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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2026 and 03/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of ITALY 102024000005908 filed on 03/18/2024 has been received on 05/07/2025.
Claim Objections
The acronym ‘OSNMA’ and “TESLA” as recited in the claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10-11 and 15 should be spelled out and/or defined the first time it is recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, while the claim recites “trusted Network Time Protocol server”, the specification lacks a detailed description of details as to how this is accomplished. Especially, it’s not clear how the trust of the server is determined. As a result, the disclosure does not appear to show possession of the full breadth of the claimed trusted Network Time Protocol server.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Limitations, “trusted Network Time Protocol server" is Indefinite because the claim does not provide objective boundaries or meaning of “trusted” by which a person having an ordinary skill in the art can determine or what constitutes as a “trusted server”.
Independent 11 is also rejected for the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 1 is further rejected because of the phrase “capable of ” includes language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure, therefore it does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-16 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they depend on.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Large et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0253376, hereinafter Large) in view of Grelier et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0249966, hereinafter Grelier), Jung et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0318849, hereinafter Jung) and Bennett-James et al. (US 2022/0132179, hereinafter Bennett-James).
Regarding claim 1: Large teaches: Spatial marking system of a multimedia file that includes:
a ground-based global navigation satellite receiver (Large - [0013]: Fig. 1, a radio navigation receiver 12, a navigation processor 14) configured to receive signals from at least three Galileo satellites (Large - [0015]: the radio positioning system 18 is selected from the group consisting of: Galileo; GPS: … [0016]: the radio positioning system 18 can be implemented by using the Global Positioning System (GPS). The GPS is a space-based satellite navigation system that provides location and time information in all weather conditions, anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites);
an application server (Large - [0013]: Fig. 1, a verification device 22);
an installable client on an electronic device capable of communicating with remote devices/systems via one or more wired and/or wireless networks/technologies and equipped with/connected to a global navigation satellite receiver configured to receive signals from at least three Galileo satellites (Large - [0029]: Satellites will be equipped with a transponder which will relay distress signals from the user's transmitter to the Rescue Co-ordination Centre, which will then initiate the rescue operation. At the same time, the system will provide a signal to the users, informing them that their situation has been detected and that help is on the way);
generate a geolocation metadata comprising a position calculated by the global navigation satellite receiver of the electronic device on which the client is installed (Large - [0048]: the verification device 22 is configured to verify reliability of the obtained position coordinates);
generate a validation outcome relating to the geolocation metadata based on this comparison (Large - [0134]: At step 108 the authentication of the obtained positioning information is verified by using the verification device 22 that uses the ID data to prevent fraudulent uses of the authenticated positioning information. Finally, at step 110, the fee-based verified authentication service is provided upon request and upon paying the predetermined fee).
However, Large doesn’t explicitly teach, but Grelier discloses: the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver being configured to:
receive:
I/NAV messages of the Galileo E1-B channel from at least three Galileo satellites (Grelier - [0029]: the I/NAV navigation message transmitted on the E1-B component (data channel of the E1 OS signal) of the Galileo navigation system) and
timestamps from a trusted Network Time Protocol server (Grelier - [0033]: The words contain the items of information used by the navigation receiver to compute its position (ephemeris, Galileo system time, clock corrections, ionospheric corrections, almanacs, etc.));
transmit to the application server:
I/NAV messages of the Galileo E1-B channel received from the at least three Galileo satellites (Grelier - [0029]: the I/NAV navigation message transmitted on the E1-B component (data channel of the E1 OS signal) of the Galileo navigation system), and
the timestamps received from the trusted Network Time Protocol server (Grelier - [0033]: The words contain the items of information used by the navigation receiver to compute its position (ephemeris, Galileo system time, clock corrections, ionospheric corrections, almanacs, etc.));
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Large with Grelier so that navigation message received from Galileo navigation system is transmitted. The modification would have allowed the system to transmit the navigation message for further processing.
However, the combination of Large and Grelier doesn’t explicitly teach, but June discloses:
receive: I/NAV messages of the Galileo E1-B channel from at least three Galileo satellites associated with the position calculated (June - [0084]: the QZSS satellite may broadcast the generated signal to users through an L1S signal.); a timestamp associated with the multimedia file from the trusted Network Time Protocol server ([0084]: When the signal generated as such may be uploaded to a satellite by being included by a message format. See also [0093]); and
transmit to the application server: I/NAV messages of the Galileo E1-B channel, the geolocation metadata, the timestamp and the multimedia file generated and/or modified; the application server being configured to: extract OSNMA messages from the I/NAV messages received from the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver (Jung - [0063]: a Galileo I/NAV message may include N (e.g., a natural number greater than 1) frames. One frame may include 15 subframes. The authentication of a satellite navigation message of Galileo may be performed by dividing and transmitting authentication data (OSNMA) to reserved 40 bits of each subframe as illustrated in FIG. 2);
extract a Galileo System Time field from the I/INAV messages received from the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver (June - [0079]: the receiver may extract group authentication information by decrypting a ciphertext received from a next group (e.g., a group 2) and authenticate group time information);
validate OSNMA messages extracted from the I/NAV messages received by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver by applying a TESLA protocol (Jung - [0063]: Message authentication may be performed through message authentication code (MAC) for a message. A secret key necessary for the MAC may be transmitted together with the MAC by using a Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) technique);
receive from the electronic device: the I/NAV messages of the Galileo E1-B channel, the geolocation metadata, the timestamp and multimedia file generated and/or modified (Jung - [0084]: The generated digital signature may instead enter navigation data space (e.g., a random access to NLETS data (RAND) message, a low-density parity check code (LDPC) parity bit, or other data) in the QZSS message format. When the signal generated as such may be uploaded to a satellite by being included by a message format, the QZSS satellite may broadcast the generated signal to users through an L1S signal. An L1 S receiver (e.g., a receiving device) may identify a satellite that is an authentication target from a pseudo random number (PRN) identification (ID) and verify a digital signature for received navigation data);
extract OSNMA messages from I/NAV messages received by the electronic device; compare an OSNMA message extracted from an I/NAV message received by the electronic device with an OSNMA message extracted from an I/NAV message received by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver and validated using the TESLA protocol, said OSNMA messages having the same Galileo satellite identification and having the same timestamp; said timestamps being compatible, minus a time delta, with the Galileo System Time field extracted by the I/INAV messages received from the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver (Jung - [0079]: the receiver may extract group authentication information by decrypting a ciphertext received from a next group (e.g., a group 2) and authenticate group time information by comparing whether the extracted group authentication information is the same as the group authentication information of the SOW information generated from the previous group. [0093]: The data part 1654 of each of the subframes 1650 may commonly include a tracker log message (TLM) field 1654_1, a Sub ID field 1654_3, and a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) field. The rest of 233 bits other than the commonly included fields may include a different item (e.g., a time of week counter (TOWC) field, an alert field, and/or an auto NAV field) for each of the subframes 1650. According to an embodiment, the NAV message 1610 (e.g., the data part 1654 included by each of the subframes 1650 of the NAV message 1610) may further include a field (e.g., a Seq field 1654_7) for synchronization with the CLS message (e.g., a subframe 1730 of a CLS message of FIG. 17 ). The Seq field 1654_7 may be a field, which occupies N bits (e.g., 3 bits, in which N is a natural number greater than 1) of spare bits included by 233 bits, for authentication);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Large and Grelier with June so that E1 message is validated using TESLA protocol and extracted information is compared with prior existing. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
However, the combination of Large, Grelier and June doesn’t explicitly teach but Bennett-James discloses:
the client is operable by a user and/or configured to (Bennett-James - [0026]: Fig. 1, The media source 102 and the machine learning system 104):
generate and/or modify the multimedia file (Bennett-James - [0026]: Various types of media content can be provided for consumption, including video, audio, images, and/or other types of media content);
associate the geolocation metadata with the multimedia file generated and/or modified (Bennett-James - [0197]: generate one or more metadata files for a plurality of portions of the media content, each metadata file of the one or more metadata files be associated with a correspond timestamp within the media content);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Large and Grelier and June with Bennett-James so that a media file is generated, and metadata is attached to the media file. The modification would have allowed the system to associate media file with metadata for further analysis.
Regarding claim 4: Large as modified teaches: wherein the client is configured to receive an identification metadata relating to the multimedia file generated and/or modified, said identification metadata being transmitted to the electronic device by an Identity Trusted Provider (Bennett-James - [0036]: the metadata can include metadata descriptions that can be used for annotating the media content. For instance, again referring to FIG. 2 as an example, the metadata generation engine 106 can generate a first metadata description for the character (Boris Johnson) determined for the person 202, a second metadata description for the facial expression of the person 202).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: Large as modified teaches: wherein the application server is configured to:
validate the timestamp based on the timestamps received by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver and by the electronic device (Jung - [0079]: the receiver may extract group authentication information by decrypting a ciphertext received from a next group (e.g., a group 2) and authenticate group time information by comparing whether the extracted group authentication information is the same as the group authentication information of the SOW information generated from the previous group. See also Fig. 6, [0093]); and
validate the identification metadata based on the identification metadata received by the electronic device (Bennett-James [0051]: the machine learning engine 138 can process the metadata generated by the metadata generation engine 106 to validate the metadata (e.g., as shown and described with respect to FIG. 6)); and
provide, as output, a digital certification of the multimedia file generated and/or modified based on the validation outcome generated and based on the validation of the timestamp and of the identification metadata (Large - [0134]: At step 108 the authentication of the obtained positioning information is verified by using the verification device 22 that uses the ID data to prevent fraudulent uses of the authenticated positioning information. Finally, at step 110, the fee-based verified authentication service is provided upon request and upon paying the predetermined fee).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: Large as modified teaches: wherein the application server is configured to compare the OSNMA message extracted from the I/NAV message received by the electronic device with the OSNMA message extracted from the I/NAV message received by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver and validated using the TESLA protocol based on a comparison of a bit sequence of said OSNMA messages and the same Galileo satellite identifier that transmitted the I/NAV messages to the electronic device and the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver (Jung - [0077]: the generated group authentication information may be encrypted through an SM4 symmetric key encryption algorithm using a 128-bit key and a generator polynomial of a spectrum spreading sequence (GPSSS) for spreading spectrum modulation. A 128-bit ciphertext may be divided and inserted into an extra space in one group (10 subframes 1)).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9: Large as modified teaches: wherein the bit sequence comprises at least 40 bits (Jung - [0077]: A 128-bit ciphertext may be divided and inserted into an extra space in one group (10 subframes 1)).
The reason to combine is in the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 2, 11-12, 14 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Large et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0253376, hereinafter Large) in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0318849, hereinafter Jung), Bennett-James et al. (US 2022/0132179, hereinafter Bennett-James) and Grelier et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0249966, hereinafter Grelier) and OGURA (WO 2024/147208).
Regarding claim 2: Large as modified doesn’t explicitly teach but OGURA discloses: comprising a blockchain system;
the blockchain system being configured to receive from the application server and to store:
the I/NAV messages transmitted by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver to the application server;
the I/NAV messages transmitted by the electronic device to the application server;
the timestamps transmitted by the ground-based global navigation satellite receiver and by the electronic device to the application server;
the multimedia file generated and/or modified;
the geolocation metadata; and
the validation outcome generated (OGURA - [Page 3]: The storage unit 17 stores the signature information and time information as a management file that manages the electronic document D. The storage unit 17 stores, for example, the user ID, user name, signature information, the date and time of the signature, and the hash value of the electronic document D as a management file separate from the electronic document D. Specifically, the storage unit 17 saves the user ID and user name of each contractor, the signature information, the date and time of the signature, and the hash value of the electronic document D as a management file separate from the electronic document D. The storage unit 17 stores the management file in the external network N. In this embodiment, the storage unit 17 stores the management file in a blockchain).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Large as modified with OGURA so that information is stored in blockchain. The modification would have allowed the system to store data securely.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-16: Claims are directed to method claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 1-2, 4 and 8-9. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 14-16 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 1-2, 4 and 8-9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 112a and 112b, set forth in this Office action, are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for allowance will be furnished upon allowance of the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ESINER et al. US 20250106026 - Precomputation-Based Message Authentication
Jackson et al. US 20230209352 - AUTHENTICATION METHODS FOR A SATELLITE-BASED NAVIGATION SYSTEM, DEVICES FOR AUTHENTICATING MESSAGES AND AUTHENTICATION SYSTEM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights