a digital document creating a secure digital document. The secure digital document with the embedded QR code helps to prevent tampering of the secure digital document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENEDICT KNACKSTEDT whose telephone number is (703)756-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/J.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights