Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In response to communications filed 21 October 2025, claims 1, 7, and 11 are amended and claims 14-15 are added per applicant’s request. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Claim Objection,” filed 21 October 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101,” filed 21 October 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. On page 5, line 19, to page 6, line 3, applicant argues that
transmitting selected data between two electronic devices corresponds to a practical application and that the subject-matter of the claims does not correspond to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. §101.
However, these arguments are not persuasive, because they amount to a general allegation that the claims are patent eligible without addressing the Alice framework. The features of “transmitting selected data” are not recited in the independent claims, and only limit claim 4. The instant rejection acknowledges that “transmitting selected data between two electronic devices” (claim 4) does not fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, but reasons that these features do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; see paragraph [14] of the instant rejection. Applicant does not explain what additional elements of the claims support the allegation that the claims correspond to a practical application or address the reasoning applied to the additional elements identified in the instant rejection.
Regarding claim 7, on page 6, lines 4-8, applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible, because
the features of amended Claim 7 including “performing [] on at least the selected image a face recognition algorithm in order to recognize at least one person in the selected image as the at least one target person” cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
However, these arguments are not persuasive. The instant rejection acknowledges that “performing . . . a face recognition algorithm” does not fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas and is an additional element that amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity; see paragraphs [17] and [20] of the instant rejection. Evidence that these features were a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at the time of the invention is provided in paragraph [0042] of the specification which states that “face recognition technology is well known to the skilled person.”
Applicant’s arguments, see section “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103,” filed 21 October 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. On page 7, lines 3-16, applicant argues
the Office fails to demonstrate that Lee discloses adapting the subset [ ... ] as a function of the target person". Indeed, Lee discloses “browsing images grouped by person”, but Lee does not disclose two distinct concepts like “people” and “target person”. [emphasis in original]
However, these arguments are not persuasive, because the art on record teaches the limitations at issue. Lee discloses in 4:49-5:8 to “display images in which a plurality of people appear,” i.e., to adapt a subset of the collection of images based on people. Lee explicitly teaches clusters for a “first person . . . Person A” and a “second person . . . Person B,” but generally teaches to “display clusters corresponding to the people.” Vazquez-Fernandez and Lee further teach adapting as a function of the target person, where the browsing of images based on a specific person, e.g., “Person A,” as taught by Lee, is a function of the target person taught by Lee. Accordingly, the prior art teaches the limitations at issue.
On page 7, lines 17-22, applicant argues that the prior at does not teach features disclosed in the specification.
As explained in the Description, for instance at page 9, line 30 to page 10, line 10 of the
application as filed, as a function of a target person, a group of people like his/her family can be determined and then, the images representing members of this group (family) can be selected.
However, these arguments are not supported, because the features that “as a function of a target person, a group of people like his/her family can be determined and then, the images representing members of this group (family) can be selected” are not recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1 and 11-13 recites the steps of
determining (a) that an image, selected among a collection of images, represents at least one target person; and
proposing (b) to share the selected image with a device used by the target person,
wherein (b) comprises adapting (b1) a subset of the collection of images, based on people represented in the images as a function of the target person.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. The steps of “determining,” “proposing,” and “adapting” can be performed as mental observations and/or evaluations, perhaps using pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 and 11-13 further recite
displaying the subset of the collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to the adapting.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data outputting (“displaying”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 1 further recites an “electronic device”; that the step of determining is performed “by a processing unit of the electronic device”; and that the steps of proposing and displaying are performed “by a [on a] user interface of the electronic device.” Claim 11 further recites
An electronic device comprising: a processing unit . . . and a user interface” configured to [perform the steps analyzed above].
Claims 1 and 11 further recite that the collection of images is “stored in the electronic device.” Claim 12 further recites
A processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program to execute [the steps analyzed above] for operating an electronic device, when the computer program is executed by the processor.
Claim 13 further recites
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, on which is stored a computer program comprising program code instructions to execute [the steps analyzed above] for operating an electronic device.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 further recites “detecting a trigger event performed on the electronic device” and performing the step of proposing “in response to the detection of a trigger event.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 3 further recites “providing a personalized sharing button, on the user interface of the electronic device.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data outputting (“providing”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 further recites “sending (c) the selected image to the device used by the target person.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data outputting (“sending”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 further recites that the contact details are associated “in the electronic device.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 further recites “detecting (a1) the selection of at least one image.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 7 further recites “performing (a0) on at least the selected image a face recognition algorithm.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering (“performing a face recognition algorithm”). See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 8 further recites that the contact details are associated “in the electronic device.” However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because they amount to merely implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional limitations of claims 2-10 and 14-15, not explicitly addressed above, likewise fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Considering the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activities and/or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer. Paragraphs [0005]-[0007] and [0042] of the specification provide evidence that the steps of “displaying”; “providing,” “sending,” and “performing a face recognition algorithm” were well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of “image management applications.” See also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Therefore claims 1-15 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteban Vazquez-Fernandez et al., “Built-in face recognition for smart photo sharing in mobile devices” in view of Lee et al. (US 8,531,478 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Vazquez-Fernandez teaches a method for operating an electronic device, the method comprising:
determining (a), by a processing unit of the electronic device, that an image, selected among a collection of images stored in the electronic device, represents at least one target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, “select an image which . . . contacts in the picture will be identified”); and
proposing (b), by a user interface of the electronic device, to share the selected image with a device used by the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez Fig 2b and section 4, paragraph 3, displaying the “mail icon” proposes to share the selected image with a device used by the target person).
Vazquez-Fernandez does not explicitly teach
adapting (b1) a subset of the collection of images, based on people represented in the images and
displaying, on the user interface of the electronic device, the subset of the collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to the adapting.
However, Lee teaches
adapting (b1) a subset of the collection of images, based on people represented in the images (see Lee 4:49-5:8, “browsing images grouped by person,” where each “cluster of faces” group adapts a subset of the collection of images) and
displaying, on the user interface of the electronic device, the subset of the collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to the adapting (see Lee Fig. 2, elements 211 and 212, and 4:49-5:8, “display images in which a plurality of people appear”).
Vazquez-Fernandez teaches in section 5, paragraph 5, a subset of the collection of images by “searching all the stored pictures where a selected contact appears.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and display the subset of the collection of images, as taught by Lee, in combination with the techniques taught by Vazquez-Fernandez, because “browsing digital images takes people appearing in digital images as a basis for browsing” and is “suitable for use in any type of photo displaying system” (see Lee 2:40-60).
Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein (b) comprises the adapting as a function of the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, and Lee 4:49-5:8, where the step of proposing, as taught by Vazquez-Fernandez, includes the browsing of images “for Person A,” taught by Lee, as a function of the target person taught by Vazquez-Fernandez).
Regarding claim 11, Vazquez-Fernandez teaches an electronic device comprising:
a processing unit configured to determine (a) that an image, selected among a collection of images stored in the electronic device, represents at least one target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, “select an image which . . . contacts in the picture will be identified”; section 5, paragraph 3, teaches “mobile devices” comprising a processing unit); and
a user interface configured to propose (b) to share the selected image with a device used by the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez Fig 2b and section 4, paragraph 3, displaying the “mail icon” proposes to share the selected image with a device used by the target person).
Vazquez-Fernandez does not explicitly teach to display a subset of the collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to an adapting of the subset based on people represented in the images.
However, Lee teaches to display a subset of the collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to an adapting of the subset based on people represented in the images (see Lee Fig. 2, elements 211 and 212, and 4:49-5:8, “browsing images grouped by person,” where each “cluster of faces” group arranges and adapts the subset of the collection of images).
Vazquez-Fernandez teaches in section 5, paragraph 5, a subset of the collection of images by “searching all the stored pictures where a selected contact appears.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display and arrange the subset of the collection of images, as taught by Lee, in combination with the techniques taught by Vazquez-Fernandez, because “browsing digital images takes people appearing in digital images as a basis for browsing” and is “suitable for use in any type of photo displaying system” (see Lee 2:40-60).
Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches the adapting as a function of the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, and Lee 4:49-5:8, where adapting “for Person A,” taught by Lee, is adapted for the target person taught by Vazquez-Fernandez).
Regarding claim 12, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified a processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program to execute the method according to claim 1 for operating an electronic device, when the computer program is executed by the processor (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 5, paragraph 3, and the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 13, (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium, on which is stored a computer program comprising program code instructions to execute the method according to claim 1 for operating an electronic device (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 5, paragraph 3, and the rejection of claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 2, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches further comprising (b0) of detecting a trigger event performed on the electronic device, the proposing (b) to share the selected image with a device used by the target person being performed in response to the detection of a trigger event (see Vazquez-Fernandez Fig 2b and section 4, paragraph 3, where the “drag” event is a trigger event).
Regarding claim 3, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein proposing (b) to share the selected image with a device used by the target person comprises (b2) providing a personalized sharing button, on the user interface of the electronic device, for directly sending the selected image to the device used by the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez Fig 2b and section 4, paragraph 3, where the “mail icon” is a personalized sharing button; the limitation “for directly sharing” amounts to an intended use of the button and does not patentably distinguish the invention).
Regarding claim 4, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches further comprising a step of sending (c) the selected image to the device used by the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, “sent to the email addresses linked to the identified contacts”).
Regarding claim 5, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein contact details of the target person are associated, in the electronic device, with an identifier of the target person for sending the selected image to the device used by the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 1, “LBP templates are extracted from face images and linked to already existing phone contacts”; the limitation “for sending” amounts to an intended use and does not patentably distinguish the invention).
Regarding claim 6, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein (a) comprises detecting (a1) the selection of at least one image (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, “allows the user to select an image”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein (a) comprises performing (a0) on at least the selected image a face recognition algorithm in order to recognize at least one person in the selected image as the at least one target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, “image which will be automatically processed with the built-in face recognition module”).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein contact details of at least the target person are associated, in the electronic device, with a reference face of the target person and/or with parameters characterizing the reference face, the determining (a) that the selected image represents at least a target person being performed based on the reference face and/or parameters (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 1, and section 5, paragraph 2, “link the contact list of the phone to the extracted biometric information of the registered users. This information is used by a face recognizer”).
Regarding claim 9, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein adapting (b1) a subset of the collection of images comprises selecting and/or sorting the subset (see Lee Fig. 2, elements 211 and 212, and 4:49-5:8).
Regarding claim 10, Vazquez-Fernandez as modified teaches wherein adapting (b1) a subset of the collection of images comprises selecting the subset of the collection of images based on people represented in the images as a function of the target person, including selecting the subset of the collection of images representing the target person (see Vazquez-Fernandez section 4, paragraph 3, and Lee 4:49-5:8, where the subset of the collection of images selected “for Person A,” as taught by Lee, is selected for the target person taught by Vazquez-Fernandez).
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 Kristopher Andersen whose telephone number is (571)270-5743. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM ET, Monday-Friday.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/Kristopher Andersen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159