Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered, and they are not persuasive based on the new references of KUNITO (US 20220279120 – called Kunito’120); specifically, Kunito’120 teaches “edition parameter related to the edition processing by the external device” (e.g. [0182] - The edition parameter 34 is metadata added to the image data 31 at a timing when the image data 31 acquired from the imaging device 1 is edited, and includes various parameters used when the editing device 70 executes the image editing processing such as the white balance processing or the contrast adjustment processing on the image data 31) in which a hash value is calculated based on the present of the edition parameter 34 (e.g., [0193] - The re-signature data 35 is generated by calculating a hash value using the edited image data 31a, the pre-edit additional data 32, and the edition parameter 34 and encrypting the calculated hash value using a secret key in the public key encryption system); therefore, Kunito teaches the claimed “the second determining unit compares development parameters used in the development processing and RAW development parameters included in the RAW image file including the RAW image data, to determine whether or not the image editing has been performed in the development processing” (e.g., [0207] - By calculating the hash value including not only the image data 31 but also the metadata corresponding to the image data 31, at the time of comparison with the image data 31 to be verified in verification processing by the verification device 4 side, the comparison can be performed including the metadata at the time of imaging). Accordingly, the claimed invention as represented in the claims does not represent a patentable distinction over the art of record.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNITO (WO 2020246166 A1) in view of NAKAMA et al (WO 2020246166), and further in view of KUNITO (US 20220279120 – called Kunito’120).
As per claim 1, Kunito teaches the claimed "image processing apparatus" comprising: "at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the processor storing instructions" (Kunito, page 3 - As shown in FIG. 3, the imaging device 1 includes an optical system 11, a driver unit 12, an imaging unit 13, a camera signal processing unit 15, a recording control unit 16, a presentation unit 17, a communication unit 18, an operation unit 19, and a camera control unit 20. The analysis unit 21, the connector unit 22, the memory unit 23, and the sensor unit 24) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as: "an obtaining unit that obtains RAW image data generated by photographing" (Kunito, page 3 - As a device that can be an image processing device, an image pickup device 1 having an image pickup function such as a digital still camera 1A or a digital video camera 1B, a mobile terminal 2 such as a smartphone having an image pickup function, and the like are assumed); "a processing unit that performs a development processing with respect to the RAW image data" (Kunito, page 3 - For example, in the image pickup device 1, a microcomputer or the like inside the image pickup device 1 performs various processes on the captured image data. Since the mobile terminal 2 also has an imaging function, it is possible to perform various processing on the captured image data based on the captured image data acquired by imaging); "a first determining unit that determines whether or not the RAW image data has been falsified" (Kunito, page 17 - In step S210, the verification device 4 determines whether the calculated hash value of the verification target and the hash value of the registered signature data are the same. If they are not the same, it is probable that either the captured image data to be verified and the metadata corresponding to the captured image data have been tampered with). It is noted that Kunito does not teach, but Nakama teaches "a second determining unit that determines whether or not image editing has been performed in the development processing" (Nakama, [0291] - The image editing application 552 generates a digital signature of the edited image #2, adds the digital signature to the image #2, and outputs the digital signature together with the editing histories #1 and #2, the watermarked image, and the contour image; [0304] - Note that, the image editing application 571 verifies the digital signature of the image #2, and can perform editing of the image #2 and subsequent processing by the image editing application 571 only in a case where verification is successful. The same applies to the image editing applications 581 and 591; [0317] - Moreover, in response to the request for determination of the authenticity of the image #4, the authenticity determination server 523 requests and acquires the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 related to the image #4 are written, from the P2P network 522 via the network 520); furthermore, Nakama teaches "a generating unit that generates an image file including developed image data generated by the development processing" (Nakama, [0250]-[0251] - The information addition unit 404 adds additional data to the image output by the JPEG image generation unit 403 as necessary, and outputs the image. As the additional data, for example, it is possible to adopt GPS data indicating a position, a time, and a posture of the imaging element 401 at the time of capturing an image output by the JPEG image generation unit 403, metadata such as time data, and gyro data, and the like... In addition, the information addition unit 404 can add, for example, a history of processing performed on the image output by the imaging element 401, for example, a history of modification such as editing and encoding, to the image output by the JPEG image generation unit 403; [0317] - in response to the request for determination of the authenticity of the image #4, the authenticity determination server 523 requests and acquires the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 related to the image #4 are written, from the P2P network 522 via the network 520; [0322] - The authenticity determination server 523 determines the authenticity (and the reality) of the image #4 depending on the verification result of the digital signature, the image #4, the watermarked image, the contour image, the editing histories #1 to #4, and the like, and transmits a determination result thereof to the information terminal 514 that has made the request for the authenticity determination via the network 520), "wherein the generating unit, in a case of being determined that the image editing has not been performed in a development processing of RAWimage data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, adds information indicating that the image editing has not been performed to an image file including developed image data generated by the said development processing" (Nakama, [0304] - Note that, the image editing application 571 verifies the digital signature of the image #2, and can perform editing of the image #2 and subsequent processing by the image editing application 571 only in a case where verification is successful. The same applies to the image editing applications 581 and 591; [0321] - the authenticity determination server 523 verifies that the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 are written has not been falsified, and acquires the editing histories #1 to #4 from the blockchain; [0322]-[0323] - The authenticity determination server 523 determines the authenticity (and the reality) of the image #4 depending on the verification result of the digital signature, the image #4, the watermarked image, the contour image, the editing histories #1 to #4, and the like, and transmits a determination result thereof to the information terminal 514 that has made the request for the authenticity determination via the network 520... The information terminal 514 receives the determination result of the authenticity from the authenticity determination server 523, and presents (displays, for example) the determination result to the user), and, "in a case of being determined that the image editing has been performed in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, adds information indicating that the image editing has been performed to an image file including developed image data generated by the said development processing" (Nakama, [0304] - Note that, the image editing application 571 verifies the digital signature of the image #2, and can perform editing of the image #2 and subsequent processing by the image editing application 571 only in a case where verification is successful. The same applies to the image editing applications 581 and 591; [0321] - the authenticity determination server 523 verifies that the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 are written has not been falsified, and acquires the editing histories #1 to #4 from the blockchain; [0322]-[0323] - The authenticity determination server 523 determines the authenticity (and the reality) of the image #4 depending on the verification result of the digital signature, the image #4, the watermarked image, the contour image, the editing histories #1 to #4, and the like, and transmits a determination result thereof to the information terminal 514 that has made the request for the authenticity determination via the network 520... The information terminal 514 receives the determination result of the authenticity from the authenticity determination server 523, and presents (displays, for example) the determination result to the user).
Furthermore, Kunito’120 teaches “edition parameter related to the edition processing by the external device” (e.g. [0182] - The edition parameter 34 is metadata added to the image data 31 at a timing when the image data 31 acquired from the imaging device 1 is edited, and includes various parameters used when the editing device 70 executes the image editing processing such as the white balance processing or the contrast adjustment processing on the image data 31) in which a hash value is calculated based on the present of the edition parameter 34 (e.g., [0193] - The re-signature data 35 is generated by calculating a hash value using the edited image data 31a, the pre-edit additional data 32, and the edition parameter 34 and encrypting the calculated hash value using a secret key in the public key encryption system); therefore, Kunito teaches the claimed “the second determining unit compares development parameters used in the development processing and RAW development parameters included in the RAW image file including the RAW image data, to determine whether or not the image editing has been performed in the development processing” (e.g., [0207] - By calculating the hash value including not only the image data 31 but also the metadata corresponding to the image data 31, at the time of comparison with the image data 31 to be verified in verification processing by the verification device 4 side, the comparison can be performed including the metadata at the time of imaging).
Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Nakama and Kunito’120, to configure Kunito's apparatus as claimed by performing the authentic verification of the received image before the modification/editing of the received image. The motivation is to enhance the integrity of received data (i.e., possible to know whether the image data is an image falsified (subjected to inappropriate image processing)).
Claim 2 adds into claim 1 "wherein the obtaining unit obtains an image file including the RAW image data, development parameters used in generating the RAW image data, metadata recording information at a time of photographing, and authenticity guarantee information that guarantees authenticity of the RAW image data" (Kunito, page 8 - Based on the characteristics of the captured image data, the setting unit 27 selects the metadata related to the authenticity verification from the metadata including the information of a plurality of items corresponding to the captured image data, and is related to the authenticity verification), and "the first determining unit determines whether or not the RAW image data has been falsified by using the authenticity guarantee information, the RAW image data, the development parameters, and the metadata" (Kunito, page 17 - the verification device 4 proceeds with the process in step S209, and the captured image data recorded in the image file to be verified and the captured image data are combined. The hash value is calculated using the corresponding metadata.. The verification device 4 determines whether the calculated hash value of the verification target and the hash value of the registered signature data are the same).
Claim 3 adds into claim 1 "wherein the second determining unit, in a case that development parameters at a time of photographing have been used in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified" (Nakama, [0304] - Note that, the image editing application 571 verifies the digital signature of the image #2, and can perform editing of the image #2 and subsequent processing by the image editing application 571 only in a case where verification is successful. The same applies to the image editing applications 581 and 591; [0321] - the authenticity determination server 523 verifies that the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 are written has not been falsified, and acquires the editing histories #1 to #4 from the blockchain), "determines that image editing has not been performed in the development processing" (Nakama, [0322]-[0323] - The authenticity determination server 523 determines the authenticity (and the reality) of the image #4 depending on the verification result of the digital signature, the image #4, the watermarked image, the contour image, the editing histories #1 to #4, and the like, and transmits a determination result thereof to the information terminal 514), and "in a case that development parameters that have been changed since the time of photographing have been used in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, determines that image editing has been performed in the said development processing" (Kunito, [0317] - in response to the request for determination of the authenticity of the image #4, the authenticity determination server 523 requests and acquires the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 related to the image #4 are written, from the P2P network 522 via network 520). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Nakama and Kunito’120, to configure Kunito's apparatus as claimed by performing the modification/editing of the received image knowing the received image before has not been falsified. The motivation is to enhance the integrity of received data (i.e., possible to know whether the image data is an image falsified (subjected to inappropriate image processing)).
Claim 4 adds into claim 3 "wherein the development parameters are parameters related to at least one of a white balance, a color tone, a color density, a contrast, and a sharpness" (Kunito, page 7 - The information of a plurality of items corresponding to the captured image data is information regarding the state of the imaging device 1 at the time of imaging, and is, for example, "distance to the subject", "focal length of the imaging lens", "imaged position", and the like. "Brightness of imaging environment (EV value)", "Sensitivity (ISO sensitivity)", "Aperture (F value) set value", "Shutter speed (SS value)", "Date and time of imaging", "Temperature", "Pressure" and so on. The information of a plurality of items corresponding to the captured image data is used as metadata related to the authenticity verification described later).
Claim 5 adds into claim 1 "wherein the second determining unit, in a case that a trimming processing has not been performed in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, determines that image editing has not been performed in the said development processing" (Nakama, [0304] - Note that, the image editing application 571 verifies the digital signature of the image #2, and can perform editing of the image #2 and subsequent processing by the image editing application 571 only in a case where verification is successful. The same applies to the image editing applications 581 and 591) (Noted: Trimming process as defined in the Specification, [0020] - a trimming processing that adjusts a display range or a recording range of the image data by hiding unnecessary parts of the image data, is just a well-known image modification; see Kunito, page 7 - The information of a plurality of items corresponding to the captured image data is information regarding the state of the imaging device 1 at the time of imaging, and is, for example, "distance to the subject"), and, "in a case that the trimming processing has been performed in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, determines that image editing has been performed in the said development processing" (Nakama, [0317] - in response to the request for determination of the authenticity of the image #4, the authenticity determination server 523 requests and acquires the blockchain in which the editing histories #1 to #4 related to the image #4 are written, from the P2P network 522 via the network 520; [0322]-[0323] - The authenticity determination server 523 determines the authenticity (and the reality) of the image #4 depending on the verification result of the digital signature, the image #4, the watermarked image, the contour image, the editing histories #1 to #4, and the like, and transmits a determination result thereof to the information terminal 514). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Nakama and Kunito’120, to configure Kunito's apparatus as claimed by performing the modification/editing of the received image; specifically, a trimming process related to the display range. The motivation is to modify the captured image to enhance the visual representation of the data on display.
Claim 6 adds into claim 5 "wherein the trimming processing is performed based on an aspect ratio that has been set at a time of photographing" (Kunito, page 7 - The information of a plurality of items corresponding to the captured image data is information regarding the state of the imaging device 1 at the time of imaging, and is, for example, "distance to the subject").
Claim 7 adds into claim 1 "wherein the generating unit, in a case that a processing of changing an image size has been performed in a development processing of RAW image data that has been determined by the first determining unit to have not been falsified, adds the information indicating that the image editing has not been performed to an image file including developed image data generated by the development processing" which is obvious in case the regional changing does not effect to the captured image's quality and/or image authentication, and the received image is still regarded as authentic and unedited. The motivation is to maintain the integrity of the received image when the process applied on the image is trivial or does not affect to a defined "quality" of the image.
Claim 8 adds into claim 1 "wherein the image processing apparatus is an image pickup apparatus that photographs a subject and generates the RAW image data" (Kunito, page 3 - As a device that can be an image processing device, an image pickup device 1 having an image pickup function such as a digital still camera 1A or a digital video camera 1B, a mobile terminal 2 such as a smartphone having an image pickup function, and the like are assumed).
Claim 9 adds into claim 1 "wherein the image processing apparatus obtains, from an image pickup apparatus that photographs a subject and generates the RAW image data, and performs a development processing with respect to the obtained RAW image data by using the same algorithm as that used by the image pickup apparatus" (Kunito, page 3 - As a device that can be an image processing device, an image pickup device 1 having an image pickup function such as a digital still camera 1A or a digital video camera 1B, a mobile terminal 2 such as a smartphone having an image pickup function, and the like are assumed. For example, in the image pickup device 1, a microcomputer or the like inside the image pickup device 1 performs various processes on the captured image data. Since the mobile terminal 2 also has an imaging function, it is possible to perform various processing on the captured image data based on the captured image data acquired by imaging).
Claims 10 and 11 claim a control method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium based on the image processing apparatus of claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under a similar rationale.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/PHU K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights