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 Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/132,633 filed on 05/23/2025.
Claims 1-22 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) to Provisional Application No.: 63/430,788, filed on 12/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on 03/16/2026 and 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claim calls for a device; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed device. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains the following modules or elements: “a hash processing unit”, “a signature generation unit”, “a file generation unit”. The claims fails to explicitly include any hardware and as a result, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The mere recitation of a machine or device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element contained within the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recites at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-16, claims 2-16 depend upon independent claim 1 and inherit the same 35 U.S.C. 101 issues as the independent claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim calls for a device; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed device. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains the following modules or elements: “a file obtainment unit”, “a verification unit”. The claims fails to explicitly include any hardware and as a result, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The mere recitation of a machine or device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element contained within the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recites at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 19-21, claims 19-21 depend upon independent claim 18 and inherit the same 35 U.S.C. 101 issues as the independent claim.
Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Allowance
Regarding Claims 1-22, Claims 1-22 are allowed over the cited prior art.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art includes Crosby et al. (US 11,646,896; Hereinafter “Crosby”), Chen (US 2018/0052637), and Kunito (US 2022/0279120) are generally directed to providing secure communications utilizing cryptographically generated addresses.
Crosby teaches generating and authenticating remote sensing imagery includes a remote sensing platform. The remote sensing platform includes an imaging sensor and a hardware logic device that is directly coupled to the imaging sensor. The hardware logic device receives image data from the imaging sensor and generates a cryptographic signature based upon the image data. The hardware logic device outputs a signed image that includes the image data and the cryptographic signature. A computing device operated by a downstream user receives the signed image and can determine whether the image data has been modified from its original content based upon the cryptographic signature.
Chen describes methods and apparatus for loading and garbage collecting image files. In an example, the system includes a first and a second memory, one or more processors in communication with the first and the second memory and a garbage collector including an input/output module and a garbage collector engine. A request to load a first image file located on the first memory into the second memory is received by the input/output module. This first image file includes a first plurality of logical subunits including a first logical subunit and a second logical subunit, where the first image file is associated with a first metadata that includes a first identifying signature associated with the first logical subunit and a second identifying signature associated with the second logical subunit. The garbage collector retrieves the first identifying signature from the first metadata. The garbage collector retrieves, from a first plurality of image files stored in the second memory an associated first plurality of identifying signatures. Each of these identifying signatures is associated with a respective second plurality of logical subunits. The garbage collector determines that the first identifying signature matches a third identifying signature from the first plurality of identifying signatures, where the third identifying signature is associated with a third logical subunit in a second image file of the first plurality of image files stored in the second memory. The garbage collector determines whether the second identifying signature matches any of the first plurality of identifying signatures.
Kunito describes adding an electronic signature to an edited image under reliable environment. An imaging device includes a determination processing unit that executes determination processing for determining whether or not image data is an own device captured image captured by an own device on the basis of metadata corresponding to the image data input from outside of the own device and a signature processing unit that acquires re-signature data different from signature data at the time of imaging using the image data and metadata for the image data determined as an own device captured image by the determination processing unit.
However, none of Crosby, Chen, and Kunito teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims 1, 17-18 and 22. For example, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggest the steps of “generating a first hash corresponding to a first signature and a second hash corresponding to a second signature using a captured image and metadata; generating the first signature using a first private key and the first hash, and generating the second signature using a second private key and the second hash; and generating a file storing the captured image, the metadata, the first signature, and the second signature, wherein the first private key corresponds to a limited public key publicized only to a first entity having specific privileges other than user privileges, and the second private key corresponds to a user public key also publicized to a second entity having the user privileges” as recited in claims 1 and 17, and “obtaining a file storing an image, metadata, a first signature, and a second signature; and verifying authenticity of the image using a limited public key publicized only to a first entity having specific privileges other than user privileges, the image, the metadata, and the first signature, wherein the first signature is a signature generated using a first private key corresponding to the limited public key, a captured image corresponding to the image, and metadata of the captured image, and the second signature is a signature generated using a second private key corresponding to a user public key also publicized to a second entity having the user privileges, the image, and the metadata” as recited in claims 18 and 22. As a result, the claims are allowable over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No.: US 8,904,184 by Kreiner et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Giddins whose telephone number is (571)272-7993. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Linglan Edwards can be reached at (571) 270-5440. 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.
/NELSON S. GIDDINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights