DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
The application has pending claim(s) 1-20 (withdrawn claims 4, 11, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration).
In response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 12/10/2025:
The objections to the claims have been entered and therefore the Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection because of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges, “The Rejection of Claims Under 103 …” in pages 8-10, and states respectively that Gao fails to teach or suggest the amended claim limitations because Gao fails to teach or suggest the novel technical interaction of concurrently utilizing both semantic objects and contextual data to select the media category itself. However the Examiner disagrees because the combination of Gao as modified by Mojsilovic and Mojsilovic-ISee does indeed further disclose the broadest reasonable claim language interpretation of such an amendment. More specifically Mojsilovic-ISee discloses detecting a combination of a set of semantic objects within the image data based on the set of image features of the image data, the combination of the set of semantic objects corresponding with a media category (see Mojsilovic-ISee, Fig.1, page 267 at lines 12-13, 34-37, and 52-53, page 268 at lines 6-21, paragraph “Finally, the local features are analyzed …” in page 269, page 277 at lines 1-5, detect the combination of certain semantic cues / semantic indicators that capture the image’s underlying semantic category / template, each of the objects and regions represented with semantic cues / semantic indicators [such as skin, man-made objects, nature, etc.], semantic category / template: people, outdoor scenes with people, crowds, cityscapes [skin = no skin, nature = no, etc.], etc) and selecting the media category from among a set of media categories within a media repository based on the combination of the set of semantic objects and contextual data (see Mojsilovic-ISee, Fig.1, page 267 at lines 12-13, 19-22, 34-37, 48, and 52-53, page 268 at lines 6-21, paragraph “Finally, the local features are analyzed …” in page 269, page 277 at lines 1-5, identify / assign a candidate semantic category from the plurality of semantic categories which constitute the accumulated semantic knowledge [e.g. semantic category / template: people, outdoor scenes with people, crowds, cityscapes [skin = no skin, nature = no, etc.], etc] of the images in the image database based on the combination of the certain semantic cues / semantic indicators and the global context [number of regions, spatial activity, contrast, symmetry, color composition, etc]). Further discussions are addressed in the prior art rejection section below.
The Examiner further notes that dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 after reconsideration and in combination with the amended independent claims however would now be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Further discussions are addressed in the attached Examiner Initiated Interview Summary.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 at lines 4-5; and claim 9 at lines 4-5; and claim 16 at lines 5-6 respectively: Due to the amendments, “and the media category;” should be -- and the selected media category; --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner has searched the entire specification and has not found any evidence that the application has support for claiming the specific steps of selecting the media category from among a set of media categories within a media repository [as recited in each of the currently amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively].
The Applicant is advised to either amend the claims further [the Examiner suggests deleting such a recited limitation “within a media repository”] or show the Examiner clear support of possession in the specification for all the amended claim limitations with respective arguments showing and indicating that possession of such claim language is actually appropriate in terms of Written Description criteria [35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph].
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are dependent upon claim 1 respectively.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are dependent upon claim 8 respectively.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are dependent upon claim 15 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (US 2012/0251011 A1, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS – hereinafter referred to as Gao, as applied in previous Office Action) in view Mojsilovic et al (US 2003/0195883 A1, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS - hereinafter referred to as Mojsilovic, as applied in previous Office Action) and further in view of Mojsilovic et al (“ISee: Perceptual features for image library navigation” – SPIE 2002 – pages 266-277, hereinafter referred to as Mojsilovic-ISee, as applied in previous Office Action).
Claim 1: Gao discloses a method comprising: causing display of a graphical user interface at a client device (see Gao, [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0048], [0101], client device [e.g. smart phone] with a display to capture an image showing context data), image data that comprises a set of image features (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], image showing context data wherein context data includes spatial and temporal information); contextual data associated with the client device (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], context data [e.g. location, date and/or time, etc.] of the image associated / captured with the client device); accessing media content from a media repository based on the contextual data associated with the client device (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], a query is generated to search for relevant images associated with a similar event stored in an event database, wherein the query is generated based on the extracted / determined / inputted context data [e.g. location, date and/or time, etc.] of the image associated / captured with the client device); and causing display of a presentation of the media content within the graphical user interface at the client device (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], return the list of images associated with the similar event to the client device for display to the user).
However Gao fails to explicitly disclose causing display of a graphical user interface at a client device, the graphical user interface including a display of image data that comprises a set of image features; detecting a combination of a set of semantic objects within the image data based on the set of image features of the image data, the combination of the set of semantic objects corresponding with a media category; selecting the media category from among a set of media categories within a media repository based on the combination of the set of semantic objects and contextual data; accessing media content from a media repository associated with the media category.
Mojsilovic discloses causing display of a graphical user interface at a client device, the graphical user interface including a display of image data that comprises a set of image features (see Mojsilovic, [0019], [0074]-[0087], [0089], [0096], [0101], and more specifically Figs. 5-6, [0043], [0050]-[0051], user device with a GUI displaying the query image that comprises objects correlated with semantics); detecting a set of semantic objects within the image data based on the set of image features of the image data, the set of semantic objects corresponding with a media category (see Mojsilovic, [0019], [0050]-[0051], [0074]-[0087], [0089], [0096], [0101], objects correlated with semantics and semantic cues [such as skin, man-made objects, nature, etc.], semantic category: people indoors, people outdoors, crowds, cityscapes [skin = no skin, nature = no, etc.], etc); accessing media content from a media repository associated with the media category (see Mojsilovic, [0019], [0050]-[0051], [0074]-[0087], [0089], [0096], [0101], [0108]-[0109], image retrieval in the database based on the input images semantic category).
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 Gao’s method using Mojsilovic’s teachings by including the semantic category image retrieval processing to Gao’s query generation process via context data in order to improve the search query formulation (see Mojsilovic, [0019], [0074]-[0087], [0089], [0096], [0101], [0108]-[0109]).
However Gao as modified by Mojsilovic fails to explicitly disclose where Mojsilovic-ISee discloses detecting a combination of a set of semantic objects within the image data based on the set of image features of the image data, the combination of the set of semantic objects corresponding with a media category (see Mojsilovic-ISee, Fig.1, page 267 at lines 12-13, 34-37, and 52-53, page 268 at lines 6-21, paragraph “Finally, the local features are analyzed …” in page 269, page 277 at lines 1-5, detect the combination of certain semantic cues / semantic indicators that capture the image’s underlying semantic category / template, each of the objects and regions represented with semantic cues / semantic indicators [such as skin, man-made objects, nature, etc.], semantic category / template: people, outdoor scenes with people, crowds, cityscapes [skin = no skin, nature = no, etc.], etc); selecting the media category from among a set of media categories within a media repository based on the combination of the set of semantic objects and contextual data (see Mojsilovic-ISee, Fig.1, page 267 at lines 12-13, 19-22, 34-37, 48, and 52-53, page 268 at lines 6-21, paragraph “Finally, the local features are analyzed …” in page 269, page 277 at lines 1-5, identify / assign a candidate semantic category from the plurality of semantic categories which constitute the accumulated semantic knowledge [e.g. semantic category / template: people, outdoor scenes with people, crowds, cityscapes [skin = no skin, nature = no, etc.], etc] of the images in the image database based on the combination of the certain semantic cues / semantic indicators and the global context [number of regions, spatial activity, contrast, symmetry, color composition, etc]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gao’s method, as modified by Mojsilovic, using Mojsilovic-ISee’s teachings by including the combination of a set of semantic objects and contextual data processing to Gao’s [as modified by Mojsilovic] query generation via context data and via semantic category image retrieval processing in order to improve the robustness of the search query formulation (see Mojsilovic-ISee, Fig.1, page 267 at lines 12-13, 19-22, 34-37, 48, and 52-53, page 268 at lines 6-21, paragraph “Finally, the local features are analyzed …” in page 269, page 277 at lines 1-5).
Claim 3: Gao further discloses wherein the contextual data comprises one or more of: location data (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], extracted / determined / inputted context data [spatial information: e.g. location] of the image associated / captured with the client device); temporal data (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], extracted / determined / inputted context data [temporal information: e.g. date and/or time] of the image associated / captured with the client device); and user profile data (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], spatial information and temporal information inputted by the user of the client device).
Claim 5: Gao further discloses wherein the media content further comprises one or more media identifiers, and the presentation of the media content comprises a list of the one or more media identifiers of the media content (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0063]-[0064], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0101], [0112], send information for display to the user [list of images associated with the event; name of celebrity; location represented by a name such as Eiffel Tower, street address, an intersection of two streets, etc.; title]).
Claim 6: Gao further discloses wherein the media content further comprises a plurality of media items, and the method further comprises: ranking the plurality of media items (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0063]-[0064], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0101], [0112], return the ranked list of images associated with the similar event to the client device for display to the user); and wherein the presentation of the media content is based on the ranking (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0063]-[0064], [0067], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0101], [0112], return the ranked list of images associated with the similar event to the client device for display to the user).
Claim 7: Gao further discloses wherein the ranking the plurality of media items includes: accessing contextual data at the client device (see Gao, [0016]-[0017], [0019]-[0020], [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0112], extracting / determining / inputting context data [spatial and temporal information: e.g. location, date and/or time, etc.] of the image associated / captured with the client device); and ranking the plurality of media items based on the contextual data (see Gao, [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0051], [0053], [0063]-[0064], [0067], [0072], [0074], [0078], [0101], [0112], return the ranked list of images associated with the similar event to the client device for display to the user wherein the ranking is based on the context data [spatial and temporal information]).
As to claim 8, the claim is the corresponding system claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1. Further, Gao further discloses a system comprising: a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that cause the system to perform operations of the method (see Gao, [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0048], client device [e.g. smart phone] with memory storing program data executed by its processor).
As to claim 10, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 3 respectively.
As to claim 12, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5 respectively. As to claim 13, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 6 respectively. As to claim 14, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 7 respectively.
As to claim 15, the claim is the corresponding non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 respectively. The discussions are addressed with regard to claim 1. Further, Gao further discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations of the method (see Gao, [0040], [0042]-[0043], [0048], memory storing program data executed by its client device’s processor).
As to claim 17, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 3 respectively.
As to claim 19, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 5 respectively. As to claim 20, the discussions are addressed with regard to claim 6 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached on (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 February 6, 2026