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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1 in the reply filed on 21 September 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 September 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because unlabeled rectangular box(es) and/or circles shown in the drawings Figures 1, 4A-4C, 5B-5C, 6B-6D, 7-8, 9A-9C, and 10A-10B 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words. The abstract should be within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 1 is 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “providing a metaverse …” and “provides the encryption / decryption operation within or between one or more metaverses as or with one or more multiplexing interfaces”. The written description does not provide adequate written description for providing the encryption / decryption operation within or between one or more metaverses (such as describing digital interaction of immersive artificial environments, communities, or worlds that provide the encryption/decryption).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the value" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the product" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ordinal position" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fail to specify the rank or exact place/position for the ordinal position.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the 0-255 range" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the modulo operation" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pseudo random results" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether pseudo random results, which is plural, differ from the pseudo random number, which is singular, recited in lines 8-9.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the original" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the encrypted image" in lines 13 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to distinctly disclose the origin of the encrypted image.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pixel data" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the restored pixel data" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same dimensions" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the encrypted file" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the encrypted file refers to the encrypted image or a different encrypted file.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the original source image" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the algorithm" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sender and receiver " in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a first user can provider a user with content that is one or more selectively discoverable, encrypted or decrypted…”. The claim fails to particularly point out the meaning of “selectively discoverable” and where the content is being selectively discoverable from (such as from server memory, the cloud, user device). It is further unclear whether content refers to the data, images, sounds or videos that is viewable recited in line 2-3 of claim 1 or whether the content is different.
Claim 1 recites “provides the encryption / decryption operation within or between one or more metaverses as or with one or more multiplexing interfaces”. Metaverse can refer to any of the multitude of digital, virtual, and/or artificial environments that incorporate or mimic various aspects of reality. The Metaverse can encompasses all manner of indirect digital interaction from the simple use of online monikers to any of the existing or possible future immersive artificial environments, communities, or “worlds”, wherein the term “environment” includes all possible permutations of the Metaverse as well as reality itself. Therefore, it is unclear the digital, virtual, and/or artificial environments within or between the metaverse that the encryption/decryption operation is provided/executed. The claim does not particularly point out the digital, virtual, actual and/or artificial environments that is within or between the metaverse. The examiner has interpreted the claim as best understood.
Claim 1 recites “said prime number is selected by the value of a digit in a key to produce a large pseudo random number…”. The claim fails to distinctly claim how the prime number is chosen from a key. It is unclear whether the key is an equation/algorithm, or a sequence of numbers. Furthermore, the claim does not particularly point out how the large pseudo random number is generated and the range of the large pseudo random number. Large is a relative term which can render the claim indefinite. The claim fails to specify the value range for large.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al WO 2024238004 (hereinafter Anderson), in view of Lucas et al US 20230421783 (hereinafter Lucas), in further view of Kumar H S, Ranjan & Fathimath, Safeeriya & Shetty, Surendra & Aithal, Ganesh. (2017). Image encryption based on pixel transposition and Lehmer Pseudo random number generation. 1188-1193 (hereinafter Kumar), and in further view of Hussein, Haval & Mstafa, Ramadhan & Mohammed, Abdulhakeem & Younis, Younis. (2022). An Enhanced ElGamal Cryptosystem for Image Encryption and Decryption. 337-342 (hereinafter Hussein).
As to claim 1, Anderson teaches a method of encrypting into a file one or more of data, images, sounds, videos, or other information where the encrypted information is viewable as one or more of data, images, sounds, videos, or other information for providing a metaverse in which a first user can provide a second user with content that is one or more of selectively discoverable, encrypted, or decrypted (paragraphs 16 and 119 disclose a system that enable sharing of files between private blockchains and encrypting an image. Paragraph 120 discloses an encrypted file, wherein the encrypted file can include an image, text, file , an audio file, a video file, a three-dimensional file, etc.,. Paragraphs 49, 121-123 and 133 disclose a first user and a second user collaborate for the sharing of the encrypted file/image in a common workspace/metaverse (A metaverse workspace is a shared virtual environment where users uses 3D avatars, spatial audio, and real time digital tools to collaborate. Paragraph 96 reveals the user interface includes an immersive reality experience, a virtual reality experience, or similar). Paragraph 46 discloses a user device may display on a user interface of the user device one or more options for selecting and modifying different properties of the image. The user may select and modify the properties and the modified properties may then be input into the metadata of the NFT (NFTs are linked to digital art)); the method comprising;
utilizing an asymmetric public/private encryption (PGP) to eliminate the need to share a single key between the sender and receiver (paragraph 49 discloses the users utilizing public and private keys for the encryption and decryption of the image. Paragraph 119 discloses a digital wallet can be associated with public and private cryptographic keys);
storing the encrypted image on a memory stick, a server or the cloud (paragraph 120 discloses the encrypted file that include an image, text file, audio file, or video file, or three dimensional files. Paragraph 121 discloses the encrypted files are stored on blockchain. Block chain are made up of computer call nodes which are distributed servers); and
provides the encryption / decryption operation within or between one or more metaverses as or with one or more multiplexing interfaces (paragraph 119 discloses a linear sequence of image operations can be ordered chronologically, and can be secured through encryption and decryption. The system enables the first user to securely store encrypted files on a first blockchain. The first user can access the files using a digital storage, e.g., a digital wallet, which the first user can create upon initializing the user device. A digital wallet acts as a secure financial bridge and digital passport for the metaverse. The digital wallet can be associated with public and private cryptographic keys. The first blockchain can be private and all the content stored on the blockchain can be encrypted using the public cryptographic key (“public key”). To decrypt the contents of the blocks the private cryptographic key (“private key") is needed, which can be accessible and known only to the first user. Paragraphs 49, 121-123 and 133 disclose a first user and a second user collaborate for the sharing of the encrypted file/image in a common workspace/metaverse (A metaverse workspace is a shared virtual environment where users uses 3D avatars, spatial audio, and real time digital tools to collaborate. Paragraph 96 reveals the user interface includes an immersive reality experience, a virtual reality experience, or similar)).
Anderson does not teach serializing an image to its RGB values from left to right and top to bottom; adding the value to the product of the ordinal position and a large prime number, said prime number is selected by the value of a digit in a key to produce a large, pseudo-random number; the resulting large number is brought back into the 0-255 range using the modulo operator; storing the pseudo random results in an array then combined into an image file of the same dimension as the original; restoring the pixel data from the encrypted image with the key by subtraction and modulo operators; the restored pixel data is constituted into an image of the same dimensions as the encrypted file and is identical to the original source image because the algorithm is deterministic.
Lucas teaches serializing an image to its RGB values from left to right and top to bottom (paragraphs 5 and 47 disclose a processor is configured to serialize image data for a first image to form serialized data mapped to RGB pixels (pixels involves rows and columns, left to right and top to bottom) of a second image.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson’s method of encrypting into a file an image with Lucas’ teachings of serializing an image such that the image is compressed or uncompressed data in any format suitable (even encryption format) for representing an image to a display controller (paragraph 47 of Lucas).
The combination of Anderson in view of Lucas does not teach adding the value to the product of the ordinal position and a large prime number, said prime number is selected by the value of a digit in a key to produce a large, pseudo-random number; the resulting large number is brought back into the 0-255 range using the modulo operator; storing the pseudo random results in an array then combined into an image file of the same dimension as the original; restoring the pixel data from the encrypted image with the key by subtraction and modulo operators; the restored pixel data is constituted into an image of the same dimensions as the encrypted file and is identical to the original source image because the algorithm is deterministic.
Kumar teaches adding the value to the product of the ordinal position and a large prime number, said prime number is selected by the value of a digit in a key to produce a large, pseudo-random number; the resulting large number is brought back into the 0-255 range using the modulo operator (page 1190, right column, section under “Algorithm” discloses transposition of the pixel values. “Xi+1 = g * Xo * mod m”, g (from the value of the transposition of the RGB value) is added/combined to the product of ordinal position Xo and prime number mod m.); storing the pseudo random results in an array (page 1190, first column , Paragraph B: “fetching the security attribute” disclose each index/random value results are stored in an array. Page 1191, first column Figure 2 also show a diagram of the random numbers result is input to a location array) then combined into an image file of the same dimension as the original (Page 1191, first column Figure 2 discloses combining the random value results with the value of the image file that have the same dimensional length as the original); restoring the pixel data from the encrypted image; the restored pixel data is constituted into an image of the same dimensions as the encrypted file and is identical to the original source image because the algorithm is deterministic (page 1191, Figures 3 and Figure 4 show the recovered image from the ciphered/encrypted image, as shown in Figures 3-4 the stored is identification to the original image. Page 1192, first column , first paragraph recites that there is no difference found in the histograms of original images and the recovered images. The algorithms used for encryption and decryption produced the same results for both test cases; therefore the algorithm is deterministic).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson’s method of encrypting into a file an image in view of Lucas’ teachings of serializing an image with Kumar’s modulo operation for encryption to provide a high secure and reliable image encryption algorithm for protecting the data (page 1188, first column, first paragraph in section I. Introduction of Kumar).
The combination of Anderson in view of Lucas does not teach, but Hussien teaches restoring the pixel data from the encrypted image with the key (Figure 2 reveal decrypted or restored image is obtain from the encrypted image via the application of a public/private key) by subtraction and modulo operators (page 339, first column, Section “Message Decryption”, reveals the decryption is obtained via using subtraction and modulo operators).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson’s method of encrypting into a file an image in view of Lucas’ teachings of serializing an image and Kumar’s modulo operation with Hussien’s teachings of restoring an image by subtraction and modulo operators to reduce the latency of slowed encrypted communication and reduce the expenses of encrypted communication (page 337, second column, lines 4-5 of Hussein).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yan WO 20210160298 (hereinafter Yan).
Yan teaches processing the image according to the RGB values for each pixel and serializing the image to obtain serialized data (paragraphs 87 and 96).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (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.
/F.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights