DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 03/12/25. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 19 and 20 recite the limitation "the output data" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language appears to establish several different variations of what could be reasonably understood as “output data” (ie. output data, output data that temporally immediately precedes, other output data, another output data, etc.); thus, render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear as to which one the limitation in question should be in reference to.
Claims 8 and 13 recite the limitation "the plurality of pieces of ID information" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner notes that the preceding claim language does not appear to establish any first instance of a plurality of pieces of ID information; thus, render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear as to what the limitation in question should be in reference to.
Claims 12, 19 and 20 recite the limitation "the other output data" throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner respectfully notes that the preceding claim language establishes several different variations of what could be reasonably understood as “other output data” (ie. another output data, the remaining output data that the hash values it is not calculated on when only one of the output data is used, etc.); thus, render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear as to what the limitation in question should be in reference to.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to an information processing apparatus and/or a program, which in view of Applicant’s own Specification, appear to reasonably encompass at least purely software embodiments; thus, are directed to software per se.
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, 8-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altenburger et al. (2018/0288362).
Claim 1: Altenburger et al. discloses an information processing apparatus that generates output data including object data to be a verification object of a temporal contextual relationship, the information processing apparatus comprising:
a control unit configured to generate the output data including a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately-precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data(an initial frame of video recording sequence may include useful embedded metadata such as camera serial number, timestamp, final hash code from last recording, user entered string, signature, GPS location, orientation, etc…for the processing of the next frame, hash code of at least part of or the entire video frame of the previous video frame may be generated and embedded into current video frame) [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037].
Claim 2: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the hash value based on data including at least the ID information in the temporally immediately-preceding output data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037].
Claim 3: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object data is an image [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 4: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the image is a RAW image, an image obtained by development processing, an image obtained by editing processing, or a simulator output image [page 3, paragraph 0056 | page 4, paragraph 0082].
Claim 8: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to generate a signature based on the hash value and a key prepared in advance and to generate the output data including the signature, the object data, and the plurality of pieces of ID information [page 2, paragraph 0029 | page 3, paragraph 0041].
Claim 9: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ID information is a sensor ID, a processor ID, a medium ID, or a user ID [page 2, paragraph 0029].
Claim 10: Altenburger et al. discloses an information processing method of an information processing apparatus that generates output data including object data to be a verification object of a temporal contextual relationship, the information processing method comprising the step of:
generating the output data including a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately-precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037].
Claim 11: Altenburger et al. discloses a program causing a computer that controls an information processing apparatus that generates output data including object data to be a verification object of a temporal contextual relationship to execute processing including the step of:
generating the output data including a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037].
Claim 12: Altenburger et al. discloses an information processing apparatus that verifies a temporal contextual relationship between object data included in output data and another object data included in another output data, the output data including a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately-precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037], the information processing apparatus comprising:
a control unit configured to verify a temporal contextual relationship between the object data and the other object data by comparing the hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of one of the output data and the other output data and the hash value included in the other of the output data and the other output data and by comparing the pluralities of types of ID information respectively included in the output data and the other output data(comparing extracted hash codes with re-calculated hash codes of corresponding frames to determine integrity…where the hash codes are extracted from the watermark by a watermark reading component, and a hash code re-calculating component for re-calculating the hash code of the previous frame of the hash code, which is compared by a comparing component) [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0093 & 0097 & 0099].
Claim 14: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control unit is configured to consider that the object data is data temporally immediately-preceding the other object data when the hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of the output data and the hash value included in the other output data match [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0093 & 0097 & 0099].
Claim 15: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the hash value is calculated on the basis of data including at least the ID information in the temporally immediately-preceding output data [page 2, paragraph 0029 | page 3, paragraph 0041].
Claim 16: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the object data is an image [page 2, paragraph 0028].
Claim 17: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the image is a RAW image, an image obtained by development processing, an image obtained by editing processing, or a simulator output image [page 3, paragraph 0056 | page 4, paragraph 0082].
Claim 18: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the ID information is a sensor ID, a processor ID, a medium ID, or a user ID [page 2, paragraph 0029].
Claim 19: Altenburger et al. discloses an information processing method of an information processing apparatus that verifies a temporal contextual relationship between object data included in output data and another object data included in another output data, the output data including a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately-precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037], the information processing method comprising the step of:
verifying a temporal contextual relationship between the object data and the other object data by comparing the hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of one of the output data and the other output data and the hash value included in the other of the output data and the other output data and by comparing the pluralities of types of ID information respectively included in the output data and the other output data [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0093 & 0097 & 0099].
Claim 20: Altenburger et al. discloses a program causing a computer that controls an information processing apparatus that verifies a temporal contextual relationship between object data included in output data and another object data included in another output data to execute processing including the step of:
verifying a temporal contextual relationship between the object data and the other object data by comparing a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of one of the output data and the other output data and a hash value included in the other of the output data and the other output data and by comparing pluralities of types of ID information respectively included in the output data and the other output data [pages 5-6, paragraphs 0093 & 0097 & 0099], wherein
the output data includes a hash value calculated on the basis of a part of or all of output data that temporally immediately precedes the output data, the object data, and a plurality of mutually-different types of ID information related to the object data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037].
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altenburger et al. (2018/0288362) in view of Van Hoof et al. (2018/0349708).
Claim 5: Altenburger et al. discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the object data is a RAW image, and the control unit is configured to generate the output data including the RAW image output from an image sensor in a stage preceding the control unit itself.
However, Van Hoof et al. discloses a similar invention [page 1, paragraphs 0013-0014] and further discloses wherein the object data is a RAW image, and the control unit is configured to generate the output data including the RAW image output from an image sensor in a stage preceding the control unit itself(video capturing module for capturing and generating video streams, via image sensor capturing raw image data, encoders generating streams, etc.) [page 11, paragraphs 0126-0128].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in further modify the disclosure of Altenburger et al. with the additional features of Van Hoof et al., in order to provide a technique for more efficiently presenting data for selected regions of interest in a video stream, as suggested by Van Hoof et al. [page 1, paragraph 0015].
Claim 6: Altenburger et al. and Van Hoof et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, and Van Hoof et al. further discloses wherein the control unit is configured to acquire the RAW image having been encrypted from the image sensor via an authenticated communication channel constructed between the control unit and the image sensor(compressing and encrypting captured video data for network transmission across any of the described communication channels) [page 11, paragraphs 0126-0128 | pages 3-4, paragraphs 0043-0044].
Claim 7: Altenburger et al. and Van Hoof et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, and Altenburger et al. further discloses wherein the output data includes metadata including the ID information, and the hash value and the RAW image, and the control unit is configured to calculate the hash value based on the metadata included in the temporally immediately-preceding output data [page 2, paragraphs 0029-0037], but does not explicitly disclose that the output data includes metadata including a reduced image of the RAW image.
However, Van Hoof et al. discloses a similar invention [page 1, paragraphs 0013-0014] and further discloses that the output data includes metadata including a reduced image of the RAW image(capturing and generating streams of various resolutions and/or frame rates from the image sensor; thus, at least some of the images would be smaller and/or lower quality than others) [page 11, paragraphs 0126-0128].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in further modify the disclosure of Altenburger et al. with the additional features of Van Hoof et al., in order to provide a technique for more efficiently presenting data for selected regions of interest in a video stream, as suggested by Van Hoof et al. [page 1, paragraph 0015].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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; and if rewritten to sufficiently overcome any applicable claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wannamaker (2022/0053123).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights