DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/12/2024. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the Provisional No. 63/354761 filed on June 23rd 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: s “a data obtainer that obtains…”, “a verifier that verifies…”, “a presentation unit that…presents…” in claim 10 Fig. 2 of the drawings and pg. 12 Ln 12-33 and pg. 13 Ln. 8-16 provide structure for interpretation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finkelstein (US 2008/0240490 A1), hereinafter Finkel.
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 10 Finkel teaches:
An information processing method comprising: (Finkel ¶ 19 and 78 teaches, a system for source authentication, uploading, and usage tracking of video in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown.)
obtaining (a) content data which represents content and in which a digital watermark is embedded and (Finkel ¶ 19 teaches, System allows for a video hosting site to authenticate the source of a video received from a content provider. The content provider may inject a digital watermark and matching metadata into the video. The host may use the watermark to authenticate the video.)
(b) tag information associated with the content data; (Finkel ¶ 26 teaches, a digital signature of the video may be used to identify the owner of the video. A valid digital signature may also be used to verify that the metadata as well as the video content did not change from when the video was locked down (such as by content provider 106).)
verifying whether there is a match between information of an owner of the content that is specified based on the digital watermark (Finkel ¶ 36 teaches, the host authenticates the video received from the content provider. In one embodiment, the host verifies that metadata information in the watermark matches unsecured metadata information attached to the video. This unsecured metadata may be used for other reasons, such as to be displayed when the video is played. For example, the video title and the user ID may be encoded in the watermark. The video title and user ID is also attached to the video in the clear. When the watermarked title and user ID matches the unsecured title and user ID, then the host considers the video authentic.)
and information of the owner of the content that is obtained from the tag information; (Finkel ¶ 28 teaches, This evidence may include whether a digital signature on the video is authentic. This evidence may include whether there is a correlation between the digital signature and the publisher of the video in the video metadata) and
when the verifying is successful, presenting the content. (Finkel ¶ 37 teaches, if the video is not authenticated by the host, then the host will not post the video. The user that uploaded the video may be notified of the authentication failure. (i.e., if authenticated upload video))
Regarding Claim(s) 11 Finkel teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to perform the information processing method according to claim 1. (Finkel ¶78 teaches, the term "computer readable media" as used herein includes computer storage media. Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions or other data.)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Finkel in view of Spagna (US 2006/0089912 A1), hereinafter Spagna.
Regarding Claim(s) 2 Finkel teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein (Finkel teaches the parent claim above.)
the tag information includes a digital signature of the owner of the content, and (Finkel ¶ 28 teaches, This evidence may include whether a digital signature on the video is authentic. This evidence may include whether there is a correlation between the digital signature and the publisher of the video in the video metadata)
when there is a match between information of the owner of the content that is specified using the content ID read from the digital watermark and information of the owner of the content that is obtained from the digital signature, the content is presented. (Finkel ¶ 36 teaches, the host authenticates the video received from the content provider. In one embodiment, the host verifies that metadata information in the watermark matches unsecured metadata information attached to the video. This unsecured metadata may be used for other reasons, such as to be displayed when the video is played. For example, the video title and the user ID may be encoded in the watermark. The video title and user ID is also attached to the video in the clear. When the watermarked title and user ID matches the unsecured title and user ID, then the host considers the video authentic. Finkel ¶ 37 teaches, if the video is not authenticated by the host, then the host will not post the video. The user that uploaded the video may be notified of the authentication failure. (i.e., if authenticated upload video))
Finkel does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
the digital watermark includes content identification (ID) that is an identifier of the content, (Spagna ¶ 273 teaches, the Content Identification Layer 503, the Content Provider(s) 101 also uses a License Watermark to embed data in the Content such as to the content identifier, content owner and other information, such as publication date and geographic distribution region.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Finkel with Spagna, to modify the source authentication and usage tracking method of Finkel with the content id of Rhoads. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of including specific content information to known devices and/or methods for data authentication ready for improvement to yield predictable results a unique identifier for the data that can be used for verification.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkel in view of Spagna as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lal (US 2024/0394679 A1), hereinafter Lal.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 Finkel in view of Spagna teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 2, further comprising: (Finkel in view of Rhoades teaches the parent limitation above.)
when the verifying of the digital signature is successful, presenting the content. (Finkel ¶ 37 teaches, if the video is not authenticated by the host, then the host will not post the video. The user that uploaded the video may be notified of the authentication failure. (i.e., if authenticated upload video))
Finkel in view of Spagna does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
obtaining a public key of the owner of the content that is specified using the content ID read from the digital watermark; (Lal ¶ 23 teaches, He may then feed to the signature verifying algorithm: (i) Alice's public key, (ii) the avatar data, and (iii) the digital signature. This may verify whether or not Alice signed the avatar data. In one example, the digital signature (e.g., “SIG123”), when decrypted with Alice's public key, should match a hash value (e.g., “HASH8342”) that can also be produced by hashing the avatar data.)
verifying, using the public key obtained, the digital signature included in the tag information; and (Lal ¶ 23 teaches, He may then feed to the signature verifying algorithm: (i) Alice's public key, (ii) the avatar data, and (iii) the digital signature. This may verify whether or not Alice signed the avatar data. In one example, the digital signature (e.g., “SIG123”), when decrypted with Alice's public key, should match a hash value (e.g., “HASH8342”) that can also be produced by hashing the avatar data.)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill the art, prior to the applicant's earliest effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Finkel in view Spagna with Lal, to modify the source authentication and usage tracking method of Finkel with the content id of Rhoads with the nft verification method of Lal. The motivation to do so, Lal ¶ 3, allows users to transfer the assets safely and with confidence.
Regarding Claim(s) 4 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent claim above.)
when the verifying of the digital signature is unsuccessful, the presenting of the content is prohibited. (Finkel ¶ 37 teaches, if the video is not authenticated by the host, then the host will not post the video. The user that uploaded the video may be notified of the authentication failure. (i.e., if authenticated upload video))
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 5 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein
the verifying further includes: (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent limitation above.)
when it is determined that there is no match between the content ID read from the digital watermark and the content ID included in the tag information, causing the verifying to be unsuccessful. (Finkel ¶ 37 teaches, if the video is not authenticated by the host, then the host will not post the video. The user that uploaded the video may be notified of the authentication failure. (i.e., if authenticated upload video))
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent limitation above.)
the content has been registered as registered content by a plurality of servers included in a distributed ledger network, (Lal ¶ 3 teaches, An NFT is minted to represent the asset and its ownership is tracked on a distributed ledger.)
in a distributed ledger held by the plurality of servers, registrant information indicating a registrant who has registered the content as the registered content is stored, (Lal ¶ 5 teaches, the present systems and techniques will determine an owner ID associated with the asset representing the owner of the asset and create a record of ownership of the asset in its databases. The record within the central authority comprises a table associating the asset ID for identifying the asset with an owner ID. The central authority tracks ownership of the asset by updating the record each time an asset is transferred to reflect the change.)
the digital watermark further includes registrant information indicating the registrant who has registered the content, and (Finkel ¶ 36 teaches, the video title and the user ID may be encoded in the watermark. The video title and user ID is also attached to the video in the clear. When the watermarked title and user ID matches the unsecured title and user ID, then the host considers the video authentic.)
the verifying further includes:
when it is determined that there is no match between the registrant information indicating the registrant and having been read from the digital watermark and the registrant information stored in the distributed ledger, causing the verifying to be unsuccessful. (Lal ¶ 29 and 31 teaches, by tying a digital asset to an NFT, authenticity and ownership can be verified by inspecting the blockchain. a central authority for tracking authenticity of signed digital assets transferred in this manner by verifying the status of the signed digital asset on the blockchain and recording owners and transfers on the central authority.)
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent limitation above.)
the content has been registered as registered content by a plurality of servers included in a distributed ledger network, (Lal ¶ 3 teaches, An NFT is minted to represent the asset and its ownership is tracked on a distributed ledger.)
in a distributed ledger held by the plurality of servers, the content ID, a record of transfer of the content, and a public key to an owner account holding the content are stored in association each other, and (Lal ¶ 5 teaches the concept, the present systems and techniques will determine an owner ID associated with the asset representing the owner of the asset and create a record of ownership of the asset in its databases. The record within the central authority comprises a table associating the asset ID for identifying the asset with an owner ID. The central authority tracks ownership of the asset by updating the record each time an asset is transferred to reflect the change.)
the obtaining of the public key includes:
obtaining the public key to the owner account holding the content that is associated with the content ID. (Lal ¶ 23 teaches, given a digital asset, an asserted signature, and a public key for the alleged signor for the digital asset, the signature verifying algorithm can provide an output that indicates whether or not the private key (linked to the public key) was used to sign the digital asset. To illustrate, if Bob receives a digital asset from Alice, he should be able to decrypt the encrypted file to reveal the avatar data (assuming it was encrypted).)
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 8 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent claim above.)
in the obtaining of the content data and the tag information,
one electronic file including the content data and the tag information is obtained. (Lal ¶ 30 teaches the concept, upon receipt from the current owner the buyer decrypts the received signed digital asset 101 using his or her private key, while keeping the digital signature of the author intact with the digital content item 100.)
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel-Spagna-Lal teaches the parent limitation above.)
the content data is a non-fungible token (NFT). (Lal ¶ 3 teaches, process takes place at an NFT marketplace, or a platform that supports transfers, such as buying and selling, of NFTs.)
The motive given in Claim 3 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0086191 A1 - Systems And Methods For Token Content Unlocking, Biometric Authentication Using Privacy-Protecting Tokens, Ownership-Based Limitations Of Content Access, Policy-Based Time Capsule Technology, And Content Lock Mechanisms
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENEDICT KNACKSTEDT whose telephone number is (703)756-5608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-5440. 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.
/J.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408