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 .
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 30 March 2026. Claims 2, 12, 21 have been amended. Claim(s) 1, 11 has/have been canceled. Claim 23-24 are new. Claims 2-10, 12-24 are pending and have been considered below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 March 2026 has been entered.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-8, 12, 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 2012/0082401 A1) in view of Charania et al. (US 2016/0110355 A1) and further in view of Butikofer et al. (US 2003/0095809 A1) and Webster et al. (US 2009/0164944 A1) and Robinson et al. (US 2007/0177183 A1) and Shen et al. (US 2016/0179844 A1).
Claim 1. (Canceled)
Claim 2. Berger discloses a method, comprising:
identifying a first plurality of assets, metadata variables which may be evaluated to separate the photos into different stories may include, but are not limited to, the date and time on which the photos were captured, the people identified in the photos, and/or the location at which the photos were taken (P 0055) the default operation of the photo story engine is to generate a different photo story for each date or time range (P 0056),
determining curation scores for the first plurality of assets, metadata variables which may be evaluated to separate the photos into different stories may include, but are not limited to, the date and time on which the photos were captured, the people identified in the photos, and/or the location at which the photos were taken (P 0055) the default operation of the photo story engine is to generate a different photo story for each date or time range (P 0056);
selecting … a first asset from the first plurality of assets … , a preview image for each photo story is initially displayed with photos integrated within the highest-ranked design template selected by the photo story engine (P 0118);
generating at least a first card, a photo story preview image for each photo story is displayed with photos integrated within the highest-ranked design template selected by the photo story engine (P 0118, Fig 7a),
presenting, on a graphical user interface (GUI), at least the first card; a preview image is displayed to the user (P 0118);
representing the first time period; While Berger discloses displaying a representative thumbnail (706 in Fig. 7a, and similarly displayed in Fig. 9A), Berger does not disclose that the representative thumbnail does not include a second set of assets from the plurality of assets. Webster discloses a GUI displaying a number of thumbnails (P 0078, 0081) including summary thumbnail representing a hierarchy of items, e.g. representing all the items from a certain year, month, or day, in a date ordered collection, and be expandable to show hierarchical components thereof, and also displaying a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (P 0086). Thumbnail 810 in Fig. 8 of Webster represents selected set of assets and preview image 820 is analogous to the claimed first card.
Berger does not explicitly disclose responsive to determining that a subset of assets, of the first plurality of assets, have a utility purpose: filtering the first plurality of assets by removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets; subsequent to removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets, as disclosed in the claims. However, Berger discloses the photos in the first group are analyzed for further relevance based on a set of common characteristics to produce a second group of photos for the photo story to assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111). In the same field of invention, Charania discloses an attribute is used to measure a negative quality of an image related to whether the image is an outlier, such as an image of a parking lot (P 0041) that are excluded from an album (P 0045). While Charania does not disclose that outlier images are images with a utility purpose, Paragraph 0155 of Applicant’s specification states, “A utility purpose indicates that the asset was obtained to serve a certain nonaesthetic purpose, as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Some examples of assets directed to a utility purpose include, but are not limited to, photo of a receipt, photo of a whiteboard showing notes from a meeting, instructional video of a technique for performing a certain activity (like sharpening a knife, decorating a cake, etc.), photo of documents or papers, photo of drawings or sketches, photo of a shopping list, photo of a reminder, a screenshot, etc.” Charania clearly discloses that an outlier photo does not server an aesthetic purpose. In the same field of invention, Butikofer discloses an image of a product has an associated value relationship that is represented as a separate image of a receipt or invoice (P 0036). That is, Butikofer clearly discloses that images and images with a utility purpose are stored separately. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania and Butikofer, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine responsive to determining that a subset of assets, of the first plurality of assets, have a utility purpose: filtering the first plurality of assets by removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets; subsequent to removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets with the teachings of Berger with the motivation to provide content more relevant to the user’s intent that is aesthetically pleasing separated from less or non-pleasing content.
Berger does not disclose that correspond to a first time period, as disclosed in the claims. While Berger discloses displaying a representative thumbnail (706 in Fig. 7a, and similarly displayed in Fig. 9A), Berger does not disclose that the representative thumbnail does not include a second set of assets from the plurality of assets. However, in the same field of invention, Webster discloses a GUI displaying a number of thumbnails (P 0078, 0081) including summary thumbnail representing a hierarchy of items, e.g. representing all the items from a certain year, month, or day, in a date ordered collection, and be expandable to show hierarchical components thereof, and also displaying a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (Webster: P 0086). Thumbnail 810 in Fig. 8 of Webster represents selected set of assets and preview image 820 is analogous to the claimed first card. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer and Webster, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine that correspond to a first time period with the teachings of Berger, Charania, and Butikofer with the motivation to provide a representation of the content in the photo story including only necessary information to reasonably inform the user about the content of the photo story without overwhelming the user with unnecessary information.
Berger does not disclose wherein the determining is based on a paradigm associated with increasing a curation-score value for a first particular asset, of the first plurality of assets, more than for a second particular asset, of the first plurality of assets, in response to an imputed significance being greater for the first particular asset than for the second particular asset, as disclosed in the claims. Berger discloses only photo stories with a number within a "preferred" range of photos are given a relatively higher weight and included in a template (P 0059) the mood of the photo story can also reflect on the design template (P 0068) a first group of photos is formed based on association of the photos to a common theme (P 0110) the relevance of a subset of photos is determined to include in photo story (P 0111 Fig 5c) a listing of people may be generated within a photo story region to show who is pictured in the photo story (P 0129). The computed relevance is similar to but not exactly the same is imputing significance. Berger clearly discloses that only photos that meet a preferred range of a number of photos are selected for a photo story, and furthermore, Berger discloses that the second group is selected from the photos in the first group as being more relevant. In the same field of invention, Robinson discloses imputing additional meaning to graphical elements of an image, specifically, the image might be recognized as including people in a company in an organizational chart (P 0052). The combination of Robinson with Berger would group only those photos in the first group into the second group that have a higher relevance, or imputed significance, and only if the resultant group meets the requisite number of photos would the group be formed, otherwise, photos that might not be deemed to be as relevant may be grouped into the second group if the requisite number of photos is met. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster and Robinson, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the determining is based on a paradigm associated with increasing a curation-score value for a first particular asset, of the first plurality of assets, more than for a second particular asset, of the first plurality of assets, in response to an imputed significance being greater for the first particular asset than for the second particular asset with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer and Webster with the motivation to derive a relevance, i.e. significance, for an image that might not be immediately apparent from the properties of the image (Robinson: P 0052) and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Berger does not disclose selecting, for representing the first time period …, as disclosed in the claims. While Berger discloses displaying a representative thumbnail (706 in Fig. 7a, and similarly displayed in Fig. 9A), Berger does not disclose that the representative thumbnail does not include a second set of assets from the plurality of assets. However, Webster discloses a GUI displaying a number of thumbnails (P 0078, 0081) including summary thumbnail representing a hierarchy of items, e.g. representing all the items from a certain year, month, or day, in a date ordered collection, and be expandable to show hierarchical components thereof, and also displaying a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (Webster: P 0086). Thumbnail 810 in Fig. 8 of Webster represents selected set of assets and preview image 820 is analogous to the claimed first card. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster and Robinson, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine selecting, for representing the first time period … with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster and Robinson with the motivation to provide a representation of the content in the photo story including only necessary information to reasonably inform the user about the content of the photo story without overwhelming the user with unnecessary information.
Berger does not disclose … based at least on respective curation scores for the first plurality of assets, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Shen discloses curating a plurality of images to select representative images, including calculating a score for each of the plurality of images, ranking the plurality of images based on respective scores, and selecting one or more of the plurality of images as one of the representative images based on the ranking (P 0003). Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine … based at least on respective curation scores for the first plurality of assets with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster and Robinson with the motivation in order to provide an effective and efficient method of selecting an appropriate representative image for a plurality of images (Shen: P 0001-0002).
Berger does not disclose representing the first time period, the first card (a) including the first asset and (b) not including a set of one or more assets from the first plurality of assets, as disclosed in the claims. However, Webster discloses a GUI displaying a number of thumbnails (P 0078, 0081) including summary thumbnail representing a hierarchy of items, e.g. representing all the items from a certain year, month, or day, in a date ordered collection, and be expandable to show hierarchical components thereof, and also displaying a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (P 0086). Thumbnail 810 in Fig. 8 of Webster represents selected set of assets and preview image 820 is analogous to the claimed first card. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine representing the first time period, the first card (a) including the first asset and (b) not including a set of one or more assets from the first plurality of assets with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a representation of the content in the photo story including only necessary information to reasonably inform the user about the content of the photo story without overwhelming the user with unnecessary information.
Claim 3. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 2, and Berger upon selection of a particular date or date range (e.g., month, year) within the timeline, photos occurring during that date range are displayed within the stories region (P 0130, 0131) discloses and Webster further discloses a summary thumbnail may be expanded to its child thumbnails, which may be individual item thumbnails and/or further summary thumbnails, and may be expanded to move down a hierarchy towards the hierarchical level at which only media items are to be found, and a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (P 0086) (P 0086) the GUI includes icons or regions that, when selected using a mouse, provide for user control of the application program to achieve a desired function (P 0051) a thumbnail can be selected (P 0094) responding to user action to select media item by displaying a representation associated with the selected media item (Claim 15). Berger allows a user to select a time period from a timeline and photos from that time period are displayed, including representative thumbnails as described in Paragraphs 0118-0123 and Figures 7a-7b. However, Berger does not disclose that a user may select a representative thumbnail to display a representative thumbnail of the time period. Webster disclose that a user may a thumbnail representing a hierarchical collection of photos for a time period or time periods. The combination of Webster with Berger would allow representative thumbnails to be displayed in place of the time periods on the timeline in Berger. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine further comprising: prior to causing display on the GUI of the first card representing the first time period: receiving a first user input, via the GUI, selecting the first card for display from amongst a set of cards representing different time periods with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 4. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 3, and Berger further discloses selecting photos by analyzing metadata of the photos and creating a photo story with a common theme in a first group of photos (Claim 1) chronologically sequencing the first group of photos in a timeline based on the associated photo capture times before producing the photo story (Claim 8) and Webster further discloses, the summary thumbnail may be expanded to occupy the same location as the focus item (previously occupied by the preview thumbnail image), and if a particular representative child item was used in the summary thumbnail, the same item will be given the focus (P 0086) The thumbnails in the outer perimeter and displayed for the preview image in Fig. 8 of Webster all appear to be substantially equal in size (Fig. 8). As noted in the rejection of Claim 3, a user in Berger may select a time indication on a timeline to display photos and representative thumbnails of groups of photos for a specified time period, but the time period on the timeline are not represented by thumbnails (cards). Furthermore, the collections of photos at any level of the photo story are sequenced in chronological order. Webster discloses that a user may select a summary thumbnail to display a preview image that may include a subset of images that are contained in the hierarchical collection of photos represented by the summary thumbnail (analogous to the first user input), and then a user may select the summary thumbnail to expand the collection of photos to occupy the former position of the focus/preview image (analogous to the second user input). Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine
receiving, by a computing device, a second user input selecting a particular asset shown by the first card; in response to receiving the second user input: presenting a transition from a first view showing at least the first card representing the first time period to an all assets view that maintains a focus on the particular asset; and
in response to the transition: causing display, on the GUI, of the all assets view showing a portion of a set of media assets of a media library sorted chronologically, wherein sizes of the portion of the set of media assets displayed in the all assets view are substantially equal
with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 5. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 2, and Berger further discloses creating a first grouping of photos for a photo story from the metadata of the photos (P 0110) and then the photos in the first group are analyzed for further relevance based on a set of common characteristics to produce a second group of photos for the photo story to assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111) a user is able to filter photos in a photo story according to a timeline (P 0131) and to further filter the photos at each time level according to selection of one or more of a set of other filter options so that the photo story at the selected time level include only photos specified by the selected filter(s) (P 0132). While Berger does not make a connection between the relevance criteria in Paragraph 0110 and 0111 and the additional filters applied to the photo stories at a particular time level as described in Paragraph 0131 and 0132, the examiner believes that it would be obvious that the relevance grouping is implemented on the timeline selection and filtering. Therefore, considering the teachings Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine
determining curation scores for a second plurality of assets corresponding to a second time period;
selecting, for representing the second time period, another set of one or more assets from the second plurality of assets based at least on a respective curation score for each asset of the other set of one or more assets from the second plurality of assets;
generating at least a second card representing the second time period, the second card (a) including the other set of one or more assets from the second plurality of assets, and (b) not including a other set of one or more assets from the second plurality of assets; and
causing display, on the GUI, of at least the second card representing the second time period, wherein the second time period is different in length than the first time period
with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 6. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 5, and Berger discloses upon selection of a particular date or date range (e.g., month, year) within the timeline, photos occurring during that date range are displayed within the stories region (P 0130, 0131) selecting photos by analyzing metadata of the photos and creating a photo story with a common theme in a first group of photos (Claim 1) chronologically sequencing the first group of photos in a timeline based on the associated photo capture times before producing the photo story (Claim 8) discloses and Webster further discloses a summary thumbnail may be expanded to its child thumbnails, which may be individual item thumbnails and/or further summary thumbnails, and may be expanded to move down a hierarchy towards the hierarchical level at which only media items are to be found, and a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (P 0086) (P 0086) the GUI includes icons or regions that, when selected using a mouse, provide for user control of the application program to achieve a desired function (P 0051) a thumbnail can be selected (P 0094) responding to user action to select media item by displaying a representation associated with the selected media item (Claim 15). These limitations are essentially the same limitations in Claim 3, but applied to photos selected according to the curation scores for the second plurality of assets in Claim 5. Berger allows a user to select a time period from a timeline and photos from that time period are displayed, including representative thumbnails as described in Paragraphs 0118-0123 and Figures 7a-7b. However, Berger does not disclose that a user may select a representative thumbnail to display a representative thumbnail of the time period. Webster disclose that a user may a thumbnail representing a hierarchical collection of photos for a time period or time periods. The combination of Webster with Berger would allow representative thumbnails to be displayed in place of the time periods on the timeline in Berger. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine
prior to causing display on the GUI of at least the second card representing the second time period: receiving a first user input, via the GUI, selecting a particular asset shown by the first card;
in response to receiving the first user input: presenting a transition from a first view showing at least the first card representing the first time period to a second view showing at least the second card representing the second time period that maintains a focus on the particular asset; and
in response to the transition: causing display, on the GUI, of the second view showing at least the second card representing the second time period, wherein the second view displays assets in chronological order
with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 7. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 5, and Berger further discloses creating a first grouping of photos for a photo story from the metadata of the photos (P 0110) and then the photos in the first group are analyzed for further relevance based on a set of common characteristics to produce a second group of photos for the photo story to assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111) a user is able to filter photos in a photo story according to a timeline (P 0131) and to further filter the photos at each time level according to selection of one or more of a set of other filter options so that the photo story at the selected time level include only photos specified by the selected filter(s) (P 0132). These limitations are essentially the same limitations in Claim 3, but applied to photos selected according to the curation scores for the third plurality of assets in Claim 7. While Berger does not make a connection between the relevance criteria in Paragraph 0110 and 0111 and the additional filters applied to the photo stories at a particular time level as described in Paragraph 0131 and 0132, the examiner believes that it would be obvious that the relevance grouping is implemented on the timeline selection and filtering. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine
determining curation scores for a third plurality of assets corresponding to a third time period;
selecting, for representing the third time period, a fourth set of one or more assets from the third plurality of assets based at least on a respective curation score for each asset of the fourth set of one or more assets from the third plurality of assets;
generating at least a third card representing the third time period, the third card (a) including the fourth set of one or more assets from the third plurality of assets, and (b) not including a fourth set of one or more assets from the third plurality of assets; and
causing display, on the GUI, of at least the third card representing the third time period, wherein the third time period is different in length than both the first time period and the second time period
with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 8. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 7, and Berger discloses upon selection of a particular date or date range (e.g., month, year) within the timeline, photos occurring during that date range are displayed within the stories region (P 0130, 0131) selecting photos by analyzing metadata of the photos and creating a photo story with a common theme in a first group of photos (Claim 1) chronologically sequencing the first group of photos in a timeline based on the associated photo capture times before producing the photo story (Claim 8) discloses and Webster further discloses a summary thumbnail may be expanded to its child thumbnails, which may be individual item thumbnails and/or further summary thumbnails, and may be expanded to move down a hierarchy towards the hierarchical level at which only media items are to be found, and a corresponding preview image of the summary thumbnail showing a thumbnail essay or a sequence of images, snapshots or segments of the items or a representative subset of the items that the summary thumbnail represents (P 0086) (P 0086) the GUI includes icons or regions that, when selected using a mouse, provide for user control of the application program to achieve a desired function (P 0051) a thumbnail can be selected (P 0094) responding to user action to select media item by displaying a representation associated with the selected media item (Claim 15). These limitations are essentially the same limitations in Claim 6, but applied to photos selected according to the curation scores for the third plurality of assets in Claim 7. Berger allows a user to select a time period from a timeline and photos from that time period are displayed, including representative thumbnails as described in Paragraphs 0118-0123 and Figures 7a-7b. However, Berger does not disclose that a user may select a representative thumbnail to display a representative thumbnail of the time period. Webster disclose that a user may a thumbnail representing a hierarchical collection of photos for a time period or time periods. The combination of Webster with Berger would allow representative thumbnails to be displayed in place of the time periods on the timeline in Berger. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine
prior to causing display on the GUI of at least the third card representing the third time period: receiving a second user input, via the GUI, selecting the third time period;
in response to receiving the second user input: presenting a transition from a second view to a third view showing at least the third card representing the third time period; and
in response to the transition: causing display, on the GUI, of the third view showing at least the third card representing the third time period, wherein the third view displays assets in chronological order, wherein the third card includes one or more assets selected from one or more respective cards that represent a corresponding second time period within the third time period, the second time period in the third time period being nearest to a current second time period, wherein the third time period is greater in length than the second time period
with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 11. Canceled.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 19. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the system as recited in claim 12, and Berger further discloses photos are selected according to a common theme to form a first group (P 0110 Fig 5c) a second group of photos is selected from the first group to form a second subset, secondary selection is important to reduce the number of redundant photos, and assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111 Fig 5c) photos for photo stories are displayed in respective regions with a selected preview image for each story that is displayed larger than thumbnails for the other photos in the story (P 0118) a user is able to filter photos in a photo story according to a timeline (P 0131) and to further filter the photos at each time level according to selection of one or more of a set of other filter options so that the photo story at the selected time level include only photos specified by the selected filter(s) (P 0132). It is clear that the second group of photos is a subset of the first group formed from a common theme, and the second group is displayed as a photo story as shown in Fig 7a wherein two photo stories are displayed with preview images displayed larger than the other photos included for each photo story. While Berger does not make a connection between the relevance criteria in Paragraph 0110 and 0111 and the additional filters applied to the photo stories at a particular time level as described in Paragraph 0131 and 0132, the examiner believes that it would be obvious that the relevance grouping is implemented after a user selects a time period on the timeline. The photo stories representative of a larger group of photos, the first group, and including a larger preview photo could reasonably be interpreted as being analogous to the claimed first card with one asset displayed larger than the other assets. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine filtering the first plurality of assets corresponding to the first time period prior to determining the curation scores, the filtering comprising removing duplicate assets, assets of poor quality, and assets having a utility purpose with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user.
Claim 20. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the system as recited in claim 12, but Berger does not disclose wherein the curation score is determined based on a number of persons identified in the particular asset and a size of a grouping of assets that includes the particular asset, as disclosed in the claims. However, Berger discloses only photo stories with a number within a "preferred" range of photos are given a relatively higher weight and included in a template (P 0059) a listing of people may be generated within a photo story region to show who is pictured in the photo story (P 0129). Charania discloses the score of an image having a number of individuals may be based on a bell curve, a group of five individuals may increase the relative score of the image, whereas a group of 100 individuals may decrease the relative score (e.g., since an image having a relatively smaller group of individuals may be of greater value than an image having a relatively larger group, or the score of an image may be proportional to the size of faces in an image (P 0042). Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the curation score is determined based on a number of persons identified in the particular asset and a size of a grouping of assets that includes the particular asset with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a more complete measure of relevance to the photo stories for a user that are concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (Berger: P 0111).
Claim(s) 21 is/are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 2 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 22. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the one or more non-transitory media as recited in claim 21, and Berger discloses only photo stories with a number within a "preferred" range of photos are given a relatively higher weight and included in a template (P 0059) the mood of the photo story can also reflect on the design template (P 0068) a first group of photos is formed based on association of the photos to a common theme (P 0110) the relevance of a subset of photos is determined to include in photo story (P 0111 Fig 5c) a listing of people may be generated within a photo story region to show who is pictured in the photo story (P 0129). The computed relevance is similar to but not exactly the same is imputing meaning. Berger clearly discloses that only photos that meet a preferred range of a number of photos are selected for a photo story, and furthermore, Berger discloses that the second group is selected from the photos in the first group as being more relevant. Robinson discloses imputing additional meaning to graphical elements of an image, specifically, the image might be recognized as including people in a company in an organizational chart (P 0052). The combination of Robinson with Berger would group only those photos in the first group into the second group that have a higher relevance, or imputed meaning, and only if the resultant group meets the requisite number of photos would the group be formed, otherwise, photos that might not be deemed to be as relevant may be grouped into the second group if the requisite number of photos is met. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the increasing of the cu ration-score value for the first particular asset more than for the second particular asset is in further response to: a number of shares being greater for the first particular asset than for the second particular asset, a number of views being greater for the first particular asset than for the second particular asset, a number of persons identified being greater in the first particular asset than in the second particular asset, or a size of assets being greater for a grouping of assets that includes the first particular asset than for a grouping of assets that includes the second particular asset with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to derive a relevance, i.e. meaning, for an image that might not be immediately apparent from the properties of the image (Robinson: P 0052) to provide a more complete measure of relevance to the photo stories for a user that are concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (Berger: P 0111) and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claim 23. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method of Claim 2, but Berger does not disclose wherein determining that the subset of assets have the utility purpose comprises determining that the subset of assets meet one or more utility criteria, as disclosed in the claims. However, Charania discloses an attribute is used to measure a negative quality of an image related to whether the image is an outlier, such as an image of a parking lot (P 0041) that are excluded from an album (P 0045). While Charania does not disclose that outlier images are images with a utility purpose, Paragraph 0155 of Applicant’s specification states, “A utility purpose indicates that the asset was obtained to serve a certain nonaesthetic purpose, as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Some examples of assets directed to a utility purpose include, but are not limited to, photo of a receipt, photo of a whiteboard showing notes from a meeting, instructional video of a technique for performing a certain activity (like sharpening a knife, decorating a cake, etc.), photo of documents or papers, photo of drawings or sketches, photo of a shopping list, photo of a reminder, a screenshot, etc.” Charania clearly discloses that an outlier photo does not server an aesthetic purpose. Butikofer discloses an image of a product has an associated value relationship that is represented as a separate image of a receipt or invoice (P 0036). That is, Butikofer clearly discloses that images and images with a utility purpose are stored separately. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein determining that the subset of assets have the utility purpose comprises determining that the subset of assets meet one or more utility criteria with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide content more relevant to the user’s intent that is aesthetically pleasing separated from less or non-pleasing content.
Claim 24. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method of Claim 2, but Berger does not disclose wherein determining that the subset of assets have the utility purpose comprises determining that the subset of assets do not meet one or more aesthetic criteria, as disclosed in the claims. However, Charania discloses an attribute is used to measure a negative quality of an image related to whether the image is an outlier, such as an image of a parking lot (P 0041) that are excluded from an album (P 0045). While Charania does not disclose that outlier images are images with a utility purpose, Paragraph 0155 of Applicant’s specification states, “A utility purpose indicates that the asset was obtained to serve a certain nonaesthetic purpose, as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Some examples of assets directed to a utility purpose include, but are not limited to, photo of a receipt, photo of a whiteboard showing notes from a meeting, instructional video of a technique for performing a certain activity (like sharpening a knife, decorating a cake, etc.), photo of documents or papers, photo of drawings or sketches, photo of a shopping list, photo of a reminder, a screenshot, etc.” Charania clearly discloses that an outlier photo does not server an aesthetic purpose. Butikofer discloses an image of a product has an associated value relationship that is represented as a separate image of a receipt or invoice (P 0036). That is, Butikofer clearly discloses that images and images with a utility purpose are stored separately. Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein determining that the subset of assets have the utility purpose comprises determining that the subset of assets do not meet one or more aesthetic criteria with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide content more relevant to the user’s intent that is aesthetically pleasing separated from less or non-pleasing content.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al. (US 2012/0082401 A1) in view of Charania et al. (US 2016/0110355 A1) and Butikofer et al. (US 2003/0095809 A1) Webster et al. (US 2009/0164944 A1) and Robinson et al. (US 2007/0177183 A1) and Shen et al. (US 2016/0179844 A1) and further in view of Lewis et al. (US 9,811,514 B1).
Claim 9. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 2, but Berger does not disclose wherein increasing of the curation-score value for the first particular assed more than for the second particular asset is in further response to (a) a numerical quantity, that indicates a number of shares, being greater for the particular asset than for the second particular asset and (b) a size of assets being greater for a grouping of assets that includes the first particular asset than for a grouping of assets that includes the second particular asset, as disclosed in the claims.
However, for the limitation, wherein increasing of the curation-score value for the first particular assed more than for the second particular asset is in further response to (a) a numerical quantity, Berger discloses only photo stories with a number within a "preferred" range of photos are given a relatively higher weight and included in a template (P 0059) the mood of the photo story can also reflect on the design template (P 0068) a first group of photos is formed based on association of the photos to a common theme (P 0110) the relevance of a subset of photos is determined to include in photo story (P 0111 Fig 5c) a listing of people may be generated within a photo story region to show who is pictured in the photo story (P 0129). The computed relevance is similar to but not exactly the same is imputing significance. Berger clearly discloses that only photos that meet a preferred range of a number of photos are selected for a photo story, and furthermore, Berger discloses that the second group is selected from the photos in the first group as being more relevant. In the same field of invention, Robinson discloses imputing additional meaning to graphical elements of an image, specifically, the image might be recognized as including people in a company in an organizational chart (P 0052). The combination of Robinson with Berger would group only those photos in the first group into the second group that have a higher relevance, or imputed significance, and only if the resultant group meets the requisite number of photos would the group be formed, otherwise, photos that might not be deemed to be as relevant may be grouped into the second group if the requisite number of photos is met.
For the limitation, that indicates a number of shares, being greater for the particular asset than for the second particular asset and (b) a size of assets being greater for a grouping of assets that includes the first particular asset than for a grouping of assets that includes the second particular asset, Robinson discloses imputing additional meaning to graphical elements of an image, specifically, the image might be recognized as including people in a company in an organizational chart (P 0052). In the same field of invention, Lewis discloses a share score is calculated for a video based on the frequency a video is shared (C 3 L 48-65) the identities of the videos that have been watched and the number of times they’ve been watched in recorded in a database (C 12 L 39-44).
Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson, Shen and Lewis, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein increasing of the curation-score value for the first particular assed more than for the second particular asset is in further response to (a) a numerical quantity, that indicates a number of shares, being greater for the particular asset than for the second particular asset and (b) a size of assets being greater for a grouping of assets that includes the first particular asset than for a grouping of assets that includes the second particular asset with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a well-known measure of the desirability of a media object to be presented to a user and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claim 10. Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen disclose the method as recited in claim 2, but Berger does not disclose filtering the first plurality of assets corresponding to the first time period prior to determining the cu ration scores, the filtering comprising removing duplicate assets, assets of poor quality, and assets having a utility purpose, wherein the determining (a) comprises identifying a numerical quantity that indicates a number of shares for the first particular asset and (b) is based on one or both of the numerical quantity and the number of views for the first particular asset, and wherein a size of at least one asset displayed on the first card is larger than other assets displayed in the first card based on the respective curation scores, as disclosed in the claims.
However, for the limitation, filtering the first plurality of assets corresponding to the first time period prior to determining the curation scores, the filtering comprising removing duplicate assets, assets of poor quality, and assets having a utility purpose, … wherein a size of at least one asset displayed on the first card is larger than other assets displayed in the first card based on the respective curation scores, Berger further discloses photos are selected according to a common theme to form a first group (P 0110 Fig 5c) a second group of photos is selected from the first group to form a second subset, secondary selection is important to reduce the number of redundant photos, and assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111 Fig 5c) photos for photo stories are displayed in respective regions with a selected preview image for each story that is displayed larger than thumbnails for the other photos in the story (P 0118)a user is able to filter photos in a photo story according to a timeline (P 0131) and to further filter the photos at each time level according to selection of one or more of a set of other filter options so that the photo story at the selected time level include only photos specified by the selected filter(s) (P 0132). It is clear that the second group of photos is a subset of the first group formed from a common theme, and the second group is displayed as a photo story as shown in Fig 7a wherein two photo stories are displayed with preview images displayed larger than the other photos included for each photo story. While Berger does not make a connection between the relevance criteria in Paragraph 0110 and 0111 and the additional filters applied to the photo stories at a particular time level as described in Paragraph 0131 and 0132, the examiner believes that it would be obvious that the relevance grouping is implemented after a user selects a time period on the timeline. The photo stories representative of a larger group of photos, the first group, and including a larger preview photo could reasonably be interpreted as being analogous to the claimed first card with one asset displayed larger than the other assets.
For the limitation, wherein the determining (a) comprises identifying a numerical quantity that indicates a number of shares for the first particular asset and (b) is based on one or both of the numerical quantity and the number of views for the first particular asset, as disclosed in the claims, in the same field of invention, Lewis discloses a share score is calculated for a video based on the frequency a video is shared (C 3 L 48-65) the identities of the videos that have been watched and the number of times they’ve been watched in recorded in a database (C 12 L 39-44). Therefore, considering the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson, Shen and Lewis, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine filtering the first plurality of assets corresponding to the first time period prior to determining the cu ration scores, the filtering comprising removing duplicate assets, assets of poor quality, and assets having a utility purpose, wherein the determining (a) comprises identifying a numerical quantity that indicates a number of shares for the first particular asset and (b) is based on one or both of the numerical quantity and the number of views for the first particular asset, and wherein a size of at least one asset displayed on the first card is larger than other assets displayed in the first card based on the respective curation scores with the teachings of Berger, Charania, Butikofer, Webster, Robinson and Shen with the motivation to provide a user with more representative information along the timeline in Berger to make it easier for a user to identify the time period with the photos most desired by the user, and further to provide a well-known measure of the desirability of a media object to be presented to a user and the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. identified applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as a rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to system claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 9 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 12, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Independent Claims 2, 12 and 21 have been amended with the following or similar limitations:
responsive to determining that a subset of assets, of the first plurality of assets, have a utility purpose: filtering the first plurality of assets by removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets;
subsequent to removing the subset of assets from the first plurality of assets.
New prior art reference Butikofer has been combined with Berger to reject the amended claims. Berger discloses the photos in the first group are analyzed for further relevance based on a set of common characteristics to produce a second group of photos for the photo story to assure a photo story to be concise, elegant and aesthetically appealing (P 0111). In the same field of invention, Charania discloses an attribute is used to measure a negative quality of an image related to whether the image is an outlier, such as an image of a parking lot (P 0041) that are excluded from an album (P 0045). While Charania does not disclose that outlier images are images with a utility purpose, Paragraph 0155 of Applicant’s specification states, “A utility purpose indicates that the asset was obtained to serve a certain nonaesthetic purpose, as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Some examples of assets directed to a utility purpose include, but are not limited to, photo of a receipt, photo of a whiteboard showing notes from a meeting, instructional video of a technique for performing a certain activity (like sharpening a knife, decorating a cake, etc.), photo of documents or papers, photo of drawings or sketches, photo of a shopping list, photo of a reminder, a screenshot, etc.” Charania clearly discloses that an outlier photo does not server an aesthetic purpose. In the same field of invention, Butikofer discloses an image of a product has an associated value relationship that is represented as a separate image of a receipt or invoice (P 0036). That is, Butikofer clearly discloses that images and images with a utility purpose are stored separately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-1696. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2177 4/4/2026
/CESAR B PAULA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2145