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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to 35 USC 112(b), filed 03/11/2026, on page 4 of the remarks, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
In response to 35 USC 101, filed 03/11/2026, on page 4 of the remarks, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
In response to 35 USC 103, filed 03/11/2026, on pages 4-7 of the remarks, for independent claims 1 and 7 along with their respective dependent claims, applicant argues that Hojjati-Vardy fails to teach “first unique identifier…. Generated by the controller applying a cryptographic function to the image data of the image frame” and “metadata of the image frame stores the first unique identifier for the image frame.
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot, because the newly recited amendment does not rely on the newly recited reference being applied to the prior rejection of record or any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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].
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
Prosecution Insights