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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 8/6/2026, on pages 5-7 of the remarks, for independent claims 1 and 7 along with their respective dependent claims, applicant argues that (a) the combination renders Hojjati unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and changes its principle of operation and (b) there is no gap in Hojjati that schneider fills: the stated motivation is not a reason under KSR.
In response to section (a) and (b), applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Hojjati and Schneider are in the same field of endeavor. Both prior arts are based on verification of contents or image. Both prior art arts are in the same classification of H04L9/3247, the instant application is in the classification of H04L9/3247.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Hojjati to include metadata of an image frame wherein the metadata of the image frame stores a first unique identifier for the image frame, and wherein the first unique identifier is generated by the controller applying a cryptographic function to the image data of the image frame as disclosed by Schneider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of detecting tampering (Schneider [Col 8 lines 32-50]).
Also, MPEP §2144 II “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).” In addition, MPEP §2144 II states “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.").” In this case, as seen in the Office Action, Examiner has provided reasoning for combining the references which has also been explained above. To further elaborate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of modifying the combination of Hojjati and Schneider with metadata of an image frame wherein the metadata of the image frame stores a first unique identifier for the image frame, and wherein the first unique identifier is generated by the controller applying a cryptographic function to the image data of the image frame (disclosed by Schneider) because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize detecting tempering improves security by verifying if the content was modified.
For this reasons, there is motivation or suggestion to combine the references. The proposed modification does not render the prior art unsatisfactory.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hojjati (US 20230344650) in view of Schneider et al. (US 12580735, hereinafter Schneider).
Re. claim 1, Hiratsuka discloses an image data validation system, comprising: an image capturing device that includes: a camera that captures an image of an object (Hojjati discloses the image data may include data associated with an image of a scene captured by one or more image data sources (e.g., a camera, video camera) [0060][0061]), a controller communicatively coupled to the camera via a data bus (Hojjati discloses any one or any combination of the components shown and described in FIG. 2 can each be implemented using one or more computing devices, such as, but not limited to one or more servers, processors, computing devices, virtual machines, etc. [0058] Fig. 7), wherein the controller generates, from the captured image, image data and associated metadata (Hojjati discloses generating a image data and metadata from the captured image [0061]. Convert the image data 244 into an array of values corresponding to subpixels of the image [0069][0086])Fig. 2), and a first transceiver coupled to the controller via the data bus, wherein the first transceiver transmits the image data and the metadata from the image capturing device to an image receiving device remote from the image capturing device (Hojjati discloses receive the image information 240 [0069][0060]. The image information 240 (including metadata 242 and image data 244) [0052]. The metadata 242 may include identifying information associated with the image data 244. For example, the metadata may include a title of the image data 244, a caption of the image data 244, a label of the image data 244, a time and/or date of capture of the image data 244, or any other identifying information of the metadata 242. In some embodiments, the third party system 108 may generate and/or provide the metadata 242 associated with the image data 244 [0061]. Protocols and components for communicating via the Internet or any of the other aforementioned types of communication networks are known to those skilled in the art of computer communications and thus, need not be described in more detail herein [0051] Fig. 2); and the image receiving device, wherein the imaging device includes a processor configured to: receive the image data and the metadata transmitted from the image capturing device (Hojjati discloses receive the image information 240 [0069][0060]. The image information 240 (including metadata 242 and image data 244) [0052]. The metadata 242 may include identifying information associated with the image data 244. For example, the metadata may include a title of the image data 244, a caption of the image data 244, a label of the image data 244, a time and/or date of capture of the image data 244, or any other identifying information of the metadata 242. In some embodiments, the third party system 108 may generate and/or provide the metadata 242 associated with the image data 244 [0061] Fig. 2), generate a second unique identifier from the image data by applying the cryptographic function to the image data, and validate the image data by comparing the first unique identifier to the second unique identifier (Hojjati discloses validity of an image can be verified. The validity of the image can be verified using a multi-layer verification process (e.g., a multi-phase verification process, a multi-level verification process). Each layer of the multi-layer verification process may include an additional level of security and verification of the validation of an image. The multi-layer verification process may include verification of a validation of an image based on a hash of an array representing an image and/or a hash of a shifted array representing the image, verification of a digital certificate associated with a source of the image, verification of a digital signature associated with a source of the image, verification of metadata associated with the image, etc. [0017]. The computing system may hash the array of numbers using a hashing algorithm. For example, the computing system may hash the array of numbers using a secure hashing algorithm (“SHA”) (e.g., SHA-256). In some embodiments, the computing system may hash the shifted array. By hashing the shifted array, the computing system may provide an additional layer of verification of the validation of the image. For example, the hash of the shifted array may be used to further confirm the validation of the image [0023]).
Hojjati discloses validation of an image and metadata, Hojjati does not explicitly but Schneider teaches metadata of an image frame wherein the metadata of the image frame stores a first unique identifier for the image frame, and wherein the first unique identifier is generated by the controller applying a cryptographic function to the image data of the image frame (Schneider teaches a set of frames (which may be a subset of frames of a video sequence) have been analyzed and had their hashes generated. In at least one embodiment, hash values can be appended to frames as metadata, such that metadata for each frame includes hashes for all previous frames in a sequence. removal of Frame 3 from a sequence by an external entity would cause comparison of Frame 4 hashes to current and previous frames to not match, whereby tampering could be detected [Col 8 lines 32-50][Col 14 lines 19-29][Col 3 lines 1-15], metadata stores the hash “first unique identifier” of the image frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Hojjati to include metadata of an image frame wherein the metadata of the image frame stores a first unique identifier for the image frame, and wherein the first unique identifier is generated by the controller applying a cryptographic function to the image data of the image frame as disclosed by Schneider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of detecting tampering (Schneider [Col 8 lines 32-50]).
Re. claim 2, Hojjati-Schneider teach the system of claim 1, wherein the validation system is integrated in a traffic monitoring system such that the image capturing device comprises a traffic sensor and the image receiving device comprises a traffic monitoring server system (Hojjati discloses the image information 240 may be information received from one or more image data sources (e.g., cameras, video cameras, computing devices, phones, sensors, etc.) [0060]. The client computing device 102 may include one or more servers to provide computing capacity to users for building and hosting their software systems [0045][0111][0011]).
Re. claim 3, Hojjati-Schneider teach the system of claim 1, wherein the image data is validated as having not been altered where the first unique identifier matches the second unique identifier (Hojjati discloses validity of an image can be verified. The validity of the image can be verified using a multi-layer verification process (e.g., a multi-phase verification process, a multi-level verification process). Each layer of the multi-layer verification process may include an additional level of security and verification of the validation of an image. The multi-layer verification process may include verification of a validation of an image based on a hash of an array representing an image and/or a hash of a shifted array representing the image, verification of a digital certificate associated with a source of the image, verification of a digital signature associated with a source of the image, verification of metadata associated with the image, etc. [0017]).
Re. claim 4, Hojjati-Schneider teach the system of wherein the cryptographic function is a hash function, and wherein the first/second unique identifiers are hash values (Schneider teaches a set of frames (which may be a subset of frames of a video sequence) have been analyzed and had their hashes generated. In at least one embodiment, hash values can be appended to frames as metadata, such that metadata for each frame includes hashes for all previous frames in a sequence. removal of Frame 3 from a sequence by an external entity would cause comparison of Frame 4 hashes to current and previous frames to not match, whereby tampering could be detected [Col 8 lines 32-50][Col 14 lines 19-29][Col 3 lines 1-15]. a hash value can be generated using any appropriate hashing (or other) algorithm [Col 10 lines 35-65], metadata stores the hash “first and second unique identifier ” of the image frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system disclosed by Hojjati to include wherein the cryptographic function is a hash function, and wherein the first/second unique identifiers are hash values as disclosed by Schneider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for the purpose of detecting tampering (Schneider [Col 8 lines 32-50]).
Re. claim 7, claim 7 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 1.
Re. claim 8, rejection of claim 7 is included and claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 2 above.
Re. claim 9, rejection of claim 7 is included and claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale as applied in claim 4 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hiratsuka (US 20240113891) discloses an image processing apparatus includes an image acquisition unit that acquires an image of a subject by capturing an optical image from the subject.
Doken (US 20230403443) teaches transmission of the 3D media asset [0097]. Transmit to the client device the metadata [0103].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-3912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM; Friday:Variable 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, Jorge Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/KEVIN AYALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
