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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because comprising should be changed to comprises.
Claim 17 is objected to because an authentication server should be the authentication server.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Pereira (20160085994).
Regarding claim 1, Ur teaches a method, performed by an authentication server, comprising receiving original content from a user device (pars. 32 and 78),
determining whether the original content has been altered by performing an authentication process on the original content (par. 79, compliance check),
based on the original content passing the authentication process, obtaining authentication information of the original content (par. 84).
Ur stores that identifier in an identifier database (par. 85) and states separately that the server may store the entire media (par. 48).
Ur does not disclose the original content and the authentication information stored together in a single original content database.
Pereira teaches storing the original content and the authentication information of the original content together in an original content database, keyed to one another (par. 31 and 40-42)
providing a content authentication service based on the authentication information (par. 39)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur the verified media together with its identifier in a single referenceable store as taught by Pereira in order to allow the verified original itself to be retrieved by reference to the identifier.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 54 of Ur.
Regarding claim 7, see Pereira pars. 39 and 40.
Regarding claim 9, see Ur par. 29.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Pereira (20160085994) in further view of Harple (20140362236).
Regarding claim 2, Ur teaches that the original content is sensor data generated by a sensor of the user device (par. 31).
Ur does not teach that the sensor data is in a secure state.
Harple teaches sensor data held in a secure state on the capturing device (par. 12 and par. 24, encryption).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur and Pereira the ability to hold the captured sensor data in a secure state as taught by Harple in order to protect the captured data from unauthorized alteration.
Regarding claim 3, see Harple pars. 12 and 18, encrypting and isolating.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Pereira (20160085994) in view of Harple (20140362236) and in further view of Motta (20130307999).
Regarding claim 5, Motta teaches receiving the image sensor data from the user device in a state in which a portion of an image signal processing pipeline of the user device has not been applied to the image sensor data (pars. 12 and 15, raw data for camera isp).
and generating improved original content by the service applying, to the image sensor data, an alternative ISP pipeline corresponding to the unapplied portion of the ISP pipeline of the user device (par. 46-47, processed version to improve quality)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur, Pereira and Harple the ability to receive image sensor data with part of the device pipeline in order to obtain a higher quality authenticated image).
Regarding claim 6, see Motta pars. 16 and 19.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Pereira (20160085994) in view of Lev-Ami (20210224357) and in further view of Alattar (20210233204).
Regarding claim 8, Lev-Ami teaches the claimed actors and the identifier exchange between a social network service server and the authentication server (par. 31).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur and Pereira the social-media-server exchange taught by Lev-Ami in order to identify altered content at the platform.
Alattar teaches the remaining data flow, namely the submission of input content, its comparison against the stored original, and the return of the comparison result. (see par. 117)
comparing the original content of the original content database with the input content based on the instance of the authentication information (par. 75),
and transmitting a result of the comparing (par. 121)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur, Pereira and Lev-Ami, identifier-keyed comparison and result reporting as taught by Alattar in order to identify altered content at the platform that distributes it, before that content is disseminated further.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Pereira (20160085994) in further view of Genner (10635894).
Regarding claim 10, Genner teaches an authentication process in which a liveness detection algorithm is applied at a server to content received from a user device (abstract and col. 5 line 40 to col 6 line 16).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur and Pereira the ability to apply a liveness detection algorithm to the received content as taught by Genner in order to reject content that was recaptured from a screen or from a printed photograph.
Claims 11, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Harple (20140362236) in further view of Lev-Ami (20210224357).
Regarding claim 11, Harple teaches that when sensor data is generated by a sensor, the sensor data is stored on the user device in a secure state (par. 12),
transmitting the sensor data in the secure state to an authentication server as original content (Harple par. 24),
Lev-Ami teaches receiving authentication information of the original content from the authentication server, the authentication information generated by the authentication server based on the original content (par. 28),
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Harple the return of the server generated content identifier to the capturing device taught by Lev-Ami in order to protect the captured data.
Ur teaches transmitting a request for a content authentication service to the authentication server based on the authentication information (Ur pars. 86 and 100).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Harple and Lev-Amir the ability to transmit a request for content authentication as taught by Ur. The reason is to allow the system to communicate.
Regarding claim 12, see Harple pars. 12 and 18.
Regarding claim 15, the selecting mode is not explained in the claim. See par. 38 of Harple, determine location.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Harple (20140362236) in view of Lev-Ami (20210224357) and in further view of Andiappan (20160056964).
Regarding claim 13, Harple teaches that the sensor data from the sensor is stored in a security storage of the user device (par. 18).
Andiappan teaches that the securing and the transmitting are performed by a security processor of the user device using a security protocol (pars. 34 and 41).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur and Harple the dedicated security engine and secure channel taught by Andiappan in order to establish the integrity of the sensor data.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ur (20220237266) in view of Harple (20140362236) in view of Lev-Ami (20210224357) and in further view of Pereira (20160085994).
Regarding claim 14, Pereira teaches receiving the sensor data corresponding to the authentication information from the authentication server based on the content authentication service (pars. 39-40).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ur, Harple and Lev-Ami the ability to return the stored original to the requesting device as taught by Pereira in order to let the requester obtain the authenticated original.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lev-Ami (20210224357) in view of Pereira (20160085994).
Regarding claim 16, Lev-Ami teaches a method performed by a social network service server (par. 28 and 47)
transmitting the authentication information to an authentication server and, in response, receiving the content from the authentication server (pars. 28 and 31).
Pereira teaches publishing the received original content as a post on an account of the first user device (pars. 33 and 42).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lev-Ami the publication of the retrieved authenticated content as a post on the capturing user's platform account as taught by Pereira in order to place the verified original in the location where platform viewers encounter the content.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lev-Ami (20210224357) in view of Pereira (20160085994) in view of Alattar (20210233204) and in further view of Krishnaswamy (9501684).
Regarding claim 17, Lev-Ami supplies the social network service server and authentication server architecture and the identifier exchange between them (par. 31).
Alattar teaches the submitted input content and the identifier-keyed comparison performed on it (pars. 51, 75 and 117)
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lev-Ami the relay of a submitted content item and its identifier as taught by Alattar in order to inform platform viewers whether the copy presented to them differs from the registered original.
Krishnaswamy teaches a comparison result between the retrieved original and the submitted content (see the abstract and col. 2 lines 60-68)).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Lev-Ami and Alattar the ability to return a comparison result as taught by Krishnaswamy in order to determine a difference.
Regarding claim 18, see pars. 31 and 59 of Pereira
Regarding claim 19, see the abstract of Krishnaswamy.
Regarding claim 20, see Alattar par. 121
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Stack et al. (9300678) teaches application-controlled image capture in which time and geographic restrictions are used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights