DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 3: “the content user” lacks antecedent basis” and should read –a content user–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1042 ([0134]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 706 (Figure 7).
The drawings are objected to because the text does not measure at least .32cm (1/8 inch) (see Figure 3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a content fragment unit configured to obtain, an author state recognition unit configured to generate, and a first output unit configured to create in claim 8; and a content receiving unit configured to receive content, a user communication unit configured to request, an input unit configured to obtain, and an authentication unit configured to authenticate in claim 16.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is recites the limitation "the biometrics vector" in line 1 and “the first state user vector” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (“DeepMark: A Scalable and Robust Framework for DeepFake Video Detection” and Tang hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 8, and 17, Tang discloses a system and method for deepfake video detection, the system and method having:
obtaining a first author fragment of content by the content author (page 4, §2.4, lines 2-4; page 7, Algorithm 1, input);
generating a first state author vector from the first author fragment of content (page 7, Algorithm 1, output);
creating a first block of key information (features field and signature) based on the first author fragment of content (page 4, §3, line 6);
wherein the first block of key information comprises information of the first state author vector and a first digital signature (page 2, §1, lines 33-35; page 6, §3.2.2, lines 3-5).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, Tang discloses:
obtaining a author fragment of content from the content author (page 4, §2.4, lines 2-4; page 7, Algorithm 1, input);
generating a state author vector from the author fragment of content (page 7, Algorithm 1, output);
creating a block of key information based on the author fragment of content (page 4, §3, line 6);
wherein the block of key information comprises information of the state author vector and a digital signature (page 2, §1, lines 33-35; page 6, §3.2.2, lines 3-5), but fails to explicitly disclose performing these steps for a second fragment (i.e. second instance). However, Tang discloses that performing methods for each frame (page 7, §3.2.3); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the steps for a second instance.
As to claim 3, Tang discloses:
wherein the second author fragment of content is a subsequent fragment of the first author fragment of content, and wherein the first author fragment of content and the second author fragment of content are connected sequentially (page 4, §2.4, lines 2-3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (WO 2021/128846 A1 and Lu hereinafter).
As to claim 6, Tang fails to specifically disclose:
passing a pre-defined time of content that is transmitted continuously prior to obtaining the first author fragment of content.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Tang, as taught by Lu.
Lu discloses a system and method for electronic file control, the system and method having:
passing a pre-defined time of content that is transmitted continuously prior to obtaining the first author fragment of content (page 8, lines 28-30).
Given the teaching of Lu, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Lu by obtaining a fragment after a period. Lu recites motivation by disclosing that frames are obtained from a real-time stream at a preset time interval in order to obtain a preset number of frames (page 8, lines 28-30). It is obvious that the teachings of Lu would have improved the teachings of Tang by obtaining a fragment of content after a pre-defined time in order to obtain a preset number of frames.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holland et al. (WO 2023/033933 A1 and Holland hereinafter).
As to claim 7, Tang fails to specifically disclose:
providing, by the content author, biometrics vector data of the content author;
sending the biometrics vector data for verification and confirmation of the identity of the content author to the key center;
sending instructions for storing verified biometrics vector data of the content author in a biometrics vector database.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Tang, as taught by Holland.
Holland discloses a system and method for extended reality control of smart devices, the system and method having:
providing, by the content author, biometrics vector data of the content author (0093, lines 10-11);
sending the biometrics vector data for verification and confirmation of the identity of the content author to the key center (0094, lines 1-8);
sending instructions for storing verified biometrics vector data of the content author in a biometrics vector database (0093, lines 6-7).
Given the teaching of Holland, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Holland by confirming identity using a biometrics vector. Holland recites motivation by disclosing that using a biometrics vector limits control to only certain users (0093, lines 5-7). It is obvious that the teachings of Holland would have improved the teachings of Tang by using a biometrics vector to confirm identity in order to limit control to certain users.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ruckriemen (WO 2020/002341 A1).
As to claims 9 and 16, Tang discloses:
receiving content of the content author by the content user (page 4, §2.4, lines 2-4; page 7, Algorithm 1, input);
requesting from a key center information of a first block of key information based on a first author fragment of content, wherein the first author fragment of content is associated with the content author (page 4, §3, line 6) and wherein the first block of key information comprises information of a first state author vector and a first digital signature (page 2, §1, lines 33-35; page 6, §3.2.2, lines 3-5).
Tang fails to specifically disclose:
obtaining a first user fragment of content, wherein the first user fragment of content corresponds to the first author fragment of content;
authenticating the content by checking the correctness of the first digital signature.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Tang, as taught by Ruckriemen.
Ruckriemen discloses a system and method for tamper-proof issuing and storing of electronic certificates, the system and method having:
obtaining a first user fragment of content, wherein the first user fragment of content corresponds to the first author fragment of content (page 8, lines 27-30);
authenticating the content by checking the correctness of the first digital signature (page 8, lines 27-30).
Given the teaching of Ruckriemen, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Tang with the teachings of Ruckriemen by authenticating content using the signature. Ruckriemen recites motivation by disclosing that a signature is proof of authorization and ensures content in a data record is presented by an authorized author, thus ensuring an authentication (page 8, lines 22-30). It is obvious that the teachings of Ruckriemen would have improved the teachings of Tang by authenticating content using a signature in order to ensure the authentication.
As to claim 13, Tang discloses:
wherein the received content is fragmentized in a plurality of fragments prior to obtaining the first author fragment of content, wherein the first author fragment of content is one of the plurality of fragments (page 4, §2.4, lines 2-4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Ruckriemen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Holland.
As to claim 11, Tang in view of Ruckriemen fails to specifically disclose:
obtaining by the content user a first biometrics vector from the first user fragment of content; and comparing the first biometrics vector with biometrics vector data of the content author stored in a biometrics vectors database.
Nonetheless, these features are well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Tang in view of Ruckriemen, as taught by Holland.
Holland discloses:
obtaining by the content user a first biometrics vector from the first user fragment of content; and comparing the first biometrics vector with biometrics vector data of the content author stored in a biometrics vectors database (0093, lines 10-11; 0094, lines 1-8).
Given the teaching of Holland, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Tang in view of Ruckriemen with the teachings of Holland by comparing biometrics vectors. Please refer to the motivation recited above with respect to claim 7 as to why it is obvious to apply the teachings of Holland to the teachings of Tang in view of Ruckriemen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bekmambetov (WO 2023/195882 A2) discloses a system and method for distribution of media content.
Lee et al. (WO 2023/177013 A1) discloses a system and method for payment system using DID-based biometric authentication.
Xia et al. (CN 114826604 A) discloses a system and method for small program login verifying.
Zhuang et al. (CN 118629114 A) discloses a system and method for safety identification based on artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH SU whose telephone number is (571)270-3835. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights