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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement mailed 11/14/2025 in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The inventions are not patentably distinct; they are reciprocally interrelated aspects of a single invention.” This is not found persuasive because the applicants have not claimed them as a single invention, but rather have claimed them separately. This evidences that they are not a single invention, but rather are sub-combinations usable together. As such, the examiner is not persuaded.
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that “2) The Examiner has not shown that the subcombinations "do not overlap in scope." This is not found persuasive because the examiner is not required to show that the subcombinations do not overlap in scope. It is the applicants’ responsibility to prove that they do. As the applicants have not shown that the subcombinations do overlap in scope, the examiner is unpersuaded. Further, consider this analogy. A baker bakes a cookie. A consumer eats the cookie. The fact that the cookie is the same in both instances does not mean that the baker and the consumer overlap in scope. They are two different people performing two different functions on the same cookie. In the instant case, we have a stream creator and a stream verifier. Simply because the creator makes a stream and the verifier verifies the stream does not mean the creator and verifier overlap in scope. They are two separate entities, performing two different functions. And as such, they do not overlap in scope.
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that “The Examiner has not demonstrated that the inventions are not obvious variants.” This is not found persuasive because this is not a requirement for holding the inventions restrictable. It simply must be true. The applicants can overcome the restriction requirement by proving that the inventions are obvious variants, but the applicants have explicitly declined to do so. The differences in the claimed subcombinations is not simply that one signs the stream and the other verifies. The claims have details regarding these operations, and the specification has further details regarding these operations. The details of the checking apparatus are not the same as the details of the creating apparatus, as they are performing completely different functions (creating vs verifying). As such, these details are not simply obvious. The manner in which the stream is encoded is irrelevant to the obviousness of the inventions. Since the applicants have not shown the subcombinations to be obvious, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that “Separate utility does not establish distinctness where utility is inherent and arises from the same technical disclosure.” This is not found persuasive because the apparatus for rendering has separate utility of simply providing the encoded content for consumption and does not require the apparatus for checking. The content can be provided to any consumer regardless of their intent, or lack of intent, to verify the trustworthiness of the content. In other words, the apparatus for rendering has separate utility that does not require the combination. This meets the burden of separate utility, and as such the examiner is not persuaded.
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that “The asserted search and/or examination burden is not substantiated.” This is not found persuasive because the burden is well established. The examiner has shown that invention I would be classified in differing classifications than invention II. This also leads to invention I requiring search in areas that are not required for invention II, and vice versa. The argument that a unified search would cover both inventions is not persuasive. This would be true of any two inventions being searched. As such, the examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
The traversal is further on the ground(s) that “Policy considerations favor single examination to avoid piecemeal prosecution and double patenting complications.” This is not found persuasive because it amounts to mere allegation. Further, invention I does not require all the limitations of invention II, and invention II does not require all the limitations of invention I.
The statement that “The Office's own guidance warns that subcombinations ‘usable together’ invite double patenting issues if prosecuted separately.” is simply not correct. The warning in the restriction requirement is simply stating that if, for example, claim 1 of invention I is prosecuted and found allowable, then any claim that requires all (i.e. each and every) limitations of claim 1 would also be allowable over the prior art, and as such if that were the case for a claim in invention II, that claim would be examined and allowed. This statement is further meant as a warning that if the applicants were to file a divisional including a claim that requires all of the limitations of allowed claim 1 of invention I, that claim would be subject to double patenting. This would be the case if the applicants were to file a divisional application claiming the combination of invention I and II, rather than simply claiming invention II. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Because the examiner does not find the arguments persuasive, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The applicants’ request identification of “The distinct, non-overlapping prior art classes and subclasses beyond HO4L 63/12 and HO4N 21/23473 that would require separate searches.” The examiner declines the request as it is not required. Further, the above request already highlights separate class and subclasses.
The applicants’ request identification of “The particular claim limitations that necessitate separate search strategies not addressed by a unified search in authenticated video streaming and cryptographic verification/signing.” The examiner declines the request as a unified search is not required. As such, the request is moot.
For brevity’s sake, restriction requirement is not repeated below, but is maintained. The restriction requirement can be seen in the office action mailed 11/14/2025.
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 2/13/2026
Claims 1-12 and 14 have been examined. Claims 13 and 15 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/6/2025, 11/4/2025, and 2/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (e.g. are described). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “the prediction residual data” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “the residual block” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “the coefficients” in multiple instances. It is unclear to which coefficients these instances are referring.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “in the scan order between in the scan order” which does not make sense.
Claim 1 recites "positions of non-zero transform coefficients in a transform block". It is unclear as to whether "positions" is referring to "positions" of line 38, whether "non-zero transform coefficients" is referring to "non-zero transform coefficients" of lines 23-25, or whether "a transform block" is referring to "a transform block" of line 24. For examination purposes, each of the above "positions," "non-zero transform coefficients," and "a transform block" will be interpreted to be respectively the same. In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation may be amended to state --the positions of the non-zero transform coefficients in the transform block--, for example. Claim 14 has the same issue.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “the last non-zero transform coefficient” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “the non-zero transform coefficients’ values” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “URI” which is an acronym that has not been defined in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the syntax element” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “SEI” which is an acronym that has not been defined in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “SEI” which is an acronym that has not been defined in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “thereof” but it is not clear whether this is referred to the message or the payload.
Claim 5 twice recites “the payload, or the predetermined portion thereof” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the predetermined portion” which has multiple antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the predetermined portion of the payload of the SEI message” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the syntax structure” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the syntax structure” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
All rejected dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon one of the above addressed claims.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are drawn to a computer program per se. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se are abstract instructions. Computer programs are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. As such, these claims are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106.01), but are directed to nonstatutory functional descriptive material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over England et al. (AMP: Authentication of Media via Provenance) hereinafter referred to as AMP, and further in view of Kirchhoffer et al. (US Patent Number 2016/0080742) hereinafter referred to as Kirchhoffer.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, AMP disclosed an apparatus for checking a video data stream having a video encoded thereinto on trustworthiness (AMP Abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the apparatus is configured for
subjecting a predetermined portion of the video data stream, or data derived therefrom, to a hash function to obtain a hash value (AMP Section III and Table 1 and Section VII for example);
checking whether the hash value fits to a digital signature to determine whether the video data stream is trustworthy (AMP Section III and Table 1 and Section VII for example);
wherein the apparatus is configured for checking whether the video data stream comprises an indication of an external resource comprising a track of editors of the video data stream, and if the video data stream comprises an indication of an external resource comprising a track of editors of the video data stream, querying the track of editors for a certificate of a content provider being the last editor of the video data stream and deriving the public key based on the certificate of the content provider (AMP Section II.A – Media Provenance Ledger, Appendix B.A, Appendix B.H , Section III and Table 1, and Section VII, for example),
wherein the video data stream has the video encoded thereinto by encoding the video into the video data stream by block based predictive coding and transform based residual coding by encoding the prediction residual data of the residual block into the video data stream by use of context adaptive variable length coding by using a first syntax element indicating a total number of non-zero transform coefficients in a transform block representing the residual block, and a trailing-one number, indicating a number of non-zero transform coefficients having an absolute value of one when traversing the coefficients along a scan order, one or more second syntax elements indicating a sign of the non-zero transform coefficients having an absolute value of one when traversing the coefficients along the scan order, one or more third syntax elements indicating a value of the non-zero transform coefficients except for the number of non-zero transform coefficients having an absolute value of one when traversing the coefficients along the scan order, a fourth syntax element indicating a total number of zero-valued transform coefficient levels in the transform block from a firstly-encountered non-zero transform coefficient in the scan order onwards, and one or more fifth syntax elements indicting positions of the non-zero transform coefficients along the scan order by indicating a number of consecutive zero-valued transform coefficients in the scan order between in the scan order consecutively encountered non-zero transform coefficients, or by use of context-adaptive binary arithmetic coding by encoding a significance map which indicates positions of non-zero transform coefficients in a transform block representing the residual block by, in a forward scan traversing transform coefficients of the transform block, encoding a significance flag which indicates whether a non-zero transform coefficient is positioned at a current position, and, if so, and if the current position is not the last in the forward scan, encoding a last-significance flag which indicates whether the non-zero transform coefficient positioned at the current position is the last non-zero transform coefficient in the forward scan order, and encoding the non-zero transform coefficients' values sequentially in a reverse scan order, reversing the forward scan order (AMP Section III-Streaming Manifests – where the video is coded using chunked MPEG streams such as HLS or MPEG DASH. HLS requires the use of H.264 or H.265 where H.264 utilizes Context-Adaptive Variable Length Coding (CAVLC) or Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (CABAC) while H.265 utilizes (CABAC). Kirchhoffer shows the claimed details regarding CABAC in paragraph 0006 and as such these details would have been obvious to implement in the system of AMP. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to Streaming Manifests in the manner implied by the teachings of AMP).
AMP did not explicitly teach that the checking was done by decrypting the digital signature using a public key of an asymmetric decryption scheme to obtain a check value, and checking whether the hash value matches the check value.
Official Notice: It was well known in the art of signature generation and verification, that signatures are created by hashing a block of data, and then encrypting the hash using the private key of the signor. This signature can then be verified by decrypting the signature using the public key of the signor, hashing the same data block, and then comparing the hash with the decrypted signature and if they match the signature is valid and it is proven that the signor did indeed sign the block of data. As such, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have verified the signatures of AMP in this well-known manner. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a well-known means for the generically taught signature verification of AMP.
Regarding claim 2, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that in checking whether the video data stream comprises an indication of an external resource comprising a track of editors of the video data stream, deriving a syntax element from the video data stream, which indicates, whether (1) the video data stream comprises a URI directly pointing to the certificate of the content provider or a URI pointing to a register of certificates of content providers and an index into the register pointing to the content provider of the video data stream, or (2) the video data stream comprises the indication of the external resource comprising the track of editors (AMP Section II.A – Media Provenance Ledger, Appendix B.A, Appendix B.H , Section III and Table 1, and Section VII, for example).
Regarding claim 3, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught the syntax element and, if present, the indication of the external resource comprising the track of editors, are transmitted in a SEI message of the video data stream (AMP Section III and Table 1 and Section VII for example).
Regarding claim 4, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that, if present, the indication of the external resource comprising the track of editors is transmitted in a SEI message of the video data stream, and wherein the apparatus is configured for if the indication of the external resource comprising the track of editors is present, deriving a further digital signature from the external resource; and checking whether a payload of the SEI message, or a predetermined portion thereof, fits to the further digital signature (AMP Section III and Table 1 and Section VII for example).
Regarding claim 5, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that in checking whether the payload, or the predetermined portion thereof, fits to the further digital signature, subjecting the payload, or the predetermined portion thereof, to a further hash function to obtain a further hash value; and checking, whether the further hash value fits to the further digital signature (AMP Section III and Table 1 and Section VII for example).
Regarding claim 6, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the predetermined portion excludes the indication of the external resource comprising the track of editors (AMP Section III and Table V and Appendix C.H for example).
Regarding claim 7, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the predetermined portion of the payload of the SEI message comprises a unique identifier (AMP Section III and Table V and Appendix C.H for example).
Regarding claim 8, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the syntax structure further comprises a media component identifier, and wherein the apparatus is configured for using the media component identifier for selecting the further digital signature out of a set of one or more digital signatures comprised in the external resource (AMP Section III, Section V, Table V and Appendix C.H for example).
Regarding claim 9, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the syntax structure further comprises one or more of an indication of the hash function, an indication of a number of portions of the video data stream, for which a digital signature for verifying the trustworthiness of the video data stream is available (AMP Fig. 7 for example).
Regarding claim 10, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the hash value depends on every bit of the predetermined portion of the video data stream (AMP section V – Streaming Manifests).
Regarding claim 11, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the hash value depends on every bit of the predetermined portion of the video data stream in an encoded domain (AMP section V – Streaming Manifests).
Regarding claim 12, AMP and Kirchhoffer taught that the predetermined portion of the video data stream extends over more than one access unit of the video data stream so that the hash value depends on bits of the more than one access unit, or wherein the predetermined portion comprises video data of only one access unit (AMP section V – Streaming Manifests).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 and 14 have been rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0301702 taught a system for verification of signed video streams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T HENNING whose telephone number is (571)272-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-3PM 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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHEW T HENNING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491