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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 2/25/2026 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lioy (US 2012/0299831).
Regarding claim 1, Lioy teaches an apparatus for providing trust for assets, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (see figure 1); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: obtain, from a camera of a device in a secure mode, a first image of a scene (see para. 0061, Lioy discusses plurality of keypad images may be obtained at the trusted execution environment);
obtain, from the camera of the device in a non-secure mode, a second image of the scene (see para. 0061, Lioy discusses high-level operating system virtual machine);
generate, within a secure environment of the device based on the first image, a first manifest associated with the first image (see para. 0033, Lioy discusses the secure execution environment is protected from snooping or unauthorized access that can reveal data or information associated with the secure execution environment);
process, within a non-secure environment of the device, the second image to produce a processed second image (see para. 0012, 0063, Lioy discusses insecure execution environment 1410 may be considered "insecure" in that information at the insecure execution environment 1410 may be accessed by unintended parties or applications. see para. 0012, Lioy discusses second keypad image of the plurality of keypad images from the secure execution environment to the display driver associated with the insecure execution environment);
generate, within the secure environment based on the processed second image, a second manifest associated with the processed second image (see para. 0037, Lioy discusses the secure execution environment provides/transmits the keypad image(s) to the display driver operating within the insecure execution environment. At step 206, the display driver of the insecure execution environment provides a keypad image to the touchscreen display. At step 208, the touchscreen 106 displays the keypad image. At step 210, the touchscreen receives at least one keypad image input selection from a user. The selection made corresponds to one or more location coordinates associated with the touchscreen display); and
generate a media asset that comprises the first manifest, the second manifest, and the processed second image (see para. 0062, Lioy discusses insecure execution environment and the secure execution environment may run in parallel to each other on a single processor for processed images).
Regarding claim 2, Lioy teaches wherein the first manifest comprises a plurality of first assertions associated with the first image (see para. 0066, Lioy discusses location data of an image).
Regarding claim 3, Lioy teaches wherein the plurality of first assertions comprises at least one of a type of camera used to capture the first image, a location of where the first image was captured, or a time and day that the first image was captured (see para. 0066, Lioy discusses location data of an image).
Regarding claim 4, Lioy teaches wherein the second manifest comprises a plurality of second assertions associated with the processed second image (see figure 15, para. 0066, Lioy discusses location data of an image).
Regarding claim 8, Lioy teaches wherein the secure environment comprises at least one of a trusted virtual machine (TVM) or a trusted execution environment (TEE) (see para. 0033, 0052, Lioy discusses secure environment is a trusted execution environment (TEE)).
Regarding claim 9, Lioy teaches wherein the non-secure environment comprises a high-level operating system (HLOS) virtual machine (VM) (see para. 0051, Lioy discusses an "insecure execution environment" is a high level operating system (HLOS)).
Regarding claim 10, Lioy teaches wherein the device is a smartphone, a smart watch, or a tablet computer (see para. 0050, Lioy discusses mobile device is mobile phone, smartphone, laptop computer, tablet, wireless communication device).
Regarding claim 11, Lioy teaches wherein the media asset is an image (see para. 0049, Lioy discusses an image).
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lioy (US 2012/0299831) in view of Lai et al. (US 12,256,020).
Regarding claim 5, Lioy does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of second assertions comprises at least one of a type of editing used to process the second image to produce the processed second image or a time and day that the second image was processed to produce the processed second image. However, Lai teaches wherein the plurality of second assertions comprises at least one of a type of editing used to process the second image to produce the processed second image or a time and day that the second image was processed to produce the processed second image (see col. 9 lines 58-63, Lai discusses produce a hash digest that incorporates the effects of filtering, encoding, and/or compression operations).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lioy with Lai to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image trust generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lioy in this manner in order to improve image trust presentation by providing image information that verifies a secure network. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lioy, while the teaching of Lai continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of providing image information to improve image trust verification. The Lioy and Lai systems perform image trust presentation, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 6, Lai teaches wherein the type of editing comprises filtering, denoising, compression, or high dynamic range (HDR) (see col. 9 lines 58-63, Lai discusses produce a hash digest that incorporates the effects of filtering, encoding, and/or compression operations).
The same motivation of claim 5 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lioy with Lai to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image trust generation.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claims 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lioy (US 2012/0299831) in view of Holland et al. (US 2021/0279469).
Regarding claim 7, Lioy does not expressly disclose wherein the first image and the second image are simultaneously captured. However, Holland teaches wherein the first image and the second image are simultaneously captured (see para. 0150, Holland discusses an additional image captured at the same time by another camera sensor of computing device with sensor metadata associated with sensor).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lioy with Holland to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image trust generation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Lioy in this manner in order to improve image trust presentation by providing image information that verifies a secure network. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Lioy, while the teaching of Holland continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of providing image information to improve image trust verification. The Lioy and Holland systems perform image trust presentation, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights