DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/02/2026. 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 2022.
Response to Arguments
The priority date has been fixed in accordance with Applicant's arguments filed on 07/02/2026.
In regards to Applicant’s amendments filed on 07/02/2026 the 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 10 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1-5 and 10-11 is/are 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkelstein (US 2008/0240490 A1), hereinafter Finkel in view of Kuzmich (US 2002/0122567 A1), hereinafter Kuzmich.
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.)
the tag information including a digital signature of an owner of the content; (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).)
and presenting the content based on a result of the verifying. (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:
(b) tag information associated with the content data, the digital watermark including content identification (ID) that is an identifier of the content, (Kuzmich ¶ 58 teaches, The owner ID and owner public key (Po) are used to detect the watermark within the watermarked content, and in a case of successful detection, the owner public key (Po) is used to encode the watermark and to obtain the plain owner data.)
obtaining, based on the content ID read from the digital watermark, a public key corresponding to the owner of the content; (Kuzmich ¶ 58 teaches, the owner ID and owner public key (Po) are used to detect the watermark within the watermarked content, and in a case of successful detection, the owner public key (Po) is used to encode the watermark and to obtain the plain owner data. The owner public key (Po) and owner ID have to be passed to the content distributor or another content owner, and anyone who received the key can select and view the data that are concerned to the corresponding content owner or distributor.)
verifying, using the public key obtained, the digital signature included in the tag information; (Kuzmich ¶ 9 teaches, If the key owner publishes his public key, then anyone can use that key to encrypt messages for the key owner and to verify the owner signature.)
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 Kuzmich, to modify the source authentication and usage tracking method of Finkel with embedded watermark data of Kuzmich. The motivation to do so, Kuzmich ¶ 30, only a content owner who knows the secrete key and owner ID is able to operate with a secrete proprietary watermark.
Regarding Claim(s) 2 Finkel teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein (Finkel teaches the parent claim above.)
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))
Regarding Claim(s) 3 Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 2, further comprising: (Finkel in view of Kuzmich 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))
Regarding Claim(s) 4 Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel in view of Kuzmich 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))
Regarding Claim(s) 5 Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein
the verifying further includes: (Finkel in view of Kuzmich 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))
Regarding Claim(s) 11 Finkel in view of Kuzmich 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(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkel in view of Kuzmich as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Inoko (US 2025/0165565 A1), hereinafter Inoko.
Regarding Claim(s) 6 Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches the parent limitation above.)
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.)
Finkel in view of Kuzmich does not appear to explicitly teach but in related art:
the content has been registered as registered content by a plurality of servers included in a distributed ledger network, (Inoko ¶ 14 teaches, The blockchain holds an NFT (non-fungible token) associated with the digital content. The blockchain may also hold a smart contract. The blockchain (also called a distributed ledger) is a mechanism that synchronizes the same records among many nodes on a network, and when adding a new record to an existing record, blocks, each serving as a recording unit, are added one after another in a chain-like manner, while succeeding the content (hash) of the immediately preceding block.)
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, (Inoko ¶ 53 teaches, The content database is a database for storing the digital content created by the author together with related information. For example, in the content database, the digital content is stored in association with metadata such as the ID information of the content, the ID information of the author, the name of the author, and the title of the work.)
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. (Inoko ¶ 77 teaches, the rewrite transaction is signed with a general public key encryption system, and is verified, on the blockchain side, as having been legitimately issued in the name of the owner. (i.e., fails if not legitimate by the write user.))
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 of Kuzmich with Inoko, to modify the source authentication and usage tracking method of Finkel with embedded watermark data of Kuzmich with the NFT network of Inoko. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique of a distributed NFT network to known devices and/or methods for digitally protecting data for ready for improvement to yield predictable results secure transactions and verification of ownership.
Regarding Claim(s) 7 Finkel-Kuzmich-Inoko teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches the parent limitation above.)
the content has been registered as registered content by a plurality of servers included in a distributed ledger network, (Inoko ¶ 14 teaches, The blockchain holds an NFT (non-fungible token) associated with the digital content. The blockchain may also hold a smart contract. The blockchain (also called a distributed ledger) is a mechanism that synchronizes the same records among many nodes on a network, and when adding a new record to an existing record, blocks, each serving as a recording unit, are added one after another in a chain-like manner, while succeeding the content (hash) of the immediately preceding block.)
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 (Inoko ¶ 53 teaches, In order to associate the digital content with the NFT, it is preferred that, in the content database 33, the ID information of the digital contents and the account number (public key) of the NFT are stored in association with each other.)
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. (Inoko ¶ 56 teaches, the private key is used to encrypt (digitally sign) the transaction data by the person who issued the transaction data. The public key is published in the entire blockchain and is used to decrypt the data encrypted (digitally signed) by the private key (verifying the authenticity of the digital signature).)
The motive given in Claim 6 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 8 Finkel-Kuzmich-Inoko teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel in view of Kuzmich 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. (Inoko ¶ 53 teaches, the digital content with the NFT, it is preferred that, in the content database, the ID information of the digital contents and the account number (public key) of the NFT are stored in association with each other.)
The motive given in Claim 6 is equally applicable to the above claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Finkel-Kuzmich-Inoko teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 3, wherein (Finkel in view of Kuzmich teaches the parent limitation above.)
the content data is a non-fungible token (NFT). (Inoko ¶ 53 teaches, the digital content with the NFT, it is preferred that, in the content database, the ID information of the digital contents and the account number (public key) of the NFT are stored in association with each other.)
The motive given in Claim 6 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights