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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed 03/04/2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 03/04/2026.
By the amendment, claims 1, 9-11, 15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (Remarks pages 9-10), regarding the double patenting rejection of claims 1-4, 9 and 15-16 over claim 14 of U.S. 11,574,005 in view of Garrido (Final Rejection pages 3-9), that the amendment of at least claims 1, 9 and 15 overcomes the corresponding rejection. Particularly, Applicant argues that Garrido does not make up for the deficiencies of claim 14 of ‘005 because Garrido describes a user interface option for capturing images with or without supplemental content and a second user interface option for sending the captured image with or without the supplemental content and therefore cannot teach a user interface including a view of a camera and a second user interface element selectable to perform the three operations of (i) capturing the image in the view, (ii) creating the content item to add to the classification and (iii) storing the content item according to the classification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that claim 14 of ‘005 does disclose a page having a first user interface element that is selectable to initiate a process to add at least one content item to content items having the classification. In claim 14 of ‘005, a page is sent to the first client device and includes a user interface element that is selectable to add an additional content item to the classification. This anticipates the broadly claimed “selectable to initiate a process to..” of the amended claims. Further, parent claim 11 of ‘005 discloses that at the client device, content item data that the user of the first client device wishes to be added to the classification is produced using an overlay interface and then added to the group of content items having the classification. This anticipates the “response to a selection of the first user interface element, causing, by one or more computing devices, a second user interface to be displayed to add a content item to the number of content items corresponding to the classification” of the amended claims. Further, parent claim 11 of ‘005 does disclose that, responsive to the overlay interface producing overlay data and image data for the content item performed by the first client device, creating and storing the content item with the group of content items having the classification. This anticipates “responsive to interaction of the second user interface, (ii) creating the content item to add to the classification, the content item including image data and (iii) storing the content item in association with the number of content items corresponding to the classification” as required by the amended claims. Accordingly, the sole deficiencies of claim 14 of ‘005 are simply that the second user interface includes a view of a camera and a second user interface element that is selectable to perform the adding a content item step of the second user interface such that selection of the second user interface element causes the image to be captured and included in the content item that is stored corresponding to the classification.
Garrido is relied on to teach these deficiencies. As correctly interpreted by Applicant, Garrido describes a user interface option that captures images with or without supplemental content. That is, an image of the camera view is displayed in a user interface and when a user selects the user interface option, the image, along with any supplemental content, is captured. This combines reasonably with the invention of claim 14 of ‘005 to suggest that the second user interface includes a second user interface element and an image of a view of the camera such that when the second user interface element is selected, the image of the view of the camera is captured, along with any supplemental overlay data, to be stored and added as a content item to the group of items having the classification. The argument is not persuasive as claim 14 of ‘005 teaches the second user interface for performing the (ii) creation and (iii) storing of the content item including image data and Garrido teaches that a second user interface for (ii) creation of a content item including image data can be performed responsive to selection of an interface element of the second user interface to create the content item by (i) capturing the image based on the view of the camera displayed in the second interface. The double patenting rejections have been updated to reflect the amendment to the claims below.
Applicant argues (Remarks pages 10-12), regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-15 over Paul in view of Garrido (Final Rejection pages 9-16), that the combination of Paul and Garrido does not teach or suggest the features of amended claim 1. Particularly, Applicant argues that Paul’s disclosure of “add to channel” in Fig 10A and 10C merely results in the user being able to associate content with a hashtag after navigating the specific interfaces of Fig. 11A-11D, therefore teaching a manual process and not a first user interface element is selectable to initiate the process to add at least one content item to the classification and a subsequent user interface including a view of the camera and a subsequent interface element that is selectable to perform the capture, creation and storing in association of the classification the content item including the captured image. Further, Applicant argues that Garrido does not make up for the deficiencies of Paul by similarly not teaching or suggesting that the user interface for capturing an image of Garrido does not include a second user interface element selectable to perform the capture, creation and storing in association of the classification the content item including the captured image. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paul teaches a method for a first client device to create a first story item and share it to a channel hashtag that can then be requested by a second client to request a first story item of a plurality of story items associated with a channel hashtag (Fig. 3). Each story item can include an image and additional content (Fig. 10A). The channels act as the classification system of Paul. After receiving the first story item, a user of the second client can request to create a new story item with the same channel hashtag (Fig. 10C “Add to Channel” user interface element of the user interface of Fig. 10C). This request acts as the selected first user interface element to initiate a process to add at least one content item to the content items having the same classification. To create the second story item, Paul discloses that the second client device will use the a similar interface as was presented to the first client device in creating the first story item (col 18 lines 18-27: the new story can be created in line with the embodiment of Fig. 3). That is, Paul does teach that using a different user interface for creating a content item is displayed in response to selection of the first user interface element of the first user interface. Further, Paul teaches that the content creation interface can include capturing an image of the camera of the client device (col 4 lines 8-10: visual content of the story item can be created by taking a picture with a camera of the client device). Paul therefore does anticipate the amended features of claim 1 including selecting the first user interface element to initiate a process for adding a content item to the classification that includes causing a second user interface to add a content item to the classification by (i) capturing an image of the camera of the client device, (ii) creating the content item including the captured image and (iii) storing the content item including the captured image in association with the number of content items corresponding to the classification. The deficiency of Paul is only that Paul does not explicitly disclose wherein the second user interface displays the view of the camera and a second user interface element that when selected causes the capture of the image for creating of the content.
Garrido is relied on for this deficiency. As similarly discussed above regarding the double patenting rejection, Garrido describes a user interface option that captures images with or without supplemental content (col 5 lines 27-67, Fig. 2). That is, Garrido teaches that it is known in the prior art that an image of the camera view can be displayed in a user interface and when a user selects the user interface option, the image, along with any supplemental content, can be captured for storage or manipulation. As discussed in the updated 35 USC 103 rejection below, this feature of Garrido combines reasonably with the invention of Paul. The argument is not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,574,005 (‘005) in view of GARRIDO, US 11,012,389 B2 (previously presented).
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 14 of ‘005 (including limitations of parent claims 11 and 12) discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices having one or more processors and memory, a request for content items corresponding to a classification (claim 12 of ‘005: receiving, from the first client device, an additional request for content items corresponding to the classification;”);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a number of content items corresponding to the classification (claim 12 of ‘005: “determining, in response to the additional request, a number of content items having the classification; and sending additional content item data to the first client device, the additional content item data corresponding to the number of content items having the classification”);
causing, by the one or more computing devices and in response to the request, a first user interface to be displayed that includes a page having at least a subgroup of the number of content items and a first user interface element that is selectable to initiate a process to add at least one content item to content items having the classification (claim 14 of ‘005: “sending additional user interface data to the first client device in response to the additional request, the additional user interface data corresponding to one or more additional user interfaces of the client application that include a page having at least a portion of the number of content items having the classification and a user interface element that is selectable to add at least one additional content item to the classification”);
responsive to selection of the first user interface element, causing, by the one or more computing devices, a second user interface to add a content item to the number of content items corresponding to the classification content item data (claim 11 of ‘005: “receiving content item data from a first client device the content item data including image data corresponding to an image of a content item and overlay data corresponding to an overlay of the image with the overlay being produced by a client application” .. “adding the content item to a group of content items having the classification;”); and
causing, by the one or more computing devices, (ii) creation of the content item to add to the classification, the content item including an image, and (iii) the content item to be stored in association with the identifier of the classification (claim 11: “the content item data including image data corresponding to an image of a content item “, “adding the content item to a group of content items having the classification;”).
While claim 14 of ‘005 discloses the second user interface storing the created content item including an image in association with the classification responsive to receiving the content item data, claim 14 of ‘005 fails to disclose wherein the second user interface includes a view of a camera and a second user interface element that is selectable to perform the adding a content item step of the second user interface such that selection of the second user interface element causes the image to be captured and included in the content item that is stored corresponding to the classification.
GARRIDO discloses methods for modifying content with supplemental content for sharing (col 1 lines 15-17), an analogous art to the instant invention. In particular, GARRIDO discloses displaying a second user interface including a selectable element such that selection of the selectable element captures an image of a displayed camera view to provide an image as received content data (Fig. 2, col 5 lines 27-67). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of ‘005 and GARRIDO before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the second user interface method for capturing an image to be used as received content for modification using a camera view of the device in response to selection of an element, as taught by GARRIDO, with the second user interface storing the content item in association with the classification response to receiving the content item data of ‘005. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide a user with a more efficient way to modify a captured image directly, as suggested by GARRIDO (col 2 line 62 – col 3 line 30).
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO disclose the method of instant claim 1, and GARRIDO further discloses comprising:
causing, by the one or more computing devices, the camera to be activated in response to selection of the second user interface element (Fig. 2).
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO disclose the method of instant claim 1, and claim 14 of ‘005 further discloses wherein:
the request includes at least one of one or more keywords corresponding to the classification or an identifier of the classification (claim 11 of ‘005: “wherein the overlay data includes text data that corresponds to first text content of the overlay”); and
the content item includes an overlay that indicates an identifier of the classification (claim 11 of ‘005: “wherein the overlay data includes text data that corresponds to first text content of the overlay”).
Regarding instant claim 4, claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO disclose the method of instant claim 1, and GARRIDO further discloses wherein:
the overlay is produced using a creative tool of a client application (col 3 lines 21-29); and
the first and second user interfaces are displayed within the client application (col 3 lines 21-29).
Regarding instant claim 9, instant claim 9 recites limitations similar to instant claim 1 and is similarly rejected over claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO.
Regarding instant claim 15, instant claim 15 recites limitations similar to instant claim 1 and is similarly rejected over claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 14 of ‘005 and GARRIDO disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of instant claim 15, and claim 14 of ‘005 further discloses storing additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform additional operations comprising:
receiving content item data from client device, the content item data including image data corresponding to an image of an additional content item and overlay data corresponding to an overlay of the image with the overlay being produced by a client application, wherein the overlay data includes text data that corresponds to first text content of the overlay (claim 11 of ‘005: “receiving content item data from a first client device, the content item data including image data corresponding to an image of a content item and overlay data corresponding to an overlay of the image with the overlay being produced by a client application, wherein the overlay data includes text data that corresponds to first text content of the overlay;”);
performing an analysis of the first text content in relation to second text content of individual identifiers of a plurality of classifications (claim 11 of ‘005: “performing an analysis of the first text content in relation to second text content of individual identifiers of a plurality of classifications;”);
determining a measure of similarity between a first portion of the first text content and at least a portion of the second text content that is related to an identifier of the classification, wherein a second portion of the first text content includes at least one of words, letters, symbols, or numbers that do not correspond to identifiers of classifications (claim 11 of ‘005: “determining a measure of similarity between a first portion of the first text content and at least a portion of the second text content that is related to an identifier of a classification, wherein a second portion of the first text content includes at least one of words, letters, symbols, or numbers that do not correspond to identifiers of classifications;”);
determining, based on the measure of similarity corresponding to at least a threshold level of similarity, that the classification corresponds to the additional content item based at least partly on the overlay data (claim 11 of ‘005: “determining, based on the measure of similarity corresponding to at least a threshold level of similarity, a classification for the content item based at least partly on the overlay data;”); and
adding the additional content item to the number of content items having the classification (claim 11 of ‘005: “adding the content item to a group of content items having the classification;”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAUL, US 11,100,182 B1 (previously presented) in view of GARRIDO.
Regarding claim 1, PAUL discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices having one or more processors and memory, a request for content items corresponding to a classification (col 10 lines 36-47: content items stories are stored in the channel related to hashtag and can be viewed by a requesting user on a client device);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a number of content items corresponding to the classification (col 10 lines 41-54: various stories for various authors included in the channel are returned);
causing, by the one or more computing devices and in response to the request, a first user interface to be displayed that includes a page having at least a subgroup of the number of content items and a first user interface element that is selectable to initiate a process to add a content item to content items having the classification (col 9 lines 51 – col 10 lines 8: provided story interface allows direct interaction in order to add a story to the hashtag classification, Fig. 10A-10C, col 18 lines 18-32);
responsive to selection of the first user interface element, causing, by the one or more computing devices, a second user interface to (i) capture an image of a camera (col 4 lines 8-10: take a picture with camera of the client device), (ii) creation of the content item to add to the classification, the content item including the image captured by the camera, and (iii) the content item to be stored in association with the number of content items corresponding to the classification (col 18 lines 18-27: add new content item to the hashtag channel, col 9 lines 4-14: capture new content by interacting with a camera of the client).
While PAUL discloses the image capture and content item storing done through an interface of the one or more computing devices, PAUL fails to Paul does not explicitly disclose wherein the second user interface displays the view of the camera and a second user interface element that when selected causes the capture of the image for creating of the content.
GARRIDO discloses methods for modifying content with supplemental content for sharing (col 1 lines 15-17), an analogous art to the instant invention. In particular, GARRIDO discloses displaying a second user interface including a selectable element such that selection of the selectable element captures an image of a displayed camera view to provide an image as received content data (Fig. 2, col 5 lines 27-67). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of PAUL and GARRIDO before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine the second user interface method for capturing an image to be used as received content for modification using a camera view of the device in response to selection of an element, as taught by GARRIDO, with the interface for capturing a camera image and storing the content item in association with the classification response to receiving the content item data of PAUL. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide a user with a more efficient way to modify a captured image directly, as suggested by GARRIDO (col 2 line 62 – col 3 line 30).
Regarding claim 2, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the method of claim 1, and GARRIDO further discloses:
causing, by the one or more computing devices, the camera to be activated in response to selection of the second user interface element (Fig. 2, col 5 lines 27-67).
Regarding claim 3, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 1, and PAUL further discloses wherein:
the request includes at least one of one or more keywords corresponding to the classification or an identifier of the classification (col 2 lines 10-17: add hashtag to visual content before posting via sticker overlay); and
the content item includes an overlay that indicates an identifier of the classification (col 2 lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 4, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 3, and PAUL further discloses wherein:
the overlay is produced using a creative tool of a client application (col 2 lines 10-24, col 6 lines 57-67: UI options provided to the user to add different visual contents, col 9 lines 18-21, 35-37: creation of first story content item including the overlay); and
the first and second user interfaces are displayed within the client application (col 9 lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 5, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 4, and PAUL further discloses:
determining, by the one or more computing devices, the classification of the content item based at least partly on an identifier of the creative tool (col 9 lines 35-37: hashtag text, col 10 lines 25-32: hashtags classify content for channels).
Regarding claim 6, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 1, and PAUL further discloses:
determining, by the one or more computing devices, one or more first characteristics of a user of a client device (col 15 lines 45-51: determining user specific information);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, one or more second characteristics of a group of content items having the classification (col 15 lines 54-61: determining characteristics of a group of content items);
performing, by the one or more computing devices, an analysis of the one or more first characteristics with respect to the one or more second characteristics (col 15 lines 54-61: analyzing and determining which group of content items to include based on the first and second characteristics); and
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a level of interest for individual content items of the group of content items in relation to the user of the client device based on the analysis (col 15 lines 54-61: including relevant content based on the analysis).
Regarding claim 7, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 6, and PAUL further discloses:
determining, by the one or more computing devices, rankings for the group of content items based on the level of interest for the individual content items of the group of content items in relation to the user of the client device, wherein the rankings indicate an order in which the individual content items are to be displayed in at least one user interface (col 15 lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 8, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose method of claim 7, and PAUL further discloses wherein:
a first content item of the group of content items has a first ranking that corresponds to a first level of interest with respect to the user of the client device (col 15 lines 61-66);
a second content item of the group of content items has a second ranking that is lower than the first ranking and that corresponds to a second level of interest with respect to the user of the client device that is less than the first level of interest (col 15 lines 61-66); and
the first content item is presented before the second content item in the page that includes at least a portion of the subgroup of the number of content items (col 15 lines 61-66: displaying first content of more interesting to the user first, i.e. before other content that is less interesting).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the system of claim 9, and PAUL further discloses wherein the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media include additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform additional operations comprising:
causing an additional user interface to be displayed including a first additional user interface element that is selectable to view one or more collections of content created by a user of a client device and a second additional user interface element that is selectable to view one or more content items created by the user of the client device that correspond to the classification (col 7 lines 37-52: channel types include viewing private by the user only, user-specific, and/or hashtag-associated).
Regarding claim 11, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the system of claim 10, and PAUL further discloses wherein the additional user interface includes a third user interface element that is selectable to view content created by a contact of the user of the client device (col 7 lines 37-52: channel types include viewing friend-sonly).
Regarding claim 12, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the system of claim 10, and PAUL further discloses wherein:
the one or more collections of content that correspond to the first additional user interface element are accessible to contacts of the user within a client application that displays the first user interface, the second user interface, and the additional user interface (col 7 lines 37-52); and
the one or more content items created by the user that correspond to the second additional user interface element are publicly accessible (col 7 lines 37-52: channel types include public, friends, private, trending, user specific, hashtag associated, sticker associated, read only and/or collaborative).
Regarding claim 13, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the system of claim 9, and PAUL further discloses wherein the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media include additional computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform additional operations comprising:
determining rankings of individual content items of the number of content items, the rankings indicating respective levels of interest of the individual content items in relation to a user of a client device (col 15 lines 61-66); and
determining an order in which to present the individual content items based on the rankings (col 15 lines 61-66: ordered based on relevance to particular user).
Regarding claim 14, PAUL and GARRIDO disclose the system of claim 9, and PAUL further discloses wherein the page includes an additional user interface element to share the classification with one or more additional users of a client application (Fig. 10B-10C).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten, or if a Terminal Disclaimer is timely filed, to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li; Shangwen et al.
US 1134900 B1
Classifiers for media content
Prahlad; Anand et al.
US 20130006938 A1
Methods for performing data replication
Salokhe; Abhimanyu et al.
US 20200142978 A1
Visual Attribute determination for content selection
Ghoshal; Sandip et al.
US 20220012268 A1
Smart categorization of content in a content management system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141