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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/02/2026. In the instant Amendment, 1 and 10 were amended, claims 4-5 and 13-14 are cancelled; claims 1 and 10 are independent claims, Claims 1-3, 6-12 and 15-19 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216) in view of Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) and further in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5)
Regarding claim 1, Chow discloses a computer-implemented method for managing digital evidence using a blockchain, the method comprising: (Chow, [0017] describes systems and method for storing, tracking, and authenticating documents using a distributed ledger; it generates a document image, modifies it, hashes it, and stores/tracks it via the ledger)
receiving an evidence data file, the evidence data file being identified by: (Chow, [0004]-[0005] describes receiving an original document [evidence data file])
an evidence identifier, and (Chow, [0004]-[0005], Abstract discloses receiving an original document, adds a unique identifier; [0005], claim 12, describes modifying the original document to include a unique image verification identifier; FIG 6, Step 706 append unique identifier to document image)
a hash code computed from the evidence data file; (Chow, [0004]-[0005], Abstract discloses receiving an original document, adds a unique identifier, generates a hash value and sends the hash to the distributed ledger)
performing an image transformation operation on at least part of the evidence data file to generate a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; (Chow, [0123] describes the document image may be modified using known image transforms including Hough, Radon, Discrete, discrete cosine transform, discrete Fourier transform and wavelet transforms; also see FIG 6; [0123]-[0124] describes starting with a document image file, performs an image transform and/or modification and hashes the modified document image)
generating a block by combining data indicative of: a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, (Chow, [0025]-[0028] describes conventional distributed-ledger transactions containing a cryptographic hash of one or more prior transactions with new transactions processed for inclusion in new blocks)
the evidence identifier, (Chow discloses [0122], discloses a unique identifier is appended to the original document and the unique identifier may be a document authentication identifier (DAI) and it can be inserted into the document image file including a header field or appended to the end of the file; [0017] describes the document image is modified using a unique identifier and then hashed for distributed-ledger tracking)
the hash code computed from the evidence data file, (Chow, [0004] describes sending the modified document hash for inclusion in the distributed ledger)
the image transformation operation, and (Chow, [0128] describes changes to the document may be recorded as transactions in the distributed ledger; [0123] identifies image transforms/modification functions as document-image changes)
storing the generated block as a new block in the blockchain; (Chow, [0026]-[0028] describes transaction data being processed and included in a new block, and additional blocks being appended to the distributed ledger)
receiving the user request to verify the authenticity of the evidence data file; (Chow, [0006], FIG 7, describes document verification that receives an unverified document image for verification and thereafter performs authentication; claims 20 being with receiving an unverified document image from a third party)
searching the blockchain for the evidence identifier identifying the evidence data wherein, if the requested evidence identifier is found in the blockchain, consulting the data in the block to every the authenticity of the image file; (Chow, [0133] describes retrieving the original-document hash by obtaining the distributed ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value is found, alternatively using a searchable database; [0006], [0133]-[0135], FIG 7, claim 20 describe retrieving the stored hash, compares it with the hash of the unverified document image and concludes the image is genuine when they match)
decoding and displaying the image file in response to the request from the user; and displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file, the authenticity indicator being indicative of the authenticity of the image file to notify a user viewing the authenticity indicator that the image file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain, (Chow, [0074], decrypt [decode]; [0044]-[0045], [0121] describes providing computer displays/GUI and document images; [0006] describes generating an authentication message when hashes match and a not-authenticated message when they differ; [0006] & FIG 7 further disclose authentication message results from comparing the unverified hash with the verified image hash retrieved from the distributed ledger)
Chow fails to explicitly disclose the hash code computed from the evidence data file; generating a block by combining data indicative of: a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed; and displaying the image file in response to the request from the user; and displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file
However, in an analogous art, Fisher discloses the hash code computed from the evidence data file; (Fisher, [0016], [0021] describe creating a hash from acquired digital data)
generating a block by combining data indicative of: a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed; and (Fisher, [0026], [0031] describe defining a timestamp as a time associated with creation or changing of digital data/content and the blockchain proves a file/hash existed at a given time)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fisher with
the method/system of Chow to include the hash code computed from the evidence data file; generating a block by combining data indicative of: a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed. One would have been motivated to provide a blockchain-based hash and timestamp verification to provide tamper-resistant proof of when digital content was created or changed and to provide a user-visible verification result (Fisher, [0021], [0026], and [0031]).
Chow and Fisher fail to explicitly disclose performing an image transformation operation on at least part of the evidence data file to generate a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; generating a block by combining data indicative of: a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, generating a block by combining data indicative of: the evidence identifier; generating a block by combining data indicative of: the image transformation operation, and a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed; storing the generated block as a new block in the blockchain; searching the blockchain for the evidence identifier identifying the evidence data wherein, if the requested evidence identifier is found in the blockchain, consulting the data in the block to every the authenticity of the image file; decoding and displaying the image file in response to the request from the user; and displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file, the authenticity indicator being indicative of the authenticity of the image file to notify a user viewing the authenticity indicator that the image file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Bhowmik discloses performing an image transformation operation on at least part of the evidence data file to generate a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; (Bhowmik, Pages 2-4, Section III. A, FIG 2 describes performing wavelet-based processing on an image were a wavelet transform is applied to an original image and coefficients are modified to embed the watermark. The original host image is transformed into a watermarked image ready for distribution; Pages 2-4, FIG 6 & Section III.A describe transformation preserves a visually usable image and the FIG 6 shows an original image to watermarked image to tampered image to reconstructed image. Its watermarking is described as being embedded in the host image while preserving and/or recovering the original media)
generating a block by combining data indicative of: a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, (Bhowmik, Page 2, Section II.A. describes each blockchain record/block is timestamped and linked to a previous block)
generating a block by combining data indicative of: the evidence identifier; (Bhowmik, Page 2, Section IIIB. FIG 2 describes recording the blockchain transaction ID a part of the image/media transaction information. Its watermark also contains the blockchain transaction ID used to retrieve the corresponding record and describes transaction and/or modification history, ownership and blockchain transaction ID are recorded)
generating a block by combining data indicative of: the image transformation operation, and (Bhowmik, Page 4, Section III.B, FIG 2 describes that blockchain public information records transaction and modification history of the image/media)
a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed; (Bhowmik, Pages 2 & 4, Section II.A and Section III.B describe blockchain timestamps; Each block is timestamped and its retrieved transaction record includes time of the transaction)
storing the generated block as a new block in the blockchain; (Bhowmik, Page 4, Section III.B describes an approved block is updated into the permanent distributed ledger and recorded by the network)
searching the blockchain for the evidence identifier identifying the evidence data wherein, if the requested evidence identifier is found in the blockchain, consulting the data in the block to every the authenticity of the image file; (Bhowmik, Page 2-3, Section III.B and FIG 4 describes passing the transaction ID to the distributed ledger to retrieve transaction details/history)
decoding and displaying the image file in response to the request from the user; and (Bhowmik, FIG 3 describes placing the image at the client awaiting authentication and reconstructs an image during authentication; FIG 6 displays the original, watermarked, tampered and reconstructed images; Also see Page 4, Section III.B/Results)
displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file, the authenticity indicator being indicative of the authenticity of the image file to notify a user viewing the authenticity indicator that the image file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain, (Bhowmik, Page 4, Section III.B, FIG 4 describes that if blockchain verification/tamper authentication fails, the image is not authentic)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bhowmik with
the method/system of Chow and Fisher to include performing an image transformation operation on at least part of the evidence data file to generate a transformed evidence data file in the form of an image file which, when decoded and viewed on a display screen, represents the appearance of at least part of the evidence data file; generating a block by combining data indicative of: a hash of a previous block in the blockchain, generating a block by combining data indicative of: the evidence identifier; generating a block by combining data indicative of: the image transformation operation, and a timestamp indicating the time at which the transformation operation was performed; storing the generated block as a new block in the blockchain; searching the blockchain for the evidence identifier identifying the evidence data wherein, if the requested evidence identifier is found in the blockchain, consulting the data in the block to every the authenticity of the image file; decoding and displaying the image file in response to the request from the user; and displaying an authenticity indicator to the user with the image file, the authenticity indicator being indicative of the authenticity of the image file to notify a user viewing the authenticity indicator that the image file is verified as authentic by the data in the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide multimedia authentication and tamper detection techniques to improve verification of document-image integrity and to detect or recover modifications to image content and to combine blockchain with self-embedded watermarking to provide tamper-proof verifiable media integrity and detect and/or recover editing attempts (Bhowmik, Pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a directed to a system. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Gault et al (“Gault,” US 20150052615).
Regarding claim 2, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow further discloses outputting the authenticity indicator to the user to verify the authenticity of the transformed evidence data file only if the evidence identifier is found the blockchain (Chow, [0133]-[0135] describes the system retrieves the original document’s hash from the distributed ledger by obtaining the ledger and traversing the ledger until the block containing the hash value of the original document is found then unpacking the hash from that block. Once the comparison succeeds: if the hashes match and the document is authenticated, the system generates an authentication message and transmits it to the verifying party)
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose receiving a user request to access an evidence data file; outputting the transformed evidence data file to the user, the transformed evidence data file being identified by the same evidence identifier as the evidence data file requested by the user; and outputting the authenticity indicator to the user to verify the authenticity of the transformed evidence data file only if the evidence identifier is found the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Gault discloses receiving a user request to access an evidence data file; (Gault, [0035] describes that the user captures/decodes the marking and the device accesses the network and submits the document identifier for verification which is a user-initiated request for the stored document)
outputting the transformed evidence data file to the user, the transformed evidence data file being identified by the same evidence identifier as the evidence data file requested by the user; and (Gault, [0041] describes using that identifier, the controller receives the corresponding document image, and the response component formats it and returns it via the network to the verifying device and retrieves the corresponding document image from the identifier-containing query; [0023] describes a received document identifier acts as a search key pointing to the corresponding stored record. The stored copy can then be accessed and/or viewed using that valid identifier)
outputting the authenticity indicator to the user to verify the authenticity of the transformed evidence data file only if the evidence identifier is found the blockchain (Gault, [0040] describes the verification device submits the query, receives the response and displays the associated stored image on the display 650; [0042] the retrieved digital document is verified before it is returned; if verification fails, the system instead generates an error message to the verifier; [0023], [0041] describes the identifier is the search key that points to the correct stored record; [0041] retrieves the corresponding document image based on the identifier-containing query. Retrieval/output depends on locating the record associated with the identifier)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gault with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include receiving a user request to access an evidence data file; outputting the transformed evidence data file to the user, the transformed evidence data file being identified by the same evidence identifier as the evidence data file requested by the user; and outputting the authenticity indicator to the user to verify the authenticity of the transformed evidence data file only if the evidence identifier is found the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide an identifier-based document retrieval and verification workflow to allow a user to request a particular document using its identifier, retrieve the corresponding stored document image, and verify that document before returning it to the user and provide a user access mechanism for authenticated documents (Gault, [0035], [0041] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920), Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) in view of Sweet et al (“Sweet,” US 20050028090) and further in view of Nara et al (“Nara,” US 20030056174).
Regarding claim 3, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file.
However, in an analogous art, Sweet discloses determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, (Sweet, [0069]-[0070], FIG 13 describes branching based on whether FetchDoc returns PDF pages or a non-PDF document; FIG 13 describes the two branches of the PDF to append to non-PDF to ConvertToPDF)
if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; (Sweet, [0070], FIG 13 describes if FetchDoc returns a non-PDF document, ConvertToPDF is called, which takes the non-PDF document and creates corresponding PDF pages; [0069]-[0070] discloses existing PDF pages are appended to the end of the target while converted non-PDF pages created from additional non-PDF documents are also appended to that same target document)
wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file, (Sweet, [0069]-[0070] describes PDF pages from one document are appended to the target document, and PDF pages created from additional non-PDF documents are also appended to that same target document. The transformation of the non-PDF document produces corresponding PDF pages that are appended to the target document. The resulting target/composite PDF is the output of the transformation and collision process)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sweet with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include determining if the evidence data file is a Portable Document Format (PDF) file and, if the evidence data file is not a PDF file, performing a transformation operation to convert the evidence data file into a PDF file; collating the evidence data file with at least one further evidence data file to create a composite PDF file; wherein the composite PDF file is the transformed evidence data file. One would have been motivated to provide a PDF normalization and document integration technique so that evidence files of differing formats could be converted, when necessary into a common PDF representation and combined into a single paginated document for consistent storage, review and output (Sweet, [0028], [0069] and [0070]).
Chow, Fisher, Bhowmik and Sweet fail to explicitly disclose and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file,
However, in an analogous art, Nara discloses and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file, (Nara, [0106]-[0108], Figures 17-18 describe a page numbering function including assigning +serial numbers throughout the document. When selected, the first through last pages are serially numbered throughout the book/document. When page numbering is selected, a page number is added to a header/footer in the designated format)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nara with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher, Bhowmik and Sweet to include and paginating the composite PDF file by inserting page numbers onto the pages of the composite PDF file. One would have been motivated to provide a page-numbering technique to provide orderly and consistent pagination of the combined document (Nara, [0005], [0106] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Mercuri et al (“Mercuri,” US 20190013934).
Regarding claim 6, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location.
However, in an analogous art, Mercuri discloses wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location, (Mercuri discloses wherein the block [0066] of the blockchain [0020] comprises data indicative of: location data [0038], [0087] if the evidence data file [0112] is processed at a remote location [0058])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mercuri with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include wherein the block of the blockchain comprises data indicative of: location data if the evidence data file is processed at a remote location. One would have been motivated to provide a computer system that interfaces with a blockchain to store data and interact with blocks on the blockchain (Mercuri, [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is a directed to the system of claim 13. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Muftic et al (“Muftic,” US 9,635,000).
Regarding claim 7, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Muftic discloses wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain, (Muftic discloses wherein part of the data in the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) is accessible to the public (Col. 6, Lines 34-45) and another part of the data in the blockchain is private (Col. 12, Lines 12-17; Col. 14, Lines 10-15; Col. 6, Lines 34-49) and only accessible by authorised users (Col. 12, Lines 35-42; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) and the method comprises: permitting access (Col. 6, Lines 34-49; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) to the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) if the user is authorised to access (Col. 12, Lines 35-42; Col. 11, Lines 34-43) to the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) and preventing access (Col. 3, Lines 27-29; Col. 12, Lines 63-67) the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34) if the user is not authorised (Col. 9, Lines 14-20; Col. 12, Lines 63-67) to access the blockchain (Col. 15, Lines 29-34))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Muftik with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include wherein part of the data in the blockchain is accessible to the public and another part of the data in the blockchain is private and only accessible by authorised users and the method comprises: permitting access to the blockchain if the user is authorised to access to the blockchain and preventing access the blockchain if the user is not authorised to access the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide identity management systems that support user security, privacy, and anonymity for their identity and transaction data (Muftic, Col. 1, Line 67; Col. 2, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Ma et al (“Ma,” US 20060072833).
Regarding claim 8, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution.
However, in analogous art, Ma discloses wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution, (Ma discloses wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file [0006] at a first resolution [0006] at a client computing device [0022] to display the image file [0006] to the user [0016] and, in response to a further user request [0016], receiving the image file [0006] at a second resolution [0006] at the client computing device [0022] to display the image file [0006], [0016] to the user [0016], the second resolution [0006] being higher than the first resolution [0003])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ma with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include wherein the method comprises: receiving the image file at a first resolution at a client computing device to display the image file to the user and, in response to a further user request, receiving the image file at a second resolution at the client computing device to display the image file to the user, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution One would have been motivated to provide a method and system for transmitting an image progressively (Ma, [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Palmeri et al (“Palmeri,” WO2015035396).
Regarding claim 9, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the method of claim 1.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API).
However, in an analogous art, Palmeri discloses wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API), (Palmeri discloses [0217] wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator [0217] through a public Application Programming Interface (API) [0046], [0194]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Palmeri with
the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include wherein the method comprises: obtaining the authenticity indicator through a public Application Programming Interface (API). One would have been motivated to provide networked data communications services on server computers that can be called by remote applications on mobile computing devices to invoke messaging or communications functions (Palmeri, [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is a directed to the system of claim 10. Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al (“Chow,” US 20170048216), Fisher et al (“Fisher,” US 20160283920) in view of Bhowmik et al (“Bhowmik,” “The Multimedia Blockchain: A Distributed and Tamper-Proof Media Transaction Framework,” 2017, Pages 1-5) and further in view of Mercuri et al (“Mercuri’ 948,” US 20190013948).
Regarding claim 19, Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik disclose the system of claim 10.
Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik fail to explicitly disclose wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain.
However, in an analogous art, Mercuri ‘948 discloses wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain, (Mercuri 948’ describes wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) [0048] which enables a user [0049] to access data [0056] in a copy of the blockchain [0113], [0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mercuri ‘948 with the method/system of Chow, Fisher and Bhowmik to include wherein the system comprises an Application Programming Interface (API) which enables a user to access data in a copy of the blockchain. One would have been motivated to provide a computer system that interfaces with a blockchain and Internet of Things systems to store data and interact with blocks on the blockchain (Mercuri ‘948, [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
