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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 9-12, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
829
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection of Johnson in view of Fujiwara (detailed in the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 below).
On page 10, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
251
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph 0037 of Johnson discloses “a memory box is an object that defines a collection of images in the image store 212 , and a detailed description of an example memory box is presented below with reference to FIG. 4. After a new user account is opened, the memory box management module 214 automatically creates a primary memory box, and all of the user's uploaded images are added to the primary memory box by default. The memory box management module 214 can also create additional memory boxes for a user account. A user may submit requests to create additional memory boxes as a way of categorizing and organizing their images on the image sharing server 110 . For example, a user might wish to create separate memory boxes for images of his child's soccer games, his pet rabbit, and his vacations.” Wherein a user may have multiple memory boxes in order to categorize their images. Paragraphs 0067 and 0068 of Johnson further disclose “FIG. 6 is a flow chart illustrating a process for prompting a user to share an image 300 with other users who have contributed related images, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The process begins when the client correspondence module 202 receives 600 a new image 300 from an uploading user...After receiving 600 the uploaded image 300 , the client correspondence module 202 sends the image 300 to the metadata analysis module 208 to find related images. As described above with reference to FIG. 2, the metadata analysis module 208 finds related images 300 by finding images that were taken at similar times, and at similar locations or of a similar group of people.” Wherein memory boxes, as further disclosed by paragraph 0077, containing subjects related to the image uploaded by a user may be retrieved. Thus, retrieved memory boxes based on the subject of the uploaded image constitute a dated image data list. Therefore, Johnson discloses "the dated image data list is created for each subject by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject indicated by each of the plurality of dated image data".
On page 11, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
296
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As disclosed in arguments above and in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 disclosed below, the paragraphs 0067, 0068, and 0077 of Johnson disclose the retrieval of memory boxes based on the subjects within a user’s uploaded image. Wherein the memory box and its contents are associated with user’s who have contributed to the memory box.
In addition, paragraphs 0008-0009 of Fujiwara disclose “according to one aspect of the present invention, an image management apparatus includes: an extracting unit that extracts a feature amount of an image from image data whose shooting date and time is unknown; Estimating means for estimating the photographing date and time of the image data whose photographing date and time is unknown by comparing with a time dictionary in which objects for identification are collected. Preferably, the time dictionary records a relationship between the date and time and an object representing a part of the subject such as a face, hair, body shape, clothes, and the like, and the object has at least text data, image data, and moving image data describing a feature amount,” wherein an image without a known date or time may have its timestamp estimated based on the extracted features of a subject present within the images.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the algorithms for estimating the timestamp of an image taught by Fujiwara into the image sharing server disclosed by Johnson for the estimation of an image timestamp based on the images in a retrieved memory box.
Therefore, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses “the two-stage process required by the amended claims.”
On page 11, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
190
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraphs 0050, 0051, and 0053 of Fujiwara disclose “In the time dictionary of FIG. 6A, the values of a plurality of feature amounts (feature amount 1, feature amount 2, feature amount 3,...) Are changed for each age (1970, 1975, 1980,...). Has been recorded. Using this time dictionary, it is possible to estimate to which age a feature having a certain value belongs. In the time dictionary of FIG. 6B, image data of a specific area (face, hair, clothes,...) Of a subject for each age is recorded. If the feature amount is extracted from the image data of (B), the feature amount of the subject at a certain age can be determined as in (A)…In FIG. 7, the horizontal axis represents the time axis, and the vertical axis represents the roundness of the face. In childhood, human faces are generally round, and the value of roundness increases (in the 1970s). As it grows, the face becomes slender and the value of roundness decreases (1985). By registering such a change in the feature amount in the age in the time dictionary, it is possible to estimate the age and time when the image was captured from the image,” wherein a subject’s features are extracted and mapped to the image’s capture date and time. Wherein an image without a date may have a date assigned to it based on its subject’s features and the subject’s features present in other dated images. Therefore, Fujiwara discloses “a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data.”
On page 11, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
389
756
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, paragraph 0006 of Fujiwara discloses “when managing an image obtained by reading a photograph with a scanner or the like, when the user forgets the shooting date, image data with an unknown shooting date and time is generated, and it is inconvenient to manage the image,” wherein there is a problem of some images uploaded by a user not having a known date when the image was captured, thus as paragraphs 0050-0051 of Fujiwara disclose “In the time dictionary of FIG. 6A, the values of a plurality of feature amounts (feature amount 1, feature amount 2, feature amount 3,...) Are changed for each age (1970, 1975, 1980,...). Has been recorded. Using this time dictionary, it is possible to estimate to which age a feature having a certain value belongs. In the time dictionary of FIG. 6B, image data of a specific area (face, hair, clothes,...) Of a subject for each age is recorded. If the feature amount is extracted from the image data of (B), the feature amount of the subject at a certain age can be determined as in (A),” wherein based on a subject’s features in an image with a known date, the image without a date may have its timestamp estimated.
On page 12, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
458
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “High-Precision and Rapid Date Assignment,” “Privacy Protection,” and “Reduction of Processing Load”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As per claim(s) 19-20, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
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) 1-6, 11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20160086022-A1) hereinafter referenced as Johnson, in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP-4650034-B2) hereinafter referenced as Fujiwara.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory built in or connected to the processor (Johnson: 0085: “FIG. 8 is a block diagram of the components of a computing system 800 for use, for example, as the image sharing server 110 or client devices 130 depicted in FIG. 1, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Illustrated are at least one processor 802 coupled to a chipset 804 . Also coupled to the chipset 804 are a memory 806 , a storage device 808 , a keyboard 810 , a graphics adapter 812 , a pointing device 814 , a network adapter 816 , and a camera 824.”), wherein the processor creates a dated image data list by classifying a plurality of dated image data to which dates are added (Johnson: 0050: “The timestamp 312 is the date and time at which the image data 302 was captured. The timestamp 312 may be retrieved from an internal clock of the camera and recorded at the time the image 300 is taken, or it may be manually added or modified by the user after the image 300 is taken”; 0077: “ if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”; Wherein the memory box shared based on the uploaded image’s detected subjects constitutes a dated image data list.),
associates the dated image data list with each of a plurality of users including a specific user (Johnson: 0066: “if the memory box contains images being taken during a children's soccer season, then the first user (e.g., a parent of a child on the soccer team) may share the memory box with parents of other children on the soccer team as long as the other parents also have user accounts on the image sharing server 110 . This would allow each parent with access to the memory box to add their own soccer images for everyone else to view. Thus, the process described with reference to FIG. 5 beneficially provides a group of users with an easy way of organizing and sharing related images.”; Wherein the memory box is associated to all users who have shared images to it),
acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by image data of the specific user, from the dated image data list associated with the specific user (Johnson: 0072: “An image is determined to be related to the uploaded image 300 if it was taken at a similar time and was also taken at a similar location or contained a similar group of people. Thus, the metadata analysis module 208 can find related images that do not have similar location data 310 if both the timestamp 312 and recognized people 316 are similar. This beneficially allows the metadata analysis module 208 to find related images even if they have insufficient or nonexistent location data 310 , or if they were taken in a wide range of locations (e.g., during a walking tour of a city).”;
0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images. For example, if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”),
the plurality of dated image data are image data of the plurality of users (Johnson: 0066: “ For example, if the memory box contains images being taken during a children's soccer season, then the first user (e.g., a parent of a child on the soccer team) may share the memory box with parents of other children on the soccer team as long as the other parents also have user accounts on the image sharing server 110 . This would allow each parent with access to the memory box to add their own soccer images for everyone else to view. Thus, the process described with reference to FIG. 5 beneficially provides a group of users with an easy way of organizing and sharing related images.”),
the dated image data list is created for each subject by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject indicated by each of the plurality of dated image data (Johnson: 0071: “To find images that include a similar group of people, the metadata analysis module 208 begins by sending the uploaded image 300 to the facial recognition module 218 so that tags for recognized people 316 can be added to the metadata 304 of the uploaded image 300 . After the tags for recognized people 316 are added, the metadata analysis module 208 searches for images that have tags for the same recognized people 316 . In one embodiment, the metadata analysis module 208 may perform a narrow search that only retrieves images that have the exact same set of recognized people. Alternatively, the module 208 may perform a broader search that retrieves images that include the same set of recognized people 316 along with additional recognized people. The module may also perform an even broader search that retrieves images that include a subset of the recognized people 316 in the uploaded image 300 . The breadth of the image search may be set manually by the user or automatically set by the metadata analysis module 208 . The metadata analysis module 208 may also dynamically widen the breadth of the image search if not enough images are retrieved initially.”;
0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images.”),
the dated image data list for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by the dated image data of the specific user, is associated with the specific user (Johnson: 0059: “After the memory box is created 500 , the first user can use a client device 130 A to invite 502 a second user to share the memory box. In the invitation, the first user can specify a set of sharing privileges to be offered to the second user. As described above with reference to FIG. 4, the sharing privileges can specify whether the second user can view images in the memory box, add images to the memory box, remove images from the memory box, or modify the metadata of images in the memory box. Alternatively, the first user can simply send the invitation without specifying a set of sharing privileges. In this case, the second user is given a default set of sharing privileges after accepting the invitation.”;
0077: “ if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”; Wherein the memory boxes containing related subjects is shared with the uploading user), and
the plurality of users provide the plurality of dated image data to the information processing apparatus (Johnson: 0006: “Embodiments of the invention include a method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a system for sharing a set of images between users. A memory box is created on an image sharing server. The memory box defines a set of images that were contributed to the image sharing server by a first user. The first user can subsequently share the memory box with a second user, which allows the second user to view the images in the memory box.”).
Johnson does not disclose expressly: wherein the processor acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by dateless image data of the specific user, and derives a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data.
Fujiwara discloses: a system for estimating the date of an input image based on dated image data for a subject (Fujiwara: 0008-0009: “an image management apparatus includes: an extracting unit that extracts a feature amount of an image from image data whose shooting date and time is unknown; Estimating means for estimating the photographing date and time of the image data whose photographing date and time is unknown by comparing with a time dictionary in which objects for identification are collected. Preferably, the time dictionary records a relationship between the date and time and an object representing a part of the subject such as a face, hair, body shape, clothes, and the like, and the object has at least text data, image data, and moving image data describing a feature amount.”), wherein a processor acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by dateless image data of the specific user (Fujiwara: 0047: For images I3 and I4 whose shooting dates and times are unknown, the shooting dates and times are estimated by comparing the feature amounts of objects contained in each image with the data in the time dictionary 201, and the images are arranged on the time axis.; 0051: “image data of specific areas (face, hair, clothes, etc.) of a subject is recorded for each era. By extracting features from the image data of (B), it is possible to determine the features of a subject in a certain era, similar to (A).”; Wherein the image list contains images of the subject present in the dateless image.), and derives a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data (Fujiwara: 0055: “The image management system first inputs image data in step S101. In step S103, features are extracted from the image. Next, the feature amount extracted in step S105 is compared with the feature amount recorded in the time dictionary 201. In step S107, the shooting date is estimated based on the comparison result”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for estimating the date and time of an image based on extracted subject features taught by Fujiwara into the image sharing server disclosed by Johnson for the estimation of timestamps of entered images based on a shared memory box. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “In the time dictionary of FIG. 6B, image data of a specific area (face, hair, clothes,...) Of a subject for each age is recorded. If the feature amount is extracted from the image data of (B), the feature amount of the subject at a certain age can be determined as in (A)” (Fujiwara: 0051). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson with Fujiwara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dated image data list is created by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject (Johnson: 0068: “After receiving 600 the uploaded image 300 , the client correspondence module 202 sends the image 300 to the metadata analysis module 208 to find related images. As described above with reference to FIG. 2, the metadata analysis module 208 finds related images 300 by finding images that were taken at similar times, and at similar locations or of a similar group of people.”; 0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images. For example, if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”; Wherein dateless images finds memory boxes with the same subjects as taught by Fujiwara.) of which an aspect of a temporal change is able to be visually specified (Fujiwara: 0051: “In the time dictionary of FIG. 6B, image data of specific areas (face, hair, clothes, etc.) of a subject is recorded for each era. By extracting features from the image data of (B), it is possible to determine the features of a subject in a certain era, similar to (A).”).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dates added to the plurality of dated image data are imaging dates, and the dated image data list includes the plurality of dated image data having different imaging dates (Johnson: 0077: “if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. ”; Wherein images in a memory box are not bound to a specific date)
(Fujiwara: 0042: “Image data is sorted based on the date and time of shooting”;
0051: “…image data of specific areas (face, hair, clothes, etc.) of a subject is recorded for each era.”).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of users are a user group that satisfies a condition that registration to agree to share information including the dated image data has been made (Johnson: 0066: “if the memory box contains images being taken during a children's soccer season, then the first user (e.g., a parent of a child on the soccer team) may share the memory box with parents of other children on the soccer team as long as the other parents also have user accounts on the image sharing server 110 . This would allow each parent with access to the memory box to add their own soccer images for everyone else to view. Thus, the process described with reference to FIG. 5 beneficially provides a group of users with an easy way of organizing and sharing related images.”; Wherein users sharing a memory box agree to share image data within the shared memory box.).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each user among the plurality of users is associated with a respective image data group (Johnson: 0037: “As used herein, a memory box is an object that defines a collection of images in the image store 212 , and a detailed description of an example memory box is presented below with reference to FIG. 4. After a new user account is opened, the memory box management module 214 automatically creates a primary memory box, and all of the user's uploaded images are added to the primary memory box by default.”), and
the plurality of users are a user group that satisfies a condition that the respective image data groups of the users are similar to each other (Johnson: 0067-0068: “After receiving 600 the uploaded image 300 , the client correspondence module 202 sends the image 300 to the metadata analysis module 208 to find related images. As described above with reference to FIG. 2, the metadata analysis module 208 finds related images 300 by finding images that were taken at similar times, and at similar locations or of a similar group of people.”; 0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images.”).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of users are a user group that satisfies a condition that registered user information is similar (Johnson: 0069: “As described above with reference to FIG. 2, the metadata analysis module 208 finds related images 300 by finding images that were taken at similar times, and at similar locations or of a similar group of people.”; Wherein the sharing of images between users based on similarities of images uploaded constates grouping users based on similar user information.).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case in which the dated image data for the subject, which is similar to the subject indicated by the dateless image data, is not included in the dated image data list associated with the specific user, the processor acquires the dated image data for the subject, which is similar to the subject indicated by the dateless image data, from an image data group associated with at least one user other than the specific user among the plurality of users (Johnson: 0068: “After receiving 600 the uploaded image 300 , the client correspondence module 202 sends the image 300 to the metadata analysis module 208 to find related images. As described above with reference to FIG. 2, the metadata analysis module 208 finds related images 300 by finding images that were taken at similar times, and at similar locations or of a similar group of people.”; 0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images. For example, if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”; Wherein a memory box, associated with other users, containing a subject similar to the subject in an uploaded image may be shared with the user.).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor updates the dated image data list associated with the specific user in accordance with an instruction received by a reception device (Fujiwara: 0078: “After the images are arranged on the time axis, the estimated date and time and the extracted feature amount are registered in a time dictionary 201. In this way, the time dictionary 201 can be updated every time an image is placed on the time axis”; Wherein the list of images is updated based the instruction to insert the dateless image with its estimated date).
As per claim(s) 19, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous.
As per claim(s) 20, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1 are analogous. In addition, paragraph 0086 of Johnson discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program executable by a computer.”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Yamaji et al. (US-20160371536-A1) hereinafter referenced as Yamaji.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: wherein the processor limits the dated image data, which is a creation target of the dated image data list, among the plurality of dated image data to image data in which a person having a specific relationship is reflected.
Yamaji discloses: the extraction of images based upon the relationships between persons (Yamaji: Figure 3: 0016-0017: “there is provided an image extraction device comprising: an instruction acquisition unit that acquires an instruction input by a user; an image group selection unit that selects a second image group…from the first image group in response to the instruction; an extraction reference determination unit that determines an image extraction reference when extracting an image from the second image group based on images included in the first image group; and an image extraction unit that extracts one or more images, the number of which is smaller than the number of images in the second image group, from the second image group according to the image extraction reference…and it is preferable that the extraction reference determination unit determines the image extraction reference according to the relationship between persons.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for extracting images based upon relationships between persons as taught by Yamaji to limit the dated image data retrieved from the image memory boxes in the image sharing server disclosed in Johnson in view of Fujiwara. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for “accurately extracting an image with a high degree of importance for a user from an image group.” (Yamaji: 0015). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Yamaji to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US-8861804-B1) hereinafter referenced as Johnson(2).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of dated image data includes image data to which position specification information for specifying an imaging position is added (Johnson: 0049: “The location data 310 is information that identifies where the image 300 was taken. The location data 310 may include, for example, coordinates from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) which are retrieved and recorded by the camera at the time the image 300 is taken. Alternatively, a user may manually add GNSS coordinates to an image at some point after the image 300 is taken. The location data 310 may also contain a textual location descriptor that provides a user-readable label for where the image 300 was taken.”),
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: and the processor limits the dated image data, which is a creation target of the dated image data list, among the plurality of dated image data to image data obtained by being captured in a range determined based on the position specification information.
Thus, Johnson in view of Fujiwara fails to disclose the limiting of retrieved images within a retrieved memory box based on a specified range determined based on the images’ location metadata.
Johnson(2) discloses: a metadata analysis module for retrieving images based on an image’s metadata. Wherein the metadata analysis module contains subject matching, timestamp analysis, and location analysis submodules for retrieving images with the corresponding matching metadata, and aggregating the results of the submodules in order to generate a result of related images (Johnson(2): Col 5: Lines 18-33).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the metadata analysis module taught by Johnson(2) into the image sharing server disclosed by Johnson in view of Fujiwara for the filtering of images based on subjects present and location metadata. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “As described below with reference to FIG. 3, the metadata analysis module 220 can also use the results from the submodules to refine the location data 312 and activity 314 that are defined for an image 300” (Johnson(2): Col 5: Lines 33-36). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Johnson (2) to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US-20190391975-A1) hereinafter referenced as Jiang.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: wherein generation specification information for specifying a generation of the user is added to the plurality of dated image data, and the processor limits the dated image data, which is a creation target of the dated image data list, among the plurality of date image data by the generation specified by the generation specification information.
Jiang discloses: wherein generation specification information for specifying a generation of the user is added to a plurality of dated image data (Jiang: 0061: “The data query server 130 that can receive queries for data initiated from one or more users and can return data concerning the results of the queries to the client devices for presentations of the results. The data may be any data or information such as entries, images, strings, numbers, relationships, and etc.”; 0070: “A user query for a genealogical index may specify one or more genealogical data values in different fields such as first name…date of birth, year of birth, database, etc.”; Wherein the date of birth is attached to the images of a subject), and the processor limits the dated image data among the plurality of date image data by the generation specified by the generation specification information (Jiang: 0070: “A user query for a genealogical index may specify one or more genealogical data values in different fields such as first name…date of birth, year of birth, database, etc.”; Wherein the querying limits the image data by date).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for search querying based the date of birth of the subjects performed by the data querying server taught by Jiang to limit the dated image data retrieved from the image memory boxes in the image sharing server disclosed in Johnson in view of Fujiwara. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “the relevancy of a record may depend on how the record is closely related to the search strings and criteria.” (Jiang: 0063; Wherein the images of subjects with a certain date of birth may be more relevant). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Jiang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN-110838102-A) hereinafter referenced as Jin.
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: wherein, on a condition that first new image data is provided as new image data as the dated image data and an image quality of the first new image data is equal to or higher than a reference image quality, the processor updates the dated image data list by adding the first new image data to the dated image data list.
Jin discloses: on a condition that a first new image data is provided as new image data (Jin: Abstract: “The invention discloses an intelligent image uploading method. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring an image, registering user information, acquiring the image and shooting time”) and an image quality of the first new image data is equal to or higher than a reference image quality, the processor removes new image data not meeting the reference image quality thresholds (Jin:0012: “performing quality assessment on the acquired user image to obtain an image quality score, and screening out quality assessment images that meet the image quality threshold”; Wherein images that don’t meet the image quality threshold are removed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the quality assessment algorithms taught by Jin to limit the user uploaded images disclosed by Johnson in view of Fujiwara based on an image quality threshold. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “…subjective quality evaluation of the image including composition, aesthetics, etc., objective quality evaluation of the image including brightness, saturation, clarity, etc., to help users quickly select images with better organization quality, improve…the quality of uploaded photos…” (Jin: 0006). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Jin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson in view of Fujiwara and Jin discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, on a condition that the dated image data list associated with the specific user is updated, the processor acquires the dated image data for the subject, which is similar to the subject indicated by the dateless image data of the specific user, from the updated dated image data list associated with the specific user (Johnson: 0054: “The links to images 402 identify images 300 in the image store 212 that are in the memory box 400. Thus, an image 300 is ‘added’ to the memory box 400 when a link to the image 300 is added to the image links 402…This reduces the amount of storage space that is used on the image sharing server 110 and maintains a single set of metadata 304 for the image.”; 0077: “the metadata analysis module 208 searches for related memory boxes instead of directly searching for related images. For example, if a user uploads an image taken at a child's soccer game, the metadata analysis module 208 may prompt the uploading user to add the image with a memory box for images taken during the soccer season. In this case, the memory box would be shared with the uploading user, thus granting the uploading user access to the other images in the memory box.”; Wherein the updating of a user’s uploaded images has the image uploaded throughout all shared instances.)
(Fujiwara: 0074: “Image data whose shooting date and time are known can be used as is to update the time dictionary since the shooting date and time are recorded. That is, the feature amount of the object in the image is determined, and is recorded in the time dictionary in association with the photographing date and time.”)
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Shimada (US-20110255132-A1) hereinafter referenced as Shimada.
Regarding claim 15, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: wherein the processor replaces a same-date image data group, to which the same date is added, with feature data indicating a feature of the same-date image data group, and stores the feature data in the dated image data list.
Shimada discloses: the replacing of an acquired image in a server with a link to the image’s location if it is determined that the image already exists within the server (Shimada: Figure 2; 0039-0040: “A determination unit 203 determines whether image data (to be referred to as related image data) which can be considered substantially identical to image data acquired by the acquisition unit 201 is stored in the storage device 202…A writing unit 204 writes link information to related image data to the storage device 202 instead of writing acquired image data to the storage device 202, if it is determined that the related image data is stored. Link information is information which indicates the storage location of related image data. Examples of link information include a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) and the like. On the other hand, if it is determined that no related image data is stored, the writing unit 204 writes the acquired image data to the storage device 202.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the known technique of determining if an image already exists within a server taught by Shimada in order to substitute duplicate images stored in the image sharing server disclosed by Johnson in view of Fujiwara with their location within the image sharing server. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Storage of link information to substantially identical image data makes it possible to reduce the possibility of redundant storage…The above-described operation makes it possible…to use the storage capacity of a storage device more effectively than ever before.” (Shimada: 0040 & 0042). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Shimada to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Fujiwara, and further in view of Iida et al. (US-20050036692-A1) hereinafter referenced as Iida.
Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Fujiwara discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson in view of Fujiwara does not disclose expressly: wherein the processor presents the derived date to a presentation device.
Iida discloses: wherein the processor presents the derived date to a presentation device (Iida: Figure 9 & 14; 0082: “a print image 61a is displayed along with film images 62a and 63a that are judged as the similar images to the print image 61a. …the date-of-photograph of the chosen film image is written as the date-of-photograph of the print image 61a in the image file 61 of this print image 61a.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the known technique of displaying the date given to a dateless image as taught by Iida after performing the date estimation of a user submitted dateless image as disclosed by Johnson in view of Fujiwara. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the user has been notified of the image’s estimated date. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Johnson in view of Fujiwara with Iida to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13, and 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7:
Johnson in view of Fujiwara (As disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 above) discloses:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory built in or connected to the processor,
wherein the processor creates a dated image data list by classifying a plurality of dated image data to which dates are added,
associates the dated image data list with a specific user,
acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by dateless image data of the specific user, from the dated image data list associated with the specific user,
and derives a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data,
the plurality of dated image data are image data of a plurality of users including the specific user,
the dated image data list is created for each subject by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject indicated by each of the plurality of dated image data,
the dated image data list for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by the dated image data of the specific user, is associated with the specific user”
However, Johnson in view of Fujiwara fails to teach:
“…the dated image data is roughly classified into person inclusion image data in which a person is reflected as the subject, and person non-inclusion image data in which only a non-person object is reflected as the subject,
and the processor acquires only the person non-inclusion image data as the dated image data,
and creates the dated image data list using the acquired person non-inclusion image data.”
Therefore, claim 7 has been indicated as allowable.
Claim 13:
Johnson in view of Fujiwara (As disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 above) discloses:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory built in or connected to the processor,
wherein the processor creates a dated image data list by classifying a plurality of dated image data to which dates are added,
associates the dated image data list with a specific user,
acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by dateless image data of the specific user, from the dated image data list associated with the specific user,
and derives a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data,
the plurality of dated image data are image data of a plurality of users including the specific user,
the dated image data list is created for each subject by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject indicated by each of the plurality of dated image data,
the dated image data list for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by the dated image data of the specific user, is associated with the specific user”
However, Johnson in view of Fujiwara fails to teach:
“…in a case in which a subject indicated by second new image data newly provided as the dated image data and the subject indicated by the dated image data included in the dated image data list associated with the specific user are not similar to each other,
the processor updates the dated image data list by adding the second new image data to the dated image data list associated with the specific user.”
Therefore, claim 13 has been indicated as allowable.
Claim 16:
Johnson in view of Fujiwara (As disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103 above) discloses:
“An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory built in or connected to the processor,
wherein the processor creates a dated image data list by classifying a plurality of dated image data to which dates are added,
associates the dated image data list with a specific user,
acquires the dated image data for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by dateless image data of the specific user, from the dated image data list associated with the specific user,
and derives a date to be added to the dateless image data, based on the date added to the acquired dated image data,
the plurality of dated image data are image data of a plurality of users including the specific user,
the dated image data list is created for each subject by classifying the plurality of dated image data for each subject indicated by each of the plurality of dated image data,
the dated image data list for a subject, which is similar to a subject indicated by the dated image data of the specific user, is associated with the specific user”
However, Johnson in view of Fujiwara fails to teach:
“…in a case in which a plurality of the dated image data lists are associated with the specific user,
the processor acquires the dated image data for the subject, which is similar to the subject indicated by the dateless image data,
in order from the dated image data list having a higher priority based on image data included for each dated image data list among the plurality of dated image data lists associated with the specific user.”
Therefore, claim 16 has been indicated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672