DETAILED ACTION
Claims 12-31 are presented on 07/16/2025 for examination on merits. Claims 12, 19, and 26 are independent base claims. Claims 1-11 are canceled by preliminary amendment.
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 .
Examiner's Instructions for filing Response to this Office Action
When the Applicant submits amendments regarding to the claims in response the Office Action, the Examiner would appreciate Applicant if a clean copy of the claims is provided to facilitate the prosecution which otherwise requires extra time for editing the marked-up claims from OCR.
Please submit two sets of claims:
Set #1 as in a typical filing which includes indicators for the status of claim and all marked amendments to the claims; and
Set #2 as an appendix to the Arguments/Remarks for a clean version of the claims which has all the markups removed for entry by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 12-15, 18-22, 25-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alattar (US 20030185417 A1; hereinafter “Alat”) in view of Meadows (US 20150278820 A1), and further in view of Hosman (US 20170046783 A1).
As per claim 12, Alat teaches a method comprising:
analyzing the content item to detect whether an identifier is embedded within the content item (Alat par. 0007-0008 and 0053-0054: analyzes the host signal … Based on analyzing the host signal, it identifies embedded portions of the host media signal that carry at least a first layer of an embedded digital watermark. Note that the host media signal is mapped to the content item);
upon detecting the identifier embedded within the content item, extracting the identifier from the content item to yield an extracted identifier (Alat, par. 0026-0028: synchronize the watermark detector and subsequently extract a watermark message wherein the watermark identifier is embedded and thus extracted; par. 0049-0051 and 0066);
checking transaction authorization for the content item (Alat, par. 0098-0100: decode watermark identifiers or time-stamp data to look up information) by:
querying a metadata database using the extracted identifier to determine whether a requested transaction for the content item is authorized (Alat, par. 0098-0100: [querying] the appropriate database and associated metadata to check the distributor ID. For example, a public watermark carrying a camera ID embedded in a video camera at the time of capture links to public information, such as the source of the video or camera); and
verifying transaction history in the distributed ledger using the extracted identifier to confirm authorization for the requested transaction (Alat, par. 0071-0073 and 0083-0085: a watermark embedder in the media signal capture or processor device embeds a time/date stamp to identify the content, and device ID for the device; The content ID entry in the database includes the artist, song title, album, music publisher, can be used for verifying transaction [history]; see also par. 0156-0157: The fingerprint database can be used to link content items with a variety of metadata and actions);
However, Alat does not explicitly disclose receiving a content item at a computing node in a distributed ledger network of computing nodes that maintain a distributed ledger comprising transactions for content items This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Meadows teaches:
receiving a content item at a computing node in a distributed ledger network of computing nodes that maintain a distributed ledger comprising transactions for content items (Meadows par. 0008-0009: receiving an electronic communication in a computer terminal with a memory module [wherein] the electronic communication is a verbal request by a user initiating a cryptographically secure transaction for a commodity of exchange in the form of an audio frequency signal (which is mapped to a content item at a computing node); see also par. 0017-0020 for the electronic communication is a verbal request by the user within a user’s processing circuit that is configured to exchange a digital currency using a ledger module);
Alat and Meadows are analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alat’s system with Meadows’ teachings of the distributed ledger that receives an audio frequency signal as a content item at a computing node. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security of the blockchain transactions with a cryptographical security signal for the transaction.
However, Alat and Meadows as combined above do not explicit disclose forming a transaction message that includes the extracted identifier and transaction parameters and submitting the transaction message to the distributed ledger network of computing nodes for validation and recording in the distributed ledger. This aspect of the claim is identified as a further difference.
In a related art, Hosman teaches:
upon confirming authorization for the requested transaction, forming a transaction message that includes the extracted identifier and transaction parameters (Hosman par. 0017-0019: send electronic data transaction request messages, e.g. orders, to the electronic trading system where the transaction messages, e.g. orders, ingress the electronic trading system. As the order is generated, the system 200 further includes an order identifier 210, see par. 0110-0112. Hosman further discloses at par. 0110: the stored incoming electronic data transaction request messages wherein values of at least a subset of the first set of transaction parameters thereof are identical, e.g. same product and side, owherein values of at least a subsetof the first set of transaction); and
submitting the transaction message to the distributed ledger network of computing nodes for validation and recording in the distributed ledger (Hosman, par. 0005 and 0010-0011: financial instrument trading systems allow traders to submit orders and receive confirmations, market data, and other information electronically from client devices via a network; par. 0023: orders must be synthesized and submitted into order books, which may be a distributed ledger).
Hosman is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Alat-Meadows system with Hosman’s teachings of submitting the transaction message to the distributed ledger network. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with transactional identifiers.
As per claim 13, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, wherein the content item comprises an audio- visual signal, and wherein analyzing the content item to detect whether an identifier is embedded within the content item comprises applying a digital watermark decoder to detect a digital watermark embedded in the audio-visual signal (Alat par. 0007-0008 and 0053-0054: analyzes the host signal … the host signal identifies embedded portions of the host media signal that carry at least a first layer of an embedded digital watermark; par. 0026-0028 and 0035: extracting a watermark message payload embedded in an image, video or audio signal).
As per claim 14, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, further comprising: upon determining that no identifier is embedded within the content item, checking a content fingerprint database to determine whether the content item matches a previously registered content item (Alat, par. 0154-0157: computes the fingerprint as a vector of the frame statistics and sends it to a server that manages the database. The server looks up a corresponding fingerprint in the database and then finds the URL associated with that database entry.).
As per claim 15, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, further comprising: upon determining that the requested transaction is authorized, encoding a transaction identifier in the content item using digital watermarking before submitting the transaction message, in which the digital watermarking alters pixel values or audio values of the content item (Alat, par. 0149-0152: watermarks including video or audio may be encoded in a temporal data sequence, like audio or video, by mapping each watermark to unique temporal locations; par. 0110-0114: Modify the spatial image pixels. Note that digital watermarking frequently involves altering pixel values to embed invisible or visible, traceable, and robust signatures, particularly in invisible digital watermarking).
As per claim 18, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, and Alat also teaches:
wherein the content item comprises an image comprising pixel values, the image depicting a physical object (Alat, par. 0060: tiles of the image and pixels; par. 0104 and 0114: carrying watermark in blocks of pixels in the spatial domain of an image or image frame), and
wherein the identifier embedded within the content item is embedded in the image using digital watermarking that creates a relationship between the identifier and physical features of the physical object for authentication, in which the digital watermarking alters the pixel values (Alat, par. 0050-0051: the video embeds its watermark identifier; embeds its identifier watermark in the time slot allocated to it as shown in blocks 114, 116 and 118 of FIG. 2.).
In the combined references, Meadows also teaches:
wherein the distributed ledger network comprises a blockchain distributed network (Meadows, par. 0048-0049: the blockchain protocol for networking and ledger; par. 0054-0056: consumer/buyer … is registered among the client nodes of the blockchain [network]; see also par. 0033: The term “blockchain” may refer to a public ledger that records peer-to-peer digital currency transactions such as Bitcoin transactions).
Claims 19-22 are similar to claims 12-15 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively, and thus are rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 26-28 are similar to claims 12, 14, and 15, respectively, and thus rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
claims 25 and 31 each are similar to claim 18 in view of the inventive features recited, respectively, and thus rejected for the same reasons discussed above.
Claims 16, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alat, Meadows, and Hosman, as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Gantman (US 20030217269 A1).
As per claim 16, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, but are silent about a request to create a derivative work from the content item.
In a related art, Gantman teaches:
wherein the requested transaction comprises a request to create a derivative work from the content item (Gantman, par. 0026-0027: generate an acoustic authorization request receivable by the verifier. Authorization is selectively granted, based on the keyword and acoustic authorization request.), and
wherein the method further comprises:
upon confirming authorization for the requested transaction, at least partially removing the identifier embedded within the content item from the content item before creating the derivative work (Gantman par. 0022-0024: in response to acoustic authorization signals from the token, and then selectively removing the key identifier from the data structure. inputting a removal request to the verifier, and means for removing the key identifier).
Gantman is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Alat-Meadows-Hosman system with Gantman’s teachings. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with confirmed authorization.
Claims 23 and 29 each recite substantially the same limitations as do claim 16 and therefore are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 17, 24, and 30 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alat, Meadows, and Hosman, as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Feeney (US 20160162897 A1).
As per claim 17, the references as combined above teach the method of claim 12, but they are silent about tracing transactions through Merkle tree structures of blocks in the distributed ledger to determine whether a party requesting a transaction has rights to perform the requested transactionl
In a related art, Feeney teaches:
wherein verifying transaction history in the distributed ledger comprises:
tracing transactions through Merkle tree structures of blocks in the distributed ledger to determine whether a party requesting a transaction has rights to perform the requested transaction (Feeney, par. 0051-0052: verification of a transaction filed in the alternative chain involves first locating the transaction in the alternative chain, verifying its digital signature, and verifying each hash between that location and the block chain block (for instance by verifying each hash in the merkle tree from the leaf corresponding to the transaction to the root)).
Feeney is analogous art to the claimed invention in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, which may be in a different field. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Alat-Meadows-Hosman system with Feeney’s teachings. For this combination, the motivation would have been to improve the level of security with traceable blocks in the distributed ledger.
Claims 24 and 30 each recite substantially the same limitations as do claim 17 and therefore are rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art additionally discloses certain parts of the claim features (See “PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272.9953. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 7:30 A.M to 5:00 P.M EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl G Colin can be reached on 571.272.3862. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/Don G Zhao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 04/24/2026
Prosecution Insights