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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S13 and S14 in Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “…as claimed in claim 1.” In US practice, the corresponding claim limitations are imported into the instant claim (which is easily accomplished with a word processor). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “…as claimed in claim 13.” The corresponding claim limitations should be imported into the instant claim (which is easily accomplished with a word processor). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “first device” and “second device” in claim 8 and “third device” and “fourth device” in claim 9.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
The claim limitation “device” invokes 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 their respective functions. More specifically, the disclosure states at ¶ [0071], that the device “can be implemented” as a “processor,” but this is indefinite because it affords other possibilities that are not described in the disclosure. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 8, 9, and 12 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.
The claim limitations “first device,” “second device,” “third device,” and “fourth device” 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 their respective functions. 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. The Examiner notes, however, that claims 10 and 11 recite sufficient structure for their respective devices to overcome this § 112(b) rejection.
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
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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 2014/0270338, “Zhao”) in view of Sowa et al. (US 2019/0114733, “Sowa”).
Regarding Claim 1
Zhao discloses
A device…1 (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223], “For example, FIG. 18 illustrates a block diagram of a device 1800 within which various disclosed embodiments may be implemented.”), the device being configured to:
obtain input data (Fig. 3(b), ¶ [0074], “The video is input to a decoder 324 to produce [obtain] an uncompressed video stream [input data], which is directed to a frame selection component 306 that selects a particular video frame or frames for the insertion of watermark.”);
generate entangled data by entangling the obtained input data with a continuously changing counter (Fig. 7, ¶¶ [0123]-[0124], “FIG. 7 shows two alternative data generated in accordance with an exemplary embodiment which may be stored in inserter manifest, In FIG. 7, w′9 through w′11 represent the watermark signals that carry the symbol ‘0’ for the selected frames B9 through B11, respectively.”, i.e., the counter is used to track the frames, and the introduction of the watermark comprises a modification or entanglement),
wherein the entangled data requires untangling by use of the same counter to reveal the original input data (¶ [0120], “As is well known in video compression, a compressed video stream, such as an MPEG stream or High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), comprises a series of frames, some of which require information [from the same counter] from the previous or future frames [i.e., frame count for reference] for decoding [untangling to reveal the original input data].”);
2 …;
3 …; and
output the output data for transport over a transport medium (¶ [0109], “Guided preprocessing based on the inserter/extractor manifests produced from the first video stream, including the guided frame and area selections, ensures that when an extractor manifest is required for watermark extraction, only a single extractor manifest is needed for different video streams that are derived from a specific visual work through encoding and/or editing or other processing. One example is the adaptive streaming scenario where multiple video streams with different bit rates are delivered [transported as output data] to users based on, for example, the user's network bandwidth and capability of the playback client.”).
Zhao doesn’t disclose
1 … for enabling detection of currentness of data, …
2 generate a hash by applying a hash function on the obtained input data;
3 combine the entangled data and the hash into output data;
Sowa, however, discloses
1 … for enabling detection of currentness of data, … (Fig. 4, ¶ [0060], “Subsequently, at block 408, responsive to determining that the timestamp does not correspond to the current time of the computer system, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated.”)
2 generate a hash by applying a hash function on the obtained input data (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “The hashcode [generated from a hash function] may be retrieved via a feedback loop within the computer system. In one example, the hashcode may be embedded in the content at the time the rendering module renders the content for the display device. Additionally, the hashcode may be embedded in the content by the rendering module. In some implementations, the hashcode may be embedded [applied] within a digital watermark [within the obtained input data].”; see also ¶¶ [0123]-[0126], “In some embodiments, to detect intentional or unintentional manipulations of the alternative data or wrong segment replacement, a hash value of the original [input] data to be replaced by one of the alternative data is computed [generated] and associated [applied] with each alternative data. The inserter can then perform an integrity validation by comparing the hash value computed from the original data to be replaced with the hash value associated with the replacing alternative data before any replacement.”);
3 combine the entangled data and the hash into output data (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “Additionally, the hashcode may be embedded [combined] in the content by the rendering module. In some implementations, the hashcode may be embedded within a digital watermark [output data].”)
Regarding the combination of Zhao and Sowa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the currentness system of Zhao to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the currentness system of Zhao, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a hash feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the currentness system of Sowa, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the hash feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the hash feature to the base currentness system of Zhao, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Zhao in view of Sowa (“Zhao-Sowa”) disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, and Zhao further discloses
wherein the device (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223]) is configured to generate the entangled data by entangling the obtained input data…1 (Fig. 7, ¶¶ [0123]-[0124])
Sowa further discloses
1 …with the current time or a periodically changing value as continuously changing counter (¶ [0025], “Digital watermark generator 170 may generate watermark data, which may include timestamp data (indicating the current time), and/or hashcode data of the display content 132 (indicating the current content as produced by the applications 165).”).
Regarding the combination of Zhao and Sowa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the currentness system of Zhao to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the currentness system of Zhao, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a timestamp feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the currentness system of Sowa, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the timestamp feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the timestamp feature to the base currentness system of Zhao, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4
Zhao-Sowa disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, and Zhao further discloses
wherein the device (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223]) is configured to…1
Sowa further discloses
1 …generate the hash by applying a hash function on the obtained input data and the continuously changing counter (¶ [0012], “The digital watermark may include a timestamp representing the time when the content is generated [obtained input data] by applications and/or a hashcode [via a hash function] of the content [continuously changing counter comprising the frame numbers of Zhao] generated by applications.”).
Regarding the combination of Zhao and Sowa, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 4.
Regarding Claim 5
Zhao-Sowa disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, and Zhao further discloses
wherein the device (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223]) is configured to output the hash with a lower data rate than the entangled data (¶ [0109], “ In these cases, the input video stream to the preprocessor should be in streaming-ready format such as fragmented MP4, MPEG Transport Stream, or MPEG Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) compatible video stream. In one exemplary embodiment, each video stream is divided into multiple segments, and all segments in all video streams with different bit rates at a specific temporal location are switchable under the request of the playback client. The preprocessor first generates inserter/extractor manifests from one of such multiple video streams (e.g., the video stream with the highest bit rate), and then uses such manifest(s) to guide the generation of inserter manifests for other video streams in such a way that 1) the inserter will insert the same watermark symbols [of the entangled data with the outputted hash] (if any) in a segment, independent of which video stream such a segment come from; and 2) the extractor can extract the watermarks with the aid of the extractor manifest (if required) from a content mixed from segments from all video streams with the different bit rates [and lower bit rate to ensure the ability for processing and determine currentness]. For example, assume that S1, S2, . . . Sn are the segments of the first video stream S at one bite rate, and S′1, S′2, . . . S′n are the corresponding segments of the second stream S′ at another bit rate. The guided preprocessing ensures that the same watermark symbol is embedded into either Si or S′i (1≦i≦n), and the watermark can be extracted with a single extractor manifest (if required) from the content delivered to the playback client, which may consists of segments from either S or S′.”).
Regarding Claim 6
Zhao discloses
A device…1 (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223], “For example, FIG. 18 illustrates a block diagram of a device 1800 within which various disclosed embodiments may be implemented.”), the device being configured to:
obtain input data transported over a transport medium, the input data including entangled data and a hash (¶ [0222], “Extraction investigation is a forensic investigation [of obtained input data] phase typically involving a manual process and/or an in-depth scrutiny of content to evaluate whether or not watermarks are present (even if their value cannot be ascertained) and to provide any other insight as to the origins or history [input data transported over a transport medium] of the content.”); and (Fig. 7, ¶¶ [0123]-[0124], “FIG. 7 shows two alternative data generated in accordance with an exemplary embodiment which may be stored in inserter manifest, In FIG. 7, w′9 through w′11 represent the watermark signals that carry the symbol ‘0’ for the selected frames B9 through B11, respectively.”, i.e., the counter is used to track the frames, and the introduction of the watermark comprises a modification or entanglement);
2 …;
generate untangled data by untangling the entangled data using a counter that has been used for entangling (¶ [0120], “As is well known in video compression, a compressed video stream, such as an MPEG stream or High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), comprises a series of frames, some of which require information [from the same counter] from the previous or future frames [i.e., frame count for reference] for decoding [untangling to reveal the original input data].”),
wherein the entangled data requires untangling by use of the same counter to reveal the original input data (¶ [0120]);
3 …;
; and
5 ….
Zhao doesn’t disclose
1 … for enabling detection of currentness of data, …
2 derive the entangled data and the hash from the obtained input data;
3 generate a check hash by applying a hash function on the untangled data;
4 compare the generated check hash with the derived hash;
5 determine currentness and validity of the generated untangled data based on the comparison of the generated check hash with the derived hash.
Sowa, however, discloses
1 … for enabling detection of currentness of data, … (Fig. 4, ¶ [0060], “Subsequently, at block 408, responsive to determining that the timestamp does not correspond to the current time of the computer system, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated.”)
2 derive the entangled data and the hash from the obtained input data (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “At block 506, the validation module may compare the embedded hashcode [from the entangled data and input data] to a current reference hashcode data. Subsequently, at block 508, responsive to determining that the embedded hashcode does not correspond to the current reference hashcode data, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated.”);
3 generate a check hash by applying a hash function on the untangled data (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “At block 506, the validation module may compare the embedded hashcode [from the entangled data and input data] to a current reference hashcode data. Subsequently, at block 508, responsive to determining that the embedded hashcode does not correspond to the current reference hashcode data, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated.”);
4 compare the generated check hash with the derived hash (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “At block 506, the validation module may compare the embedded hashcode to a current reference hashcode data. Subsequently, at block 508, responsive to determining [comparing] that the embedded hashcode [generated] does not correspond to the current reference [derived] hashcode data, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated.”);
5 determine currentness and validity of the generated untangled data based on the comparison of the generated check hash with the derived hash (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “At block 506, the validation module may compare the embedded hashcode to a current reference hashcode data. Subsequently, at block 508, responsive to determining [comparing] that the embedded hashcode [generated] does not correspond to the current reference [derived] hashcode data, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated [lacks currentness and validity].”).
Regarding the combination of Zhao and Sowa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the currentness system of Zhao to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the currentness system of Zhao, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a hash feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the currentness system of Sowa, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the hash feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the hash feature to the base currentness system of Zhao, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7
Zhao-Sowa disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, and Zhao further discloses
wherein the device (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223]) is configured to…1
Sowa further discloses
determine that the generated untangled data are current and valid if the generated check hash is identical to the derived hash (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], “At block 506, the validation module may compare the embedded hashcode to a current reference hashcode data. Subsequently, at block 508, responsive to determining [comparing] that the embedded hashcode [generated] does not correspond to the current reference [derived] hashcode data, the processing device may determine that the content rendered by the rendering module on the display device is outdated [lacks currentness and validity].”).
Regarding the combination of Zhao and Sowa, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 6 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 6 and 7.
Regarding Independent Claims 13 and 15
With respect to independent claims 13 and 15, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 13 and 15. Therefore, claims 13 and 15 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
B. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Sowa, and further in view of Verthein et al. (US 2020/0143013, “Verthein”).
Regarding Claim 3
Zhao-Sowa disclose the device as claimed in claim 1, and Zhao further discloses
wherein the device (Fig. 18, ¶ [0223]) is configured to…1
Zhao-Sowa doesn’t disclose
1 …generate the entangled data by entangling the obtained input data by applying an exclusive OR operation on bits or values of the obtained input data and the continuously changing counter or by scrambling the obtained input data and the continuously changing counter.
Verthein, however, discloses
1 …generate the entangled data by entangling the obtained input data by applying an exclusive OR operation on bits or values of the obtained input data and the continuously changing counter (Fig. 6, ¶ [0082], “Step 602 causes media [obtained input data] from the second region to be obfuscated with a key image to generate obfuscated [entangled] video data. The key image generally represents a digital image, such as a photograph, a digital drawing, a scanned image, and so forth. The media from the second region [comprising bits] can be obfuscated in various ways, such as using an suitable obfuscation, scrambling, and/or encryption protocol. In at least one implementation, the obfuscation is implemented [on the obtained input data] by performing an exclusive or (XOR) operation using the media from the second region and the key image as inputs to generate the obfuscated video data.”) or by scrambling the obtained input data and the continuously changing counter.
Regarding the combination of Zhao-Sowa and Verthein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the currentness system of Zhao-Sowa to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the currentness system of Zhao-Sowa, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of an exclusive OR feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the currentness screen system of Verthein, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the exclusive OR feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the exclusive OR feature to the base currentness system of Zhao-Sowa, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491