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 .
This action is in response to Application filed on 05/24/2023.
No priority date is claimed. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 05/24/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Application on 05/24/2023 has been considered. A copy of the considered IDS is enclosed with this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “the plurality of icons” in line 14 should be “the plurality of graphical icons” for being consistent in claim language.
Other dependent claims 2-18 are objected for incorporating the informality of claim 1 upon which they depend.
Regarding claim 19, the term “the plurality of icons” in line 12 should be “the plurality of graphical icons” for being consistent in claim language.
Regarding claim 20, the term “the plurality of icons” in line 11 should be “the plurality of graphical icons” for being consistent in claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the digital images" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding “graphical icons associated with the digital images” recited in line 9 (e.g., what are graphical icons associated with the digital images (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are related to taxonomy nodes of the taxonomy and/or a plurality of graphical icons being generated in the following step (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are different from the digital images (?)). Also, it raises a question of how a taxonomy can be determined (e.g., based on processing the data set (?) or being pre-defined (?)). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Other dependent claims 2-18 are rejected as incorporating and failing to resolve the deficiencies of the rejected independent claim 1 upon which they depend.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the digital images" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding “graphical icons associated with the digital images” recited in line 7 (e.g., what are graphical icons associated with the digital images (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are related to taxonomy nodes of the taxonomy and/or a plurality of graphical icons being generated in the following step (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are different from the digital images (?)). Also, it raises a question of how a taxonomy can be determined (e.g., based on processing the data set (?) or being pre-defined (?)). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the digital images" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is unclear regarding “graphical icons associated with the digital images” recited in line 6 (e.g., what are graphical icons associated with the digital images (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are related to taxonomy nodes of the taxonomy and/or a plurality of graphical icons being generated in the following step (?) How the graphical icons associated with the digital images are different from the digital images (?)). Also, it raises a question of how a taxonomy can be determined (e.g., based on processing the data set (?) or being pre-defined (?)). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Regarding claim 19, the term “A computer-readable medium” is not limited to tangible media in accordance with Applicant’s specification (see [0015] and [0056]), which states that it may be a propagation/transmission medium (i.e., transitory signal or wave), not in and of itself a tangible medium. Replacing “A computer-readable medium” by “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” is effective to overcome this rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a taxonomy (i.e., a hierarchical classification) and generating a plurality of graphical icons (e.g., images/shapes/logos) for taxonomy nodes without significantly more.
The claims recite an abstract idea of determining a taxonomy and generating a plurality of graphical icons for taxonomy nodes through broadly recited steps of determining and generating that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper and directed to mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other additional elements including insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and outputting/displaying) and genetic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because additional elements include only insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., mere data gathering and outputting/displaying) and generic computer and/or generic computer components (e.g., memory, processor, program instructions, etc.) for performing generic computer functions (e.g., accessing, storing, displaying, etc.), which do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Abstract idea analysis as follows:
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant claims, claims 1-18 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor and a memory (i.e., a machine), claim 19 is directed to a computer-readable medium storing instruction (e.g., signals/waves for carrying instructions, which can be directed to non-statutory category of invention), and claim 20 is directed to a computer-implemented method comprising a series of steps (i.e. a process). Thus, each of the claims 1-18 and 20 falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), and claim 19 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2a Prong 1 (claims 1, 19 and 20):
The following limitations recited in claims 1, 19 and 20 are abstract ideas that fall under mental processes:
determine/determining a taxonomy comprising a hierarchical classification for organizing graphical icons associated with the digital images (this step of determining a taxonomy as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, e.g., observing a set of images and determining an hierarchy for organizing the images and/or illustrating the hierarchy on a paper); and
generate/generating, based on the retrieved data set and the taxonomy, a plurality of graphical icons, wherein each respective graphical icon includes a respective text description, and wherein each respective graphical icon corresponds to a respective taxonomy node within the taxonomy (this step of generating a plurality of graphical icons as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, e.g., determining and/or drawing an image/shape for representing each node of the hierarch on the paper).
All the limitations above are mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2 (Claims 1, 19 and 20):
The following limitations in claims 1, 19 and 20 are additional elements:
a processor (this element is directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer component for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to (these elements are directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (these elements are directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
by a computer system (this element is directed to a generic computer for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
retrieve/retrieving a data set that includes a plurality of files stored in an electronic file format, each file comprising a digital image and descriptive text associated with the digital image (this step of retrieving as broadly recited being directed to mere data gathering recited at high level of generality and/or insignificant extra-solution activity); and
display/displaying a graphical icon from the plurality of icons on a display screen of a user interface coupled to the computer system, wherein the text description for the displayed graphical icon is presented on the display screen in response to input received via the user interface and associated with the displayed graphical icon (this step of displaying as broadly recited being directed to mere data outputting recited at high level of generality and/or insignificant extra-solution activity).
These are insignificant extra-solution activity, and a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions for implementing or applying the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2b (Claims 1, 19 and 20):
The following limitations in claims 1, 19 and 20 are additional elements:
a processor (this element is directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer component for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to (these elements are directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to (these elements are directed to a generic computer and/or generic computer components for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
by a computer system (this element is directed to a generic computer for implementing the mental process or abstract idea);
retrieve/retrieving a data set that includes a plurality of files stored in an electronic file format, each file comprising a digital image and descriptive text associated with the digital image (this step of retrieving as broadly recited being directed to mere data gathering recited at high level of generality and/or insignificant extra-solution activity); and
display/displaying a graphical icon from the plurality of icons on a display screen of a user interface coupled to the computer system, wherein the text description for the displayed graphical icon is presented on the display screen in response to input received via the user interface and associated with the displayed graphical icon (this step of displaying as broadly recited being directed to mere data outputting recited at high level of generality and/or insignificant extra-solution activity).
These are insignificant extra-solution activity and/or a generic computer and/or generic computer components used to perform generic computer functions or well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 2 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 2 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the digital image comprises at least one of: a still image, and a video (this element specifying the digital image, which is directed to mere additional data.
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 3 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 3 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the descriptive text associated with the digital image is stored in at least one of: metadata associated with the digital image, and a caption displayed within the digital image (this element specifying where the descriptive text is stored, which is directed to mere additional data).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 4 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 4 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the data set is retrieved from a database in communication with the computer system (this element specifying where the data set is retrieved, which is directed to mere additional data).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional data/information, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 5 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 5 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes generating a single graphical icon having a plurality of separate text descriptions associated with the single graphical icon (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 6 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 6 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes generating a first graphical icon and a second graphical icon, wherein the first graphical icon and second graphical icon share at least one text description in common (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 depends on claim 6. As such, claim 7 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 6.
In addition, claim 7 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the first graphical icon has a different number of associated text descriptions than the second graphical icon (this element specifying the first graphical icon and the second graphical icon, which is directed to mere additional data).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional descriptive data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 8 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 8 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on performing at least one of: an object detection process on the digital images in the data set, and a recognition process on the digital images in the data set (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, e.g., observing the images to decide how to choose an image/shape as a graphic icon).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 9 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 9 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on performing an entity recognition process on the descriptive text associated with the digital images in the data set (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, e.g., observing the images and/or text associated with images to decide on using an image/shape as a graphic icon).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 10 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 10 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on identifying a pattern whereby a common object is referenced in both the digital images in the data set and the descriptive text associated with the digital images in the data set (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, e.g., observing the images and/or text associated with images to decide on using an image/shape as a graphic icon).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 11 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 11 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes maximizing a distance between a pair of taxonomy nodes, corresponding to a pair of graphical icons, at a common level in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy (the steps of generating and maximizing as broadly recited (i.e., without specifying “how”) can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 12 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 12 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes minimizing a distance between a child taxonomy node to a parent taxonomy node in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy (the steps of generating and minimizing as broadly recited (i.e., without specifying “how”) can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 13 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 13 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially at least one of: a shape found within the digital images in the data set, and a color found within the digital images in the data set (the step of generating as broadly recited (i.e., without specifying “how”) can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by observing the images and deciding on images/shapes as graphical icons).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 14 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 14 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes performing an ontology identification based on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy and attributes of the taxonomy nodes (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by observing the taxonomy and deciding on images/shapes as graphical icons).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 15 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 15 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes identifying and classifying topics associated with the taxonomy nodes (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by observing the taxonomy and deciding on images/shapes as graphical icons).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 16 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 16 includes the following additional elements:
wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes performing at least one of: a bottom-up taxonomy structure analysis on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy, and a top-down taxonomy structure analysis on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy (the step of generating as broadly recited can be mentally performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper by observing the taxonomy in a bottom-up manner or a top-down manner and deciding on images/shapes as graphical icons).
These are additional elements directed to mental process or abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 16 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 17 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy includes a parent taxonomy node comprising an attribute common to at least one child taxonomy node associated with the parent taxonomy node (this element specifying the relationship between nodes in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy, which is directed to mere descriptive data).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional descriptive data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 18 recites the abstract idea as presented in claim 1.
In addition, claim 18 includes the following additional elements:
wherein the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy includes a first sibling taxonomy node and a second sibling taxonomy node, wherein the first sibling taxonomy node and second sibling taxonomy node share a common parent taxonomy node, and wherein the first sibling taxonomy node has at least one attribute that is different from the second sibling taxonomy node (this element specifying the relationship between nodes in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy, which is directed to mere descriptive data).
These are additional elements directed to mere additional descriptive data, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 1-20 (effective filing date 05/24/2023) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakagami Hidekazu (JP-2009205207-A, Publication date 09/10/2009).
As to claim 1, Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“A computer system” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, Abstract and [page 3, lines 33-36]) comprising:
“a processor” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, line 20] for a central processing unit of a computer); and
“a memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 20-26] for computer-readable recording medium storing a program (i.e., instructions)):
“retrieve a data set that includes a plurality of files stored in an electronic file format, each file comprising a digital image and descriptive text associated with the digital image” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 34-36] for obtaining information items for being classified and managed, wherein the information items include image files, wherein each file includes a file name, which can be interpreted as descriptive text associated with a file/image);
“determine a taxonomy comprising a hierarchical classification for organizing graphical icons associated with the digital images” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 9-16] for generating a tree structure or hierarchy for classifying information items (e.g., images), wherein the tree structure as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a taxonomy as broadly recited);
“generate, based on the retrieved data set and the taxonomy, a plurality of graphical icons, wherein each respective graphical icon includes a respective text description, and wherein each respective graphical icon corresponds to a respective taxonomy node within the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating an icon representing a virtual folder corresponding to each node of the tree structure, wherein each node of the tree structure is interpreted as equivalent to each taxonomy node as recited; also see [page 5, lines 14-22] wherein each node of the tree structure (i.e., taxonomy node) is associated with a tag (i.e., text description)); and
“display a graphical icon from the plurality of icons on a display screen of a user interface coupled to the computer system, wherein the text description for the displayed graphical icon is presented on the display screen in response to input received via the user interface and associated with the displayed graphical icon” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 1-17] for displaying icons for nodes/folders together with folder names, which, when selected, displays icons for nodes/subfolders and/or information items with information item name, wherein folder/subfolder/information item names are text description as recited for the displayed graphical icons as recited; also see [page 8, lines 34-38]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein the digital image comprises at least one of: a still image, and a video” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 34-36] for image files (i.e., still images); also see [page 10, lines 14-15] for photos and images).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein the descriptive text associated with the digital image is stored in at least one of: metadata associated with the digital image, and a caption displayed within the digital image” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 2, lines 18-22] for tag data (i.e., metadata) associated with images).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein the data set is retrieved from a database in communication with the computer system” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 34-36] for receiving information items (e.g., image files) from the information storage unit (i.e., database)).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes generating a single graphical icon having a plurality of separate text descriptions associated with the single graphical icon” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 1-17] for generating a plurality of icons for the tree structure including generating an icon for the root folders, which includes other icons with subfolder names and information item names (i.e., text descriptions)).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes generating a first graphical icon and a second graphical icon, wherein the first graphical icon and second graphical icon share at least one text description in common” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items; also see [page 8, lines 25-31]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 6 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
wherein the first graphical icon has a different number of associated text descriptions than the second graphical icon (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items; also see [page 8, lines 25-31] wherein each file/icons can associated with different number of tags (i.e., text descriptions)).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on performing at least one of: an object detection process on the digital images in the data set, and a recognition process on the digital images in the data set” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items).
As to claim 9, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on performing an entity recognition process on the descriptive text associated with the digital images in the data set” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items; also see [page 8, lines 21-31]).
As to claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially on identifying a pattern whereby a common object is referenced in both the digital images in the data set and the descriptive text associated with the digital images in the data set” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure, which is generated based on tag data (see [page 5, lines 9-22]); also see [page 8, lines 21-31]).
As to claim 11, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes maximizing a distance between a pair of taxonomy nodes, corresponding to a pair of graphical icons, at a common level in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure, wherein generated icons/nodes are connected according to parent-child relationship of the nodes of the tree structure).
As to claim 12, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes minimizing a distance between a child taxonomy node to a parent taxonomy node in the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure, wherein generated icons/nodes are connected according to parent-child relationship of the nodes of the tree structure).
As to claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons is based at least partially at least one of: a shape found within the digital images in the data set, and a color found within the digital images in the data set” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure; also see [page 8, lines 21-31] wherein each icon/node/folder associated with tag information associated with information items (e.g., images)).
As to claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes performing an ontology identification based on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy and attributes of the taxonomy nodes” (Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure (i.e., the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy)).
As to claim 15, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes identifying and classifying topics associated with the taxonomy nodes” ” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure, which is generated based on tag data (see [page 5, lines 9-22]); also see [page 8, lines 21-31] wherein tag data represents topics associated with nodes/folder/subfolder/information items).
As to claim 16, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of graphical icons includes performing at least one of: a bottom-up taxonomy structure analysis on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy, and a top-down taxonomy structure analysis on the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating icons representing nodes/folders/subfolders/items of the tree structure, which can be traversed in different directions; also see [page 8, lines 1-7] for generating icons starting from the root folder (i.e., top-down)).
As to claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy includes a parent taxonomy node comprising an attribute common to at least one child taxonomy node associated with the parent taxonomy node” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 21-31]).
As to claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same argument as above to reject claim 1 and is similarly rejected including the following:
Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“wherein the hierarchical classification of the taxonomy includes a first sibling taxonomy node and a second sibling taxonomy node, wherein the first sibling taxonomy node and second sibling taxonomy node share a common parent taxonomy node, and wherein the first sibling taxonomy node has at least one attribute that is different from the second sibling taxonomy node” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 21-31]).
As to claim 19, Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“A computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, Abstract, [page 3, lines 33-36]) and [page 4, lines 20-26]):
“retrieve a data set that includes a plurality of files stored in an electronic file format, each file comprising a digital image and descriptive text associated with the digital image” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 34-36] for obtaining information items for being classified and managed, wherein the information items include image files, wherein each file includes a file name, which can be interpreted as descriptive text associated with a file/image);
“determine a taxonomy comprising a hierarchical classification for organizing graphical icons associated with the digital images” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 9-16] for generating a tree structure or hierarchy for classifying information items (e.g., images), wherein the tree structure as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a taxonomy as broadly recited);
“generate, based on the retrieved data set and the taxonomy, a plurality of graphical icons, wherein each respective graphical icon includes a respective text description, and wherein each respective graphical icon corresponds to a respective taxonomy node within the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating an icon representing a virtual folder corresponding to each node of the tree structure, wherein each node of the tree structure is interpreted as equivalent to each taxonomy node as recited; also see [page 5, lines 14-22] wherein each node of the tree structure (i.e., taxonomy node) is associated with a tag (i.e., text description)); and
“display a graphical icon from the plurality of icons on a display screen of a user interface coupled to the computer system, wherein the text description for the displayed graphical icon is presented on the display screen in response to input received via the user interface and associated with the displayed graphical icon” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 1-17] for displaying icons for nodes/folders together with folder names, which, when selected, displays icons for nodes/subfolders and/or information items with information item name, wherein folder/subfolder/information item names are text description as recited for the displayed graphical icons as recited).
As to claim 20, Sakagami Hidekazu teaches:
“A computer-implemented method comprising” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, Abstract, [page 3, lines 33-36]) and [page 4, lines 20-26]):
“retrieving, by a computer system, a data set that includes a plurality of files stored in an electronic file format, each file comprising a digital image and descriptive text associated with the digital image” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 4, lines 34-36] for obtaining information items for being classified and managed, wherein the information items include image files, wherein each file includes a file name, which can be interpreted as descriptive text associated with a file/image);
“determining, by the computer system, a taxonomy comprising a hierarchical classification for organizing graphical icons associated with the digital images” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 9-16] for generating a tree structure or hierarchy for classifying information items (e.g., images), wherein the tree structure as disclosed can be interpreted as equivalent to a taxonomy as broadly recited);
“generating, by the computer system and based on the retrieved data set and the taxonomy, a plurality of graphical icons, wherein each respective graphical icon includes a respective text description, and wherein each respective graphical icon corresponds to a respective taxonomy node within the taxonomy” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 5, lines 40-43] for generating an icon representing a virtual folder corresponding to each node of the tree structure, wherein each node of the tree structure is interpreted as equivalent to each taxonomy node as recited; also see [page 5, lines 14-22] wherein each node of the tree structure (i.e., taxonomy node) is associated with a tag (i.e., text description)); and
“displaying, by the computer system, a graphical icon from the plurality of icons on a display screen of a user interface coupled to the computer system, wherein the text description for the displayed graphical icon is presented on the display screen in response to input received via the user interface and associated with the displayed graphical icon” (see Sakagami Hidekazu, [page 8, lines 1-17] for displaying icons for nodes/folders together with folder names, which, when selected, displays icons for nodes/subfolders and/or information items with information item name, wherein folder/subfolder/information item names are text description as recited for the displayed graphical icons as recited).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG THAO CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
/Phuong Thao Cao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights