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 .
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 [4] recites the limitation " the data hash” " in line [1]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim [5] recites the limitation " the first perceptual hash” " in line [1]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim [6] recites the limitation " the stored fingerprint" in line [1]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim [7] recites the limitation " the stored fingerprint” " in line [1]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims [1+2, 3-9 and 10+11] are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims [1-9] of US. PAT. No. [12, 120, 282]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims [1+2, 3-9, and 10+11] of the current application are an obvious variant and encompassed by claims [1-9] of US. PAT. No. [12, 120, 282].
Examiner note: in the above claim [a+ b] signifies the addition of a given clam scope.
Below is the table showing the conflicting claims
US. 2025/0330546
US. PAT. No. 12, 120, 282
1. A trusted media device for a digital camera, comprising: a housing, wherein the housing comprises a portion configured to insert into a corresponding receptable of the digital camera a processor disposed within the housing; an image sensor disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor; a hardware security module disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor; and computer-readable media disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor, the computer-readable media having executable code stored thereon, the executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes the processor to generate a trusted image file based on a digital image captured by the digital camera. 2. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining the digital image from the digital camera, the digital image stored as an image file comprising the digital image and metadata; obtaining a second image from the trusted media device; computing a data hash of the second image; determining a first fingerprint from the digital image; determining a second fingerprint from the second image; conducting a fingerprint authentication, comprising: determining that the first fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera; and determining that the second fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a first perceptual hash of the digital image; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a second perceptual hash of the second image; determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash; and creating, in response to determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash, the trusted image file, the trusted image file comprising the digital image, the metadata, the data hash, the second perceptual hash, and a signature.
1. A trusted media device for a digital camera, comprising: a housing, wherein the housing comprises a portion configured to insert into a corresponding receptable of the digital camera; a processor; an image sensor accessible by the processor; a hardware security module accessible by the processor; and computer-readable media accessible by the processor and having executable code stored thereon, the executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes the processor to generate a trusted image file based on a digital image captured by the digital camera, wherein the set of instructions cause the processor to perform operations comprising: obtaining the digital image from the digital camera, the digital image stored as an image file comprising the digital image and metadata; obtaining a second image from the trusted media device; computing a data hash of the second image; determining a first fingerprint from the digital image; determining a second fingerprint from the second image; conducting a fingerprint authentication, comprising: determining that the first fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera; and determining that the second fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a first perceptual hash of the digital image; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a second perceptual hash of the second image; determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash; and creating, in response to determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash, the trusted image file, the trusted image file comprising the digital image, the metadata, the data hash, the second perceptual hash, and a signature.
3. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the digital image is stored in RAW image format.
2. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the digital image is stored in RAW image format.
4. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the data hash uses a SHA256 hash.
3. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the data hash uses a SHA256 hash.
5. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the first perceptual hash and the second perceptual hash each use scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT).
4. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the first perceptual hash and the second perceptual hash each use scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT).
6. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera comprises a Photo Response Non-Uniformity (PRNU) fingerprint associated with an image sensor of the digital camera.
5. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera comprises a Photo Response Non-Uniformity (PRNU) fingerprint associated with an image sensor of the digital camera.
7. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device comprises a Photo Response Non-Uniformity (PRNU) fingerprint associated with the image sensor of the trusted media device.
6. The trusted media device of claim 1, wherein the stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device comprises a Photo Response Non-Uniformity (PRNU) fingerprint associated with the image sensor of the trusted media device.
8. The trusted media device of claim 1, comprising a universal serial bus (USB) connector.
7. The trusted media device of claim 1, comprising a universal serial bus (USB) connector.
9. The trusted media device of claim 1, comprising a battery.
8. The trusted media device of claim 1, comprising a battery.
10. A method for created a trusted image file using a trusted media device for a digital camera, comprising: obtaining a first image from the digital camera, the first image stored as an image file comprising the first image and metadata; obtaining a second image from the trusted media device; computing a data hash of the second image; conducting a fingerprint authentication, comprising: determining that a first fingerprint of the first image matches a stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera; and determining that a second fingerprint of the digital image matches a stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device; comparing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a first identifier associated with the first image with a second identifier associated with the second image; determining that the first identifier matches the second identifier; and creating, in response to determining that the first identifier matches the second perceptual hash, a trusted image file, the trusted image file comprising the digital image, the metadata, the data hash, and a signature. 11. The method of claim 10, wherein comparing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a first identifier associated with the first image with a second identifier associated with the second image comprises: computing a first perceptual hash of the first image; and computing a second perceptual hash of the second image.
9. A method for created a trusted image file using a trusted media device for a digital camera, comprising: obtaining a first image from the digital camera, the first image stored as an image file comprising the first image and metadata; obtaining a second image from the trusted media device; computing a data hash of the second image; determining a first fingerprint from the first image; determining a second fingerprint from the second image; conducing a fingerprint authentication, comprising: determining that the first fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera; and determining that the second fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a first perceptual hash of the first image; computing, in response to the fingerprint authentication, a second perceptual hash of the second image; determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash; and creating, in response to determining that the first perceptual hash matches the second perceptual hash, a trusted image file, the trusted image file comprising the digital image, the metadata, the data hash, the second perceptual hash, and a signature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. Claim(s) [1, 3-4 and 8-9] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US. 2002/0093583) in view of Friedman (US. PAT. No. 5, 499, 294).
Reclaim [1], Ito discloses a trusted media device for a digital camera (see fig. 9, by the virtue of capturing and storing image data as described in the text of ¶0058, the entire system), comprising: a housing, wherein the housing comprises a portion configured to insert into a corresponding receptable of the digital camera (see 100 fig. 9, the cradle); a processor (see 52 fig. 9) disposed within the housing; an image sensor disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor (see 66 fig. 9 and ¶0058, a central processing unit (CPU) 52 has control over each circuit in the digital camera 10 based on input from an operation section 54 including the aforementioned image-capturing/reproduction mode selecting switch 24); a hardware security module disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor (see 64 fig. 9, digital signal processor); and computer-readable media disposed within the housing and accessible by the processor (see ¶0063, a flash memory 70 has a program accessed by processing circuit 64), the computer-readable media having executable code stored thereon (see ¶0063, a flash memory 70 has a program which is executable code),
Ito discloses a Flash memory storing a program (see ¶0062). However Ito doesn’t seem to explicitly disclose the executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes the processor to generate a trusted image file based on a digital image captured by the digital camera.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Friedman discloses an image capturing system as Ito (see for example, Friedman fig. 3A). Friedman further discloses executable code comprising a set of instructions that causes the processor to generate a trusted image file based on a digital image captured by the digital camera (see col.5 lines 51-61, the digital camera 11 produces from a contained processor 12 two output files for each captured image as shown in FIG. 3a: the first is an all-digital, industry standard format image file representing the captured image. The second would be an encrypted digital signature of the image file produced as shown in FIG. 3b by using the camera's unique private key (embedded within the digital camera's secure microprocessor 12b) to encrypt a hash of the captured image file (produced by hashing microprocessor 12a) for creating an encrypted image hash, [the program code is include in the working memory of the processor for encrypting the image file by the processor]).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Ito by the teachings of Friedman before the effective filling date of the claimed invention since this would allow to create an image having a digital signature; and thereby enhancing image reliability and usability.
Reclaim [3] Ito as modified further discloses, wherein the digital image is stored in RAW image format (see Friedman col. 5 lines 64-65, transmitted directly to a digital processor's memory for later authenticating and viewing the captured image).
Reclaim [4] Ito as modified further discloses, wherein the data hash uses a SHA256 hash (see Friedman col. 10 lines 51-58, It would be wise for a manufacturer of such digital cameras to regularly upgrade and enhance the sophistication of the encryption implementation as newer camera models are introduced, typically those using longer encryption/decryption key lengths and improved encryption/decryption and hash algorithms [by the virtue of regularly updating the hash algorithm as discloses in the text of col. 10 lines 51-58, , the prior art encompasses the claimed hash version).
Reclaim [8] Ito as modified further discloses, comprising a universal serial bus (USB) connector (see Ito 140 fig. 9) .
Reclaim [9] Ito as modified further discloses comprising a battery (see Ito 76 fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [18-20] are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter
Reclaim [18[ none of the prior arts on the record either . singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests: A method for created a trusted image file using a trusted media device for a digital camera, comprising: obtaining a second image from the trusted media device; computing a data hash of the second image; determining a first noise fingerprint from the first image by denoising the first image and subtracting the denoised first image from the first image to obtain a first fingerprint; determining a second fingerprint from the second image by denoising the second image and subtracting the denoised second image from the second image to obtain a second fingerprint; conducting a fingerprint authentication, comprising: determining that the first fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the digital camera; and determining that the second fingerprint matches a stored fingerprint associated with the trusted media device; determining that a first identifier associated with the first image matches a second identifier associated with the second image; and creating, in response to determining that the first identifier matches the second identifier, a trusted image file, the trusted image file comprising the digital image, the metadata, the data hash, and a signature; in conjunction with the other limitation of the claim.
Claims [19-20] are allowed due to their direct or indirect dependency on claim [18].
Claims [13-17] are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barrus (US. PAT. No. 8, 447, 989) discloses: is a flow diagram of one embodiment of a process for verifying a media data file. The process is performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (circuitry, dedicated logic, etc.), software (such as is run on a general purpose computer system or a dedicated machine), or a combination of both. Although the process of FIG. 10 discusses the verification and authentication of image files, the process applies to any type of media data, metadata, or other sensor data. In col. 20 lines 54-61.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639