DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/212462 filed on May 19, 2025 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on May 21, 2024 (JP2024-082458).
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 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1 and 13-14 recite generating metadata, selecting metadata, and generating provenance data including the metadata and a hash.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea drawn to performing a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind or by hand but for the recitation of generic computer components and generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional. That is, other than reciting “a processor” to perform the steps and reciting generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from merely being the performance of a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the abstract idea of a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components and generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps as well as generating metadata and generating the provenance data to include the metadata and a hash value. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of generating metadata and generating the provenance data to include the metadata and a hash value are considered as generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional as every computer can store images with metadata and digital signatures. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processor” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generic computer functions. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 are also rejected for the same reason as cited above for not reciting any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiratsuka (US 2026/0203449).
As per claims 1 and 13-14, Hiratsuka discloses An electronic apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing one or more programs; and at least one processor that, upon execution of the stored one or more programs, causes the at least one processor to (Hiratsuka, paragraphs 269-271, teaches a processor to execute a program stored in memory.):
generate content including a plurality of metadata items (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches generating an image with IPTC metadata.);
select one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items to be incorporated in provenance data (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches the IPTC metadata may include various details such as the ownership or the location. As the metadata may or may not include this information it shows that there is a selection/determination of what information will be included in the metadata of the image.); and
generate the provenance data that incorporates the selected one or more metadata items and a hash value wherein the provenance data is generated when the content including the plurality of metadata items is generated (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches the IPTC metadata may include various details such as the ownership or the location. Hiratsuka, abstract and Figures 2-3 and associated texts such as paragraphs 8-9, 53, 57, 77-81, and 83-84, teaches generating a hash of the image and metadata and signing the hash to later be used to verify the authenticity of the image.)
As per claim 2, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a digital signature is generated from the hash value, and the generated digital signature is incorporated in the provenance data (Hiratsuka, abstract and Figures 2-3 and associated texts such as paragraphs 8-9, 53, 57, 77-81, and 83-84, teaches generating a hash of the image and metadata and signing the hash to later be used to verify the authenticity of the image.)
As per claim 5, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selectable one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items includes location information (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches storing the shooting location.)
As per claim 7, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the location information includes information regarding a region (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches storing the shooting location.)
As per claim 8, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selectable one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items includes information identifying a photographer (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches storing the ownership or name of the photographer.)
As per claim 9, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the information identifying the photographer includes one or more of a photographer's name, a copyright holder's name, an owner's name of the electronic apparatus, or an individual number of the electronic apparatus (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches storing the ownership or name of the photographer or the name of the copyright holder.)
As per claim 10, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein location information, time information, and information identifying the photographer are excluded from the one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items that can be selected to be incorporated in the provenance data (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches the IPTC metadata may include various details such as the ownership or the location. As the metadata may or may not include this information it shows that there is a selection/determination of what information will be included or will not be included in the metadata of the image.)
As per claim 12, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein all metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items are selected to be incorporated in the provenance data (Hiratsuka, paragraph 100, teaches the IPTC metadata may include various details such as the ownership or the location. As the metadata may or may not include this information it shows that there is a selection/determination of what information will be included or will not be included in the metadata of the image.)
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka in view of Miyajima (US 2006/0250507).
As per claim 3, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Hiratsuka does not specifically teach wherein the selectable one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items includes time information.
Miyajima discloses wherein the selectable one or more metadata items from among the plurality of metadata items includes time information (Miyajima, paragraphs 36 and 40, teaches the image metadata can include the time of imaging such as the year, month, day, hour, minute, and second.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have combined the teachings of Miyajima with the teachings of Hiratsuka. Hiratsuka teaches storing various data as metadata of an image such as the location the image was taken. Miyajima teaches storing the time the image was taken as image metadata. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Hiratsuka to include the time the image was taken as Hiratsuka teaches storing various image data as metadata of the image and can be varied to also include the time the image was taken. Additionally, this would have been a simple substitution of one known piece of image metadata for another to yield the predictable results of storing image metadata with a digital signature to prove the authenticity of the image.
As per claim 4, Hiratsuka in view of Miyajima discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the time information includes one or more of year information, month information, or day information (Miyajima, paragraphs 36 and 40, teaches the image metadata can include the time of imaging such as the year, month, day, hour, minute, and second.)
As per claim 6, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 5,
However, Hiratsuka does not specifically teach wherein the location information includes one or more of latitude information, longitude information, altitude information, or Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) information.
Miyajima discloses wherein the location information includes one or more of latitude information, longitude information, altitude information, or Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) information (Miyajima, paragraphs 36 and 40, teaches the image metadata can include the geographic location and altitude. Miyajima, paragraphs 128-129, teaches using GPS satellites to detect the current location of the camera to store as metadata for the image.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have combined the teachings of Miyajima with the teachings of Hiratsuka. Hiratsuka teaches storing location data as metadata of an image. Miyajima teaches storing the geographic location and altitude as location data for an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Hiratsuka to include the geographic location and altitude that the image was taken. This would have been a simple substitution of one known piece of location metadata for another to yield the predictable results of storing the location as image metadata with a digital signature to prove the authenticity of the image.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka in view of McGregor (US 10361866).
As per claim 11, Hiratsuka discloses The electronic apparatus according to claim 1 (Hiratsuka, paragraph 129 and 175-176, also teaches displaying a result of the image verification.)
However, Hiratsuka does not specifically teach wherein the provenance data that incorporates the selected one or more metadata items and the hash value can be displayed on a screen on which the content is reproduced.
McGregor discloses wherein the provenance data that incorporates the selected one or more metadata items and the hash value can be displayed on a screen on which the content is reproduced (McGregor, col. 23 lines 33-52, teaches displaying the hash file and the metadata when the image is displayed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to have combined the teachings of Hiratsuka with the teachings of Hiratsuka. Hiratsuka teaches storing various data of an image as the image metadata along with a digital signature to later be used to verify the authenticity of the image. McGregor teaches displaying the image along with the image metadata and the hash file of the image. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the system of Hiratsuka to display the image metadata and the hash file of the image (as in McGregor) as this would have provided an additional image verification by allowing a user or administrator to manually view and verify the image metadata.
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Carson (US 2007/0088957) – teaches verifying provenance data.
NPL “Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity” (provided in IDS dated 5-19-25) – teaches the details of C2PA to store metadata and signatures in images that can later be verified to ensure the images authenticity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights