DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed 04/04/24 in which claims 1-17 were presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/25/23, 9/11/23, 9/25/23, 9/29/23, 11/20/23, 12/12/23, 1/9/24, 1/15/24, 3/6/24, 5/13/24, 5/28/24, 7/19/24, 12/16/24, 3/6/25, 3/18/25, 3/26/25, 4/28/25, 6/2/25, 6/17/25, 7/10/25, 7/22/25, 8/19/25, 9/15/25, 10/8/25, 11/6/25, 12/4/25, 12/31/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Casey, Jonathon, Galaxy S21 Ultra Tips for Editing Photos and Videos (Feb. 21, 2021), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuymTnn0ias (“Casey”).
Regarding claim 1, Casey discloses [a] computer system that is in communication with a display generation component, the computer system comprising, comprising: (Galaxy S21 mobile device [computer system] includes a processor in communication with a touchscreen [display generation component])
one or more processors; and (Casey inherently teaches a processor because a processor is necessarily present in a mobile phone)
memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (Casey inherently teaches a memory containing instructions to be executed by a processor because such a memory is necessarily present in a mobile phone)
while displaying, via the display generation component, a representation of visual content that includes a first portion and a second portion, detecting an input directed to the representation of the visual content; and (Casey 8:48 (user draws around figure in the image, the image includes a person and another red object against a background))
PNG
media_image1.png
916
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Casey 8:48
in response to detecting the input directed to the representation of the visual content and in accordance with a determination that the first portion includes a subject that is available to be copied, providing an indication that an operation can be performed to copy the subject without copying the second portion (Casey 8:27-8:35 (“So one cool thing that you can do is superimpose an image or cut out a subject and paste that subject into another photo.”); Casey 9:25 (user selects the check mark [indication] to copy the indicated object [subject])).
PNG
media_image2.png
930
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Casey 9:25
Regarding claim 2, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey further discloses wherein the input directed to the representation of the visual content is a press-and-hold input (tracing a shape on the touchscreen involves a press and hold operation).
Regarding claim 11, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey further discloses in response to detecting the input directed to the representation of the visual content, providing an indication that an operation can be performed to modify the representation of the visual content, such that the representation of the visual content includes the subject and does not include the second portion (Casey 9:08 (after user has traced [input directed to the representation] the figure [subject] to be cut [operation] from the image, the “Select manually” button is highlighted for selection)).
PNG
media_image3.png
876
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Casey 9:08
Regarding claim 12, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey further discloses wherein:
the first portion of the representation of visual content includes a first subject and a second subject; and (Casey 9:08 (the image contains the user [first subject] and a red object [second subject] in the background on the left))
in accordance with a determination that the input directed to the representation of the visual content is directed to the first subject in the first portion, the indication that the operation can be performed to copy the subject without copying the second portion is an indication that the operation can be performed to copy the first subject without copying the second subject; and (Casey 9:08 (the traced line creates a closed loop [indication] that provides an indication of the subject being extracted from the image and conversely also provides an indication of the content that is not going to be extracted from the image))
in accordance with a determination that the input directed to the representation of the visual content is directed to the second subject, different from the first subject, in the first portion, the indication that the operation can be performed to copy the subject without copying the second portion is an indication that the operation can be performed to copy the second subject without copying the first subject (because the user is allowed to select any object in the image, if the user were to outline a different object in the image, then that object would be indicated as being able to be extracted from the image).
Regarding claim 14, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey further discloses in response to detecting the input directed to the representation of the visual content and in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the representation of the visual content includes a third subject and a fourth subject that are available to be copied, providing an indication that an operation can be performed to copy the third subject and the fourth subject without copying the second portion of the visual content (Casey 8:58 (the portions of the user not included in the traced portion are highlighted [indication] and the user can circle (see Casey 9:02) these portions to include them in the traced portion of the image)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
904
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Casey 8:58
PNG
media_image5.png
920
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 Casey 9:02
Regarding claim 15, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey further discloses wherein the representation of visual content is a representation of an image or a video (Casey teaches removing background from image content on a mobile device).
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and, therefore, is similarly rejected. Casey further discloses a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component (mobile device has a processor in communication with a touchscreen [display generation component]).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sohn (KR 20140127131 A; published Nov. 3, 2014).
Regarding claim 9, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey does not expressly disclose wherein detecting the input directed to the representation of the visual content includes detecting a pointer activation event and detecting that a pointer is hovering over a third user interface object that, when selected, cause the computer system to copy the subject without copying the second portion (but see Sohn ¶ 174 (“For example, the electronic device may store information such as location information of each synthesized object, size of each synthesized object, and an edited region (masking effect area) of each synthesized object when generating a synthesized image. The electronic device may identify a location where an electronic pen input, a finger input, a hover input, etc. [pointer activation event] for selecting at least one object [third user interface object] included in the composite image is detected. According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the electronic device may identify the object selected by the input by comparing the stored information with the location information where the input is detected, and the electronic device may identify the original image corresponding to the selected object, and the original image. Preview information corresponding to can be checked.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casey to incorporate the teachings of Sohn to identify a location where a hover input for selecting an object is detected, at least because doing so would enable extracting an object from an image. See Sohn ¶ 6 (“The electronic device may detect an input for an image, extract a portion corresponding to the input, identify an object (subject) through an image analysis result, and extract the identified object. The electronic device may extract a background and an object from an image.”)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akiyoshi (JP 2011170783 A; published Sep. 1, 2011).
Regarding claim 13, Casey discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above. Casey does not expressly disclose in response to detecting the input directed to the representation of the visual content and in accordance with a determination that the first portion is not a subject that is available to be copied, forgoing providing the indication that the operation can be performed to copy the subject without copying the second portion of the visual content (but see Akiyoshi ¶ 59 (“(Example when Copying is Not Possible) Next, processing when a moving image object that cannot be copied is selected will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a state in which a moving image object that cannot be copied is selected to be copied. As described above, in the case of an object that can be copied, the operation ends when the thumbnail of the moving image object is displayed. However, in the case of an object that cannot be copied, as shown in FIG. 10, when the index finger 1001 is released from the touch panel 205, the thumbnail 1002 returns to its original state. By returning to the original state while showing it to the user as if it was copied in this way, it is possible to explicitly notify the user that copying cannot be performed.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casey to incorporate the teachings of Akiyoshi to indicate that an object traced by the user cannot be copied by returning the image to its original state, at least because doing so would notify the user that copying cannot be performed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (US 2011/0076003 A1; published Mar. 31, 2011).
Claim 16 is a computer-readable medium (CRM) claim corresponding to claim 1 and, therefore, is similarly rejected. Casey does not expressly disclose [a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system that is in communication with a display generation component (but see Cho ¶ 109 (“The present invention can be realized as code that can be read by a processor (such as a mobile station modem (MSM)) included in a mobile terminal and that can be written on a computer-readable recording medium. The computer-readable recording medium may be any type of recording device in which data is stored in a computer-readable manner. Examples of the computer-readable recording medium include a ROM, a RAM, a CD-ROM, a magnetic tape, a floppy disc, an optical data storage, and a carrier wave (e.g., data transmission through the internet). The computer-readable recording medium can be distributed over a plurality of computer systems connected to a network so that computer-readable code is written thereto and executed therefrom in a decentralized manner.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Casey to incorporate the teachings of Cho to include a computer readable medium containing instructions to perform the object extraction taught by Casey, at least because doing so would enable the mobile device to execute the image editing program in a decentralized manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schwartzberg (US 2008/0253656 A1; published Oct. 16, 2008) Method and a Device for Detecting Graphic Symbols.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571)272-4046. 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.
/SHAHID K KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146