DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 06/24/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending in the case.
No further claims have been cancelled or added.
Claims 1, 11 and 13 are independent claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 13, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sue Waters (“Identifying items using Google Lens”, published 09/10/2019, hereinafter “Waters”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2022/0329908 A1, effectively filed on 05/25/2020, hereinafter “Gao”).
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 13:
Waters discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least a processor; and at least one memory [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the apparatus to perform a method comprising (The Google lens feature is available through the Google Photos application and as can be seen via Figs. 1-21 of Waters, the Google Photos application is accessed via a smartphone device. Although there is no explicit discussion of a processor, memory and stored instructions, such components are necessary to provide the Google photos application functionality demonstrated in the figures and are typical components of a smartphone device.):
displaying an object recognition component on a first page (A google lens icon (object recognition component) is displayed on a first page of the google photos application, Waters: Figs. 1-5, page 13 timestamp 0:00-0:20.);
jumping from the first page to a second page in response to detecting a trigger signal to the object recognition component (Waters: Figs. 6-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31.);
displaying a scan area on the second page to recognize an object in the scan area (When the user selects the google lens icon, a page is displayed where an animation of dots floating around the screen is rendered while the photo is being analyzed for object recognition (scan area), Waters: Figs. 6-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31.);
displaying, in response to recognizing the object in the scan area, a result display component on the second page corresponding to the recognized object on the second page (When the object is recognized a related results section is displayed, Waters: Figs. 6-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31.); and
jumping from the second page to a third page in response to detecting a trigger signal to the result display component, wherein a content of the third page is related to an object corresponding to the result display component (The user can select a result to display additional information regarding the result, Waters: Figs. 13-18, page 13 timestamp 0:31-0:42.).
Waters does not appear to expressly teach a method, apparatus and medium wherein the result display component corresponds to a quantity of the recognized object, wherein a quantity of the result display component is the same as the quantity of the recognized object.
wherein the result display component corresponds to a quantity of the recognized object, wherein a quantity of the result display component is the same as the quantity of the recognized object (The number of items presented in the results directly map to the amount of objects recognized, Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]).
Accordingly, 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 method, apparatus and medium of Waters wherein the result display component corresponds to a quantity of the recognized object, as taught by Gao.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by more efficiently providing the user with relevant results when the image comprises multiple instances of a same recognized object (Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]). In particular the user will save time if multiple results are able to be presented of the different recognized objects within a single image at one time instead of the user having to provide a separate image for each object in order to retrieve results for each object.
Claims 5 and 18:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method and apparatus wherein the displaying a result display component corresponding to a quantity of the recognized object on the second page comprises:
displaying the result display component at a predetermined position on the second page, wherein a quantity of the result display component is the same as the quantity of the recognized object (When the object is recognized a related results section is displayed, Waters: Figs. 6-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31. The number of results matches the number of objects that are recognized, Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]), and
wherein a result display component corresponding to a first object is displayed at a middle part of the predetermined position, and the first object meets a predetermined condition (A recognized object is displayed in the middle of the area that displays recognized content (predetermined position), Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]. The object needs to be recognized before a result can be displayed (predetermined condition), Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by providing an effective presentation of relevant results when the image comprises multiple instances of a same recognized object (Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]).
Claims 6 and 19:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method and apparatus further comprising:
hiding or partially displaying the result display component if the quantity of the result display component is greater than a maximum display quantity of the second page (When the object is recognized, only two result items fit with the results area of the second page, Waters: Figs. 9-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31. The remaining results items are hidden until the user provides further input, Waters: Figs. 13-16.); and
displaying or completely displaying the hidden or partially displayed result display component in response to receiving a switch signal to the result display component (The user can provide input to switch from a contracted view of the results area to an extended view of the results area, Waters: Figs. 13-16).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method wherein the result display component comprises an information display area, and the information display area is configured to display information of the object corresponding to the result display component (Waters: Figs. 13-16; Gao, Fig. 9-10e, ¶ [0121]-[0123], [0126]-[0127], [0134]-[0137], [0146]-[0147]).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method wherein the third page comprises information related to the object and/or a jump portal for the information related to the object (When the user selects one of the results a third page is displayed comprising information related to the detect object, Waters: Figs. 17-18, page 13 timestamp 0:31-0:42.).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method further comprising:
displaying prompt information in the scan area until the result display component is displayed on the second page (When the image is being analyzed, a dot animation is generated (prompt information) until the results are displayed, Waters: Figs. 6-12, page 13 timestamp 0:20-0:31.).
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method wherein the displaying a result display component corresponding to a quantity of the recognized object on the second page comprises:
displaying, in the result display component, information of an object with a maximum similarity to the object in the scan area (When the user selects the control of “QX” the content profile of “QX” is displayed, Gao: Fig. 8b, ¶ [0108]. The person corresponding to “QX” has the greatest similarity to a corresponding object in the image, Gao: ¶ [0052]); and
switching, in response to receiving an information switching signal to the result display component, information of the object displayed in the result display component to information of another similar object (When the user selects the control of “Like WZW” the content profile of “WZW” is presented, Gao: Figs. 8b-8d, ¶ [0108]-[0109]. Accordingly, the information switches from information corresponding to a first detected object (a detected person) to information corresponding to a second detected object (a detected person) that is similar to the first detected object (both objects are persons).).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to display the information of a corresponding object according to his/her needs (Gao: Figs. 8b-8d, ¶ [0108]-[0109].).
Claims 14 and 20:
The rejection of claims 5 and 18 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao further teaches a method further comprising:
hiding or partially displaying the result display component if the quantity of the result display component is greater than a maximum display quantity of the second page (When the object is recognized, only two result items fit with the results area of the second page, Waters: Figs. 9-12, page 13 timestamp 0:15-0:31. The remaining results items are hidden until the user provides further input, Waters: Figs. 13-16.); and
displaying or completely displaying the hidden or partially displayed result display component in response to receiving a switch signal to the result display component (The user can provide input to switch from a contracted view of the results area to an extended view of the results area, Waters: Figs. 13-16).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of Gao and further in view of Deng (US 2018/0373949 A1, published 12/27/2018, hereinafter “Deng”).
Claims 2 and 15:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao does not appear to expressly teach a method and apparatus wherein the displaying a scan area on the second page to recognize an object in the scan area comprises:
displaying a scan line moving cyclically from a start position to an end position, wherein the scan area is an area between the start position and the end position; and
stopping displaying the scan line in a case that a focusable object and an outer frame of the object are displayed in the scan area.
However, Deng teaches a method and apparatus wherein the displaying a scan area on the second page to recognize an object in the scan area comprises:
displaying a scan line moving cyclically from a start position to an end position, wherein the scan area is an area between the start position and the end position (Deng: Fig. 2, ¶ [0037]-[0038]); and
stopping displaying the scan line in a case that a focusable object and an outer frame of the object are displayed in the scan area (Deng: Fig. 2, ¶ [0032]-[0040]).
Accordingly, 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 method and apparatus of Waters in view of Gao wherein the displaying a scan area on the second page to recognize an object in the scan area comprises:
displaying a scan line moving cyclically from a start position to an end position, wherein the scan area is an area between the start position and the end position; and
stopping displaying the scan line in a case that a focusable object and an outer frame of the object are displayed in the scan area, as taught by Deng.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to substitute one known element (a dot animation) for another known element (moving line animation) to produce the predictable result of indicating to the user that objects are being scanned. Also, a line moving left and right across the scanning area provides a clearer indication of the scanning operation.
Claims 3 and 16:
The rejection of claims 2 and 15 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao and further in view of Deng further teaches a method and apparatus further comprising:
displaying a first dynamic identifier in the outer frame of the object, wherein the first dynamic identifier indicates that the object in the outer frame is being recognized (The appearance of the outer frame of each object is different and is used to identify the type of object that is being recognized, Deng: Figs. 3A-4, ¶ [0032]-[0052]. The appearances of the outer frame can be changed (dynamic identifier), Deng: ¶ [0053]-[0054]).
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of Gao and further in view of Gokturk et al. (US 2012/0304125 A1, published 11/29/2012, hereinafter “Gokturk”).
Claims 4 and 17:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Waters in view of Gao does not appear to expressly teach a method and apparatus wherein the recognizing the object in the scan area comprises:
displaying, in the scan area, an anchor point and a name of the recognized object.
However, Gokturk teaches a method and apparatus wherein the recognizing the object in the image comprises:
displaying, in the image, an anchor point and a name of the recognized object (Gokturk: Figs. 1 and 20, ¶ [0051]-[0055], [0285]-[0288]).
Accordingly, 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 method and apparatus of Waters in view of Gao wherein the recognizing the object in the image comprises:
displaying, in the image, an anchor point and a name of the recognized object, as taught by Gokturk.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to more clearly correlate the recognized objects within the image with the results (Gokturk: Figs. 1 and 20, ¶ [0051]-[0055], [0285]-[0288]).
In implementing the labeling feature of Gokturk into the invention of Waters in view of Gao, the image (as taught by Gokturk) where the labels are displayed would correspond to a scan area since the image that corresponds to the object recognition is presented in a scanning area in the invention of Waters in view of Gao. Accordingly, in combination Waters in view of Gao and further in view of Gokturk teaches a method and apparatus wherein the recognizing the object in the scan area comprises:
displaying, in the scan area, an anchor point and a name of the recognized object.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waters in view of Gao, further in view of Gray et al. (US 9,841,879 B1, issued 12/12/2017, hereinafter “Gray”) and further in view of Tsuchimochi (US 2018/0068533 A1, published 03/08/2018, hereinafter “Tsuchimochi”).
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Waters in view of Gao does not appear to expressly teach a method further comprising:
displaying second prompt information on the second page in response to no object being recognized in the scan area within a predetermined time period; and
providing a re-recognition component on the second page, and re-recognizing the object in the scan area in response to detecting a trigger signal to the re-recognition component.
However, Gray teaches a method comprising:
displaying second prompt information on the second page in response to no object being recognized in the scan area (When no objects can be recognized in the image, firefly indicators can form a question mark on the display where the image is being analyzed (scan area), Gray: Figs. 3(d), column 9 lines 41-50. The firefly indicators can be provided for both live and still images, Gray: column 4 lines 26-52.); and
providing a re-recognition component on the second page, and re-recognizing the object in the scan area in response to detecting a trigger signal to the re-recognition component (The fireflies can form into an image of a selectable element that will enable to user to re-recognize the object in the scan area, Gray: column 9 lines 61-67 and column 10 lines 1-19.).
Accordingly, 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 method of Waters in view of Gao to comprise:
displaying second prompt information on the second page in response to no object being recognized in the scan area; and
providing a re-recognition component on the second page, and re-recognizing the object in the scan area in response to detecting a trigger signal to the re-recognition component, as taught by Gray.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting the user in enabling object recognition when the image quality is preventing objects from being recognized and to provide better capabilities for object recognition by enabling objects to recognized on live and still images (Gray: column 4 lines 26-52 and column 9 lines 41-67 and column 10 lines 1-19.).
Water in view of Gao and further in view of Gray does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein no objects being recognized is within a predetermined time period.
However, wherein no objects being recognized in the scan area is within a predetermined time period (Tuschimochi: ¶ [0080].).
Accordingly, 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 method of Waters in view of Gao and further in view of Gray wherein no objects being recognized in the scan area is within a predetermined time period, as taught by Tuschimochi.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for making a determination that no recognition can be made (Tuschimochi: ¶ [0080].).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above (although the same references are used, different portions of the references are cited).
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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights