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 .
The present office action is responsive to communication received on 05/16/2025. Claims 2 and 3 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-19 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,10, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of claim amendments. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wolf et al.( US-7870035-B1) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolf et al.( US-7870035-B1).
In regards to claim 1, Wolf teaches an image provision device comprising: a processor, wherein the processor
provides a target image to a first device used by a first user in a case in which a provision request for the target image is received from the first user device (Wolf: Quality resolution images can also be ordered which will be e-mailed to the requestor. The cost for these vary between event photographers and the products selected [Fig 2; Col 4, Lines 53-55].) ,
generates a generated image by reducing image quality of the target image or replacing a part of the target image with another image in a case in which processing of printing the target image provided is executed the first device(Wolf: One or more advertiser fields 42 and 44 are created in the photograph 40. Such fields 42 and 44 are preferably created in the corners or along a margin, such as the upper, lower, or a side margin of the photograph 40 so as to have a minimal impact on the content of the photograph 40. Usually, these fields 42 or 44 are positioned in the photograph 40 so as not to obstruct the event participant that was photographed. The one or more fields 42 and 44 are imbedded with advertisers' names or logos, such that the advertisers' desired information is viewed in the digital photograph and preferably also viewable when the photograph 40 is printed. [Fig 4; Col 6, Lines 17-29] , and
provides the generated image to the first device (Wolf: Once the "final" photograph of increased resolution, without the watermark, and containing the visual fields 42 and 44 is created, it is transferred to the requestor. This transfer typically occurs by means of e-mailing the photograph to the event participant or enabling the photograph to be downloaded to the event participant's computer 54 or other electronic devices such as a cell-phone or portable digital audio/visual player [Col 7, Lines 4-11].) .
In regards to claim 10, Wolf teaches an image provision method comprising: causing a processor to execute
A step of providing a target image to a first device used by a first user in a case in which a provision request for the target image is received from the first user device (Wolf: Quality resolution images can also be ordered which will be e-mailed to the requestor. The cost for these vary between event photographers and the products selected [Fig 2; Col 4, Lines 53-55].) ,
a step of generating a generated image by reducing image quality of the target image or replacing a part of the target image with another image in a case in which processing of printing the target image provided is executed the first device(Wolf: One or more advertiser fields 42 and 44 are created in the photograph 40. Such fields 42 and 44 are preferably created in the corners or along a margin, such as the upper, lower, or a side margin of the photograph 40 so as to have a minimal impact on the content of the photograph 40. Usually, these fields 42 or 44 are positioned in the photograph 40 so as not to obstruct the event participant that was photographed. The one or more fields 42 and 44 are imbedded with advertisers' names or logos, such that the advertisers' desired information is viewed in the digital photograph and preferably also viewable when the photograph 40 is printed. [Fig 4; Col 6, Lines 17-29] , and
a step of providing the generated image to the first device (Wolf: Once the "final" photograph of increased resolution, without the watermark, and containing the visual fields 42 and 44 is created, it is transferred to the requestor. This transfer typically occurs by means of e-mailing the photograph to the event participant or enabling the photograph to be downloaded to the event participant's computer 54 or other electronic devices such as a cell-phone or portable digital audio/visual player [Col 7, Lines 4-11].) .
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 10 on which it depends on. Specifically it recites “a computer-readable recording medium in which a program causing a computer to execute each step included in the content provision method according to claim 10 is recorded” .Therefore, claim 15 is rejected on the same premise as claim 10 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-9, 11-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al.( US-7870035-B1) in view of Ishii et al (JP-2021039512-A).
In regards to claim 4, Wolf teaches the image provision device according to claim 1,
But Wolf does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor provides the target image to a second device used by a second user in a case in which derived information including the generated image is distributed based on an operation of the first user and a provision request for the target image based on the derived information is received from the second user.
However, Ishii in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a system for sharing digital content amongst users that discloses wherein the processor provides the (Ishii: The trial reading user receives the electronic book data after requesting to buy the book based on the social media post shared by the purchasing user which contained the thumbnail image of the book cover and a link to the book sales site (Paragraphs 51-54).) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Wolf to include the digital content distribution architecture taught by Ishii such that a second user can retrieve the digital image based on a first user sharing it. The motivation to do so would be to increase traffic to the advertisers/photographer’s server, thereby increasing revenue made from the captured photo.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Wolf and Ishii teach the image provision device according to claim 4, wherein the derived information includes code information used for connection to a provision source of the target image (Ishii: The introduction screen[derived information] displays a thumbnail image of the cover of the electronic book subject to the free trial, a title, an author name, and a link to a URL that accesses from the electronic book sales’ website for using the free trial and purchasing the electronic book (Paragraph 38).) ,
and the processor provides the target image to the second device in a case in which the provision request, which is made through the code information in the derived information, is received from the second device(Ishii: The trial-reading user receives the electronic book after purchasing the book (Paragraph 57)based on free trial link from Purchasing User.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Wolf to include the digital content distribution architecture taught by Ishii such that the photo taken by Wolf is substituted for the e-book. The motivation to do so would be to yield predictable results in providing access to digital content.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Ishii teaches the image provision device according to claim 4, wherein the generated image is content for posting, and the derived information is information indicating a post article including the generated image (Ishii: Specifically, the introduction screen[Post article] displays a thumbnail image[second content] of the cover of the electronic book subject to the free trial, a title, an author name, a link to a URL that provides the free trial, and the like during the period when the free trial is possible. (Paragraph 38) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Wolf to include the digital content distribution architecture taught by Ishii such that the final photo taken by Wolf is substituted for the thumbnail. The motivation to do so would be to yield predictable results of advertising a modified version of digital content.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Wolf and Ishii teach the image provision device according to claim 4, wherein the processor stores identification information of the first user corresponding to the derived information referred to by the second user in a storage device, as information related to the second user who has made the provision request based on the derived information (Ishii: There is a process of storing the member ID, purchased product ID, target privilege ID) in the privilege status Database, and the introduction of the privilege status Database corresponding to the member ID of the purchasing user who introduced the trial reading event to the trial reading user (Paragraph 78).) . This claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Wolf and Ishii teach the image provision device according to claim 7, wherein the processor generates, in a case in which a predetermined number or more of the second users have made the provision request based on the same derived information, information for identifying the first user corresponding to the derived information referred to by the predetermined number or more of the second users, as a target for granting advantage (Ishii: The server can grant points (privileges) to the purchasing user who introduced the trial reading event to the trial reading user when the trial reading user purchases the electronic book (Paragraph 56).) . This claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Wolfe and Ishii teaches the image provision device according to claim 1, wherein the processor stores information related to a provision order of the target image in a storage device, as information related to the first user to whom the target image is provided (Ishii: Specifically, the control unit stores the member ID of the purchasing user, the purchased product ID, and the target privilege ID in association with each other in the privilege status Database (Paragraph 66).).
In regards to claim 11, the subject matter of the claim is analogous to claim 4. Therefore the claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 12, the subject matter of the claim is analogous to claim 5. Therefore the claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 5 above.
In regards to claim 13, the subject matter of the claim is analogous to claim 7. Therefore the claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 7 above.
In regards to claim 14, the subject matter of the claim is analogous to claim 8. Therefore the claim is rejected based on the same rationale cited for claim 8 above.
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 11 on which it depends on. Specifically it recites “a computer-readable recording medium in which a program causing a computer to execute each step included in the content provision method according to claim 11 is recorded” .Therefore, claim 16 is rejected on the same premise as claim 11 above.
In regards to claim 17, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 12 on which it depends on. Specifically it recites “a computer-readable recording medium in which a program causing a computer to execute each step included in the content provision method according to claim 12 is recorded” .Therefore, claim 17 is rejected on the same premise as claim 12 above.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 13 on which it depends on. Specifically it recites “a computer-readable recording medium in which a program causing a computer to execute each step included in the content provision method according to claim 13 is recorded” .Therefore, claim 18 is rejected on the same premise as claim 13 above.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites analogous subject matter to claim 14 on which it depends on. Specifically it recites “a computer-readable recording medium in which a program causing a computer to execute each step included in the content provision method according to claim 14 is recorded” .Therefore, claim 19 is rejected on the same premise as claim 14 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP E WILSON JR whose telephone number is (703)756-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST,.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/P.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2493
/Michael Simitoski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights