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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/30/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended, claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-11 and 14-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding patentability are conclusory as they do not address the aspects and teachings of prior art as cited in previous action and the specific claimed aspects that either distinguish or are non-obvious. Examiner notes claim amendments taught by Gibson and grounds of rejection updated in the rejection accordingly in claim for claim 1.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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) 1-2, and 6-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0286832 A1) and Ramadorai et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0261042 A1).
As per claim 1 Gibson disclosed an interactive yearbook system (paragraph.48) {Utilization of Yearbook for photos} for providing for a user with the ability to contribute, manage, explore, and consume dynamic digital content via at least a smartphone or tablet a computing device in connection with the user’s interaction with, via the smartphone or tablet computing device (Figure, 2, elements 202a, 202b), static printed content provided in a yearbook, the static printed content corresponding to the dynamic digital content and being in the form of at least one of a printed image, printed text, and a printed label {QR Code} (Figure 1, Element 120 QR code) (Paragraphs.18) {Disclosure overcomes the limited static nature of existing photobooks by integrating a social media capability into the photobook via one or more interactive features such as symbologies included within the photobook. Each interactive feature can contain content, such as a web address or instruction set, that when captured by a computing device will direct the computing device to a social networking site, photo sharing, or similar data collection site associated with the photobook…. web accessible site may also provide the user with the option to upload or add content to the web accessible site, including, but not limited to, additional photographs, commentary, multi-media files, and other similar content. }, the system comprising: a server configured to communicate and exchange data with one or more computing devices over a network (Figure.2) (paragraph.35), the server comprising a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor (paragraph.49) to cause the server to:
provide a platform comprising a user interface with which a user can interact via an associated computing device to create a corresponding user account and further provide digital content to be stored and associated with the user account (paragraph.42) {System may authenticate one or more users, and determined those users to have full access rights to the additional information…} (paragraph. 32) { In order to verify a user's identity, a system such as a publisher's photobook creation and design system, may uniquely create the interactive features for an individual user such that the interactive features indicate what level of authorization that user has..};
store, in a database, a plurality of user accounts, each user account comprising user-contributed digital content associated with respective printed content provided in a yearbook (paragraph.42) {System may authenticate one or more users, and determined those users to have full access rights to the additional information…may further authenticate a third set of users to have the lowest level of access rights and provide those users with the ability to view the uploaded information, but not upload any additional information.}, the user-contributed dynamic digital content comprises one or more images, one or more video-based files, one or more audio-based files, and text associated with at least one ofthe one or more images, the one or more video-based files,the one or more audio-based files (Gibson, paragraphs.23,43) {additional pictures, audio clips, video clips, text comments, and other similar information}; receive, from a smartphone or tablet computing device, a request for access to user-contributed dynamic digital content of one of the user accounts (paragraphs.5 and 22) {During creation of the photobook 100, the interactive system the user is accessing to create the photobook may prompt the user with the option to include an interactive feature…. if the photobook 100 is directed to a wedding, page 102 may include pictures of the bride. In this case, the user creating the book may opt to have the interactive feature include a web address for a page associated with the bride's social media account.}, the request comprising image data captured via a camera of the smartphone or tablet computing device, the images data including one or more of the unique identifier associated with the static printed content in the yearbook, the static printed content corresponding to the dynamic digital content and being in the form of at least one of a printed image, printed text, and a printed machine readable label {QR Code} (paragraphs.6 and 22) {Web address may be encoded and printed as barcode 110 as shown in FIG. 1. Then, when viewing the photobook 100, a person can select or capture an image of the barcode 110 with an appropriate device (e.g., a smartphone) which is configured to decode the web address from the interactive feature and direct a web browser of the device to the web address.}; process the request to identify a user account and user-contributed dynamic digital content tied to the printed content in the yearbook; and provide the requesting smartphone or tablet computing device with access to the user-contributed digital content upon a positive identification (paragraph.23 and 24) {System may receive identification information and verify user who uploaded the information to ensure that the user has proper authority to upload the information}.
Although Gibson disclosed user encoding the user-contributed content with the interactive feature, however Gibson did not explicitly disclose the user-contributed dynamic digital content having successfully undergone a content moderation process.
In the same field of endeavor Ramadorai disclosed storing the user-contributed digital content having successfully undergone a content moderation process (paragraphs.52 and 77) {Management attributes may include, without limitation, creating, reading, updating, deleting, inviting others, populating media, administration, media management, advanced functions, moderate functions, or other media use and management functions (to include flagging and rejecting of content)}
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated user-contributed digital content having successfully undergone a content moderation process as disclosed by Ramadorai in the system disclosed by Gibson in order to make the system more robust, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 2 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 1, wherein the yearbook is associated with an educational institution and users comprise at least one of students of the educational institution, friends and/or relatives associated with a student, staff associated with the yearbook and tasked with creation and/or management thereof, and staff or employees of the educational institution (Gibson, Paragraph.48) {Yearbook scenario example}.
As per claim 6 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 2, wherein each user account is associated with a respective student of the educational institution (Ramadorai, paragraphs. 63 and 115) {Users accounts in relation to the contributed content and user requests for content}.
As per claim 7 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 6, wherein, prior to receiving, accepting, and storing user-contributed dynamic digital content, the server is configured to initiate at least one of an initial registration process (Ramadorai, paragraph.43 and 63) {Server and user account registration} and an authentication process with a given student (Ramadorai, paragraph. 63) {User identification mechanism to allow roles of the registered users in relation to content management}.
As per claim 8 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 7, wherein an initial registration process comprises transmitting, from the server, an invitation to a given student to contribute digital content associated with the yearbook, the invitation prompting the student to confirm acceptance of the invitation (Ramadorai, paragraph. 69) {Participant(s) invited to share content}.
As per claim 14 Gibson -Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 13, wherein the printed content comprises a portrait photograph of a given student and the corresponding user account for the given student comprises a set of one or more digital photographs contributed by the given student and associated with the portrait photograph in the yearbook (Gibson, paragraph.48)
As per claim 15 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 14, wherein the request for access to user-contributed dynamic digital content comprises a captured image of a portrait photograph of a student from the yearbook (Gibson, paragraph.48).
As per claim 16 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 15, wherein processing of the request comprises performing image analysis on the captured image of the portrait photograph to identify one or more unique identifiers associated with the portrait photograph (Gibson, paragraphs.32 and 48) and further correlating the one or more unique identifiers with identifying data associated with the set of one or more student-contributed digital photographs of the student's account (Ramadorai, paragraphs. 63 and 115) {Users accounts in relation to the contributed content and user requests for content}.
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have correlating the one or more unique identifiers with identifying data associated with the set of one or more student-contributed digital photographs of the student's account as disclosed by Ramadorai in the system disclosed by Gibson in order to make the system more robust, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 17 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 16, wherein at least one set of one or more student-contributed digital photographs for each student account is tied to a corresponding portrait photograph of that student via a unique identifier (Gibson, paragraphs.32)
Claim(s) 9-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0286832 A1), Ramadorai et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0261042 A1) and Rosen (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0109391 A1)
As per claim 9 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 8. However, both Gibson and Ramadorai did not explicitly disclose wherein the authentication process comprises transmitting a request to the given student to confirm their identity by satisfying at least one of a biometric factor and a challenge-response factor. In the same field of the endeavor, Rosen disclosed wherein the authentication process comprises transmitting a request to the given student to confirm their identity by satisfying at least one of a biometric factor and a challenge-response factor (Rosen, paragraph.78).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the authentication process comprises transmitting a request to the given student to confirm their identity by satisfying at least one of a biometric factor and a challenge-response factor as disclosed by Rosen in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more secure, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 10 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 9. However, both Gibson and Ramadorai did not explicitly disclose wherein the biometric factor comprises at least one of a fingerprint scan, a retinal scan, a facial scan, voice recognition, and speech recognition and the challenge- response factor comprises at least one of password authentication, passphrase authentication, and email authentication. In the same field of endeavor, Rosen disclosed wherein the biometric factor comprises at least one of a fingerprint scan, a retinal scan, a facial scan, voice recognition, and speech recognition and the challenge- response factor comprises at least one of password authentication, passphrase authentication, and email authentication (Rosen, paragraph.78).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the biometric factor comprises at least one of a fingerprint scan, a retinal scan, a facial scan, voice recognition, and speech recognition and the challenge- response factor comprises at least one of password authentication, passphrase authentication, and email authentication as disclosed by Rosen in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more secure, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 11 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 10. However, both Gibson and Ramadorai did not explicitly disclose wherein the server is configured to carry out at least one of facial- recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis to confirm an identity of a given student during an authentication process. In the same field of endeavor, Rosen disclosed wherein the server is configured to carry out at least one of facial- recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis to confirm an identity of a given student during an authentication process (Rosen, paragraph.78).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the server is configured to carry out at least one of facial- recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis to confirm an identity of a given student during an authentication process as disclosed by Rosen in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more secure, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 18 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 17. However, both Gibson and Ramadorai did not explicitly disclose wherein the image analysis includes at least one of facial recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis. In the same field of endeavor, Rosen disclosed wherein the image analysis includes at least one of facial recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis (Rosen, paragraph.78).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the image analysis includes at least one of facial recognition analysis and keypoint detection analysis as disclosed by Rosen in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more secure, versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 19 Gibson-Ramadorai-Rosen disclosed the system of claim 18, wherein the one or more unique identifiers comprises one or more keypoints (Rosen, paragraphs.83 and 84) {A feature within an image}.
As per claim 20 Gibson-Ramadorai-Rosen disclosed the system of claim 19, wherein, upon a positive correlation, the server is configured to provide the requesting smartphone or tablet computing device with access to the set of one or more student-contributed digital photographs (Ramadorai, paragraph. 63) {User identification mechanism to allow roles of the registered users in relation to content management}.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0286832 A1), Ramadorai et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0261042 A1) and Beckmann et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/018935 A1).
As per claim 3 Gibson-Ramadorai disclosed the system of claim 2 wherein the content moderation process comprises an artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation process and a human-based content moderation process (Ramadorai, paragraph.52 {disclosed only the underlined text} {Content management system 100 may allow a user with an authenticated account to store content, as well as perform management tasks, such as retrieve, modify, browse, synchronize, and/or share content with other accounts}. However, both Gibson-Ramadorai did not explicitly disclose {Underlined text} wherein the content moderation process comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation process. In the same file of endeavor Beckman disclosed wherein the content moderation process comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation process (paragraph.60) {Content management system 106 may identify and remove all but one copy for each set of duplicates. Such identification may be done automatically through artificial intelligence and/or manually through user input.}
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the content moderation process comprises at least one of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation process as disclosed by Beckmann in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more robust versatile and user friendly.
As per claim 4 Gibson-Ramadorai-Beckmann disclosed the system of claim 3, wherein each of the AI-based and human-based content moderation processes (Beckmann, paragraph.60) comprises review of user-contributed dynamic digital content and a determination of whether subject matter of the user-contributed digital content complies with policies instituted by the educational institution governing such content (Beckmann, paragraph.33).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein each of the AI-based and human-based content moderation processes comprises review of user-contributed digital content and a determination of whether subject matter of the user-contributed dynamic digital content complies with policies instituted by the educational institution governing such content as disclosed by Beckmann in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more robust versatile and user friendly.
As per digiclaim 5 Gibson-Ramadorai-Beckmann disclosed the system of claim 4, wherein user-contributed dynamic digital content is deemed to have successfully undergone a content moderation process upon a positive determination that the subject matter of the user-contributed dynamic digital content complies with the policies (Beckmann, paragraph.33).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein user-contributed digital content is deemed to have successfully undergone a content moderation process upon a positive determination that the subject matter of the user-contributed digital content complies with the policies as disclosed by Beckmann in the system disclosed by Gibson-Ramadorai in order to make the system more robust versatile and user friendly.
Conclusion
Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP §
714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06. "with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added).
"The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684
(Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced." "USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. " The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EXAMINER UMAIR AHSANUMAIR AHSAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-5 PM EST or by emailing UMAIR.AHSAN@USPTO.GOV.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/UMAIR AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647 a