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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1: Figure 3, related to digitally signing processed image data and/or its metadata, associated with claims 3, 15-20;
Species 2: Figure 2, related to authenticating an image data and/or its metadata, associated with claims 1-2, 4-14.
The species are independent or distinct because Species 1 recites the mutually exclusive characteristics of generating the public and private key set (19) and outputting a positive or negative image authenticating signal (60). Species 2 recites the mutually exclusive characteristics of processing the image data (70), generating a third hash value (80), encrypting the third hash value (90), storing the third hash value (98), and encrypting the third hash value with the private key to generate a digital signature of the processed image data (99). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Kirsten Grueneberg on 6/3/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species 2, claims 1-2 and 4-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3 and 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The description of the drawings are mislabeled. Figure 2, comprising the steps 19, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 which according to the reference numeral guide (paragraphs 146-167 of the PGPub) are the steps for testing/authenticating an image data and/or metadata (paragraph 13 of PGPub). Figure 3, comprising the steps 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 80, 90, 98, and 99 which according to the reference numeral guide (paragraphs 146-167 of the PGPub) are the steps for digitally signing processed image data and/or metadata (paragraph 15 of PGPub).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the processing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the abstract idea of authenticating image data or metadata using a digital signature.
The limitations in claim 1 of receiving the image data and/or the metadata and an encrypted first hash value of the image data and/or the metadata, wherein the metadata comprises information about the image data; decrypting the first hash value with a public key, wherein the public key corresponds to a private key with which the first hash value is encrypted; generating a second hash value of the image data and/or the metadata; comparing the decrypted first hash value with the second hash value; and generating a positive image authenticating signal if the first hash value matches the second hash value or a negative image authenticating signal if the first hash value does not match the second hash value are considered using a conventional technique (digital signatures) and applying the abstract idea to a digitized image and/or metadata, and displaying the result.
Claims 2 and 4-14 depend upon claim 1 and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 4-8, 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crosby et al. (US 11,646,896) hereafter Crosby.
1.Crosby discloses a method for authenticating image data and/or metadata of the image data, the method comprising:
receiving the image data and/or the metadata and an encrypted first hash value of the image data and/or the metadata, wherein the metadata comprises information about the image data (col 8, 53-col 9, 15, a signed image that depicts a scene is received. The signed image includes image data and a cryptographic signature; col 7, 1-19, image data can include a value for each of a plurality of pixels included in the image. The metadata can include substantially any other data pertaining to the image);
decrypting the first hash value with a public key, wherein the public key corresponds to a private key with which the first hash value is encrypted (col 8, 53-col 9, 15, determination whether the cryptographic signature is representative of the image data can be made by decrypting the cryptographic signature);
generating a second hash value of the image data and/or the metadata (col 8, 53-col 9, 15, he determination whether the cryptographic signature is representative of the image data can be made by executing a cryptographic hash function over the image data to generate a cryptographic hash);
comparing the decrypted first hash value with the second hash value (col 8, 53-col 9, 15, The cryptographic hash can then be compared to the cryptographic signature); and
generating a positive image authenticating signal if the first hash value matches the second hash value or a negative image authenticating signal if the first hash value does not match the second hash value (col 8, 53-col 9, 15, if the cryptographic signature is not representative of the signed image, the methodology 700 proceeds to 708, whereupon an indication that the signed image is not genuine is output, and the methodology 700 ends 710. If, at 706, the cryptographic signature is representative of the signed image, the methodology 700 proceeds to 712 and an indication that the signed image is genuine is output).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein decrypting the first hash value is carried out by an entity which is not an image acquiring entity which has acquired the image data (fig 6 and corresponding text).
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data and/or the metadata of the image data comprises the encrypted first hash value (col 8, 53-col 9, 15).
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data and/or the metadata of the image data comprises the image data before the processing (fig 6 and corresponding text; col 8, 53-col 9, 15).
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data has been acquired by an image acquiring entity which comprises a microscope and/or a scientific image acquiring entity and/or a medical image acquiring entity (col 4, 16-40).
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises at least one acquisition parameter of an image acquiring entity when taking the image data with the image acquiring entity (col 7, 1-19).
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first hash value is encrypted with a private key which is assigned to only one image acquiring entity which has acquired the image data and no other image acquiring entity and/or with a private key which is assigned to only one user and no other user (col 9, 16-36).
12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the image data is a particular clipping and/or view and/or cross-section of the image data (col 6, 6-22).
13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises at least one table with information about the image data and/or the image data content and/or the metadata comprises a watermark and/or a QR-code and/or the metadata comprises quantitative analysis data of the image data (col 7, 1-19).
14. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product having instructions which are readable by a processor of a computer and which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (col 20, 21-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby.
2. Crosby discloses the method according to claim 1, including a positive image authenticating signal based on a hash value (fig 7 and corresponding text, see above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the positive image authenticating signal comprises the hash value of the image data and/or of the metadata before a last processing step. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the positive signal provided by Crosby to include the hash value in order to provide additional information and transmit already calculated data for potential further processing or review.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruso et al. (US 2023/0353384) hereafter Bruso.
9. Crosby discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly wherein the image data and/or the metadata comprises a directory of files. However, in an analogous art, Bruso discloses verifying a secured filed, directory, or metadata including wherein the image data and/or the metadata comprises a directory of files (para 6; figs 4A-4D). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Crosby with the implementation of Bruso in order to verify contents’ authenticity or detect changes that have occurred (para 6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosby as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0140840) hereafter Wang.
11. Crosby discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the image data and its metadata are stored separately and the image data and its metadata are linked uniquely. However, in an analogous art, Wang discloses data storage including wherein the image data and its metadata are stored separately and the image data and its metadata are linked uniquely (para 77, 84). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Crosby with the implementation of Wang in order to save storage space the image data occupies (para 77).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/JAMES R TURCHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights