DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 26, 28, 35, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263).
Regarding claim 1, Bokma discloses An electronic device, comprising: a-communication circuitry; a display; and memory comprising one or more storage media storing one or more instructions; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to (Bokma, “[0088] The processor 1001 may perform operations such as those described herein. Instructions for performing such operations may be embodied in the memory 1003, on one or more non-transitory computer readable media, or on some other storage device. [0089] These interfaces may include ports appropriate for communication with the appropriate media. They may also include an independent processor and/or volatile RAM. A computer system or computing device may include or communicate with a monitor, printer, or other suitable display for providing any of the results mentioned herein to a user”):
receive, from an external electronic device, via the communication circuitry, a first image data and receive feedback data with respect to the first image data, generate a first image based on the first image data (Bokma, “[0016] The system may receive an input file that includes content for different regions. Examples of content may include an image, text items, and other content. Also, the system may receive a selection of brand guides. [0017] The system uses the input file and brand guides to create design variants for each region that is defined in the input file. After generating the design variants for each region, the design variants can be reviewed, and feedback may be received. [0033] At 202, input processor 102 receives an input file. For example, a user may create the input file and upload the input file to design engine 108”);
based on receiving the first image data and the feedback data, identify a visual object associated with the feedback data having positive context with respect to the visual object in the first image (Bokma, “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc. [0053] At 708, feedback processor 110 analyzes the feedback. At 710, feedback processor 110 determines whether to adjust the logic of design engine 108… bounding boxes may be changed to move the text to different areas in the image based on the feedback. For example, the feedback may indicate that the text was hard to read”. Therefore, moving the text based on the feedback indicates the text is identified based on the feedback. Furthermore, the feedback may have positive context with respect to the visual object, such as desirable, highly rated);
obtain a second image by: changing content of the visual object from first content to second content in accordance with the feedback data by generating the visual object visually changed relative to the visual object included in the first image, and maintaining content of a portion of the first image excluding the visual object; and display, via the display the second image (Bokma, “[0030] feedback from the selections may be processed by a feedback processor 110, which may adjust logic in design engine 108 based on the feedback. [0053] At 710, feedback processor 110 determines whether to adjust the logic of design engine 108. At 712, if the logic should be adjusted, feedback processor 110 may adjust the logic based on the feedback. For example, some possible design variants may be removed or some possible design variants may be adjusted. Also, bounding boxes may be changed to move the text to different areas in the image based on the feedback. For example, the feedback may indicate that the text was hard to read. [0089] A computer system or computing device may include or communicate with a monitor, printer, or other suitable display for providing any of the results mentioned herein to a user”. Therefore, for example, the text corresponds to the visual object, and the text is visually changed in accordance with the feedback data. Namely, the text is moved to different areas, while a portion of the first image excluding the text is maintained in a display).
On the other hand, Bokma fails to explicitly disclose but Zadeh discloses receive, from an external electronic device, via the communication circuitry, a first image (Zadeh, “[0082] The detector management module 152 receives the user input and includes the image 510 in the set of example media content items for updating the detector. [0093] The media detection system 140 receives 702 a selection of a video for playback from a user. [0097] the example media content items are retrieved by performing an image search of an image database using keywords corresponding to the selected object”);
generating the visual object visually highlighted relative to the visual object included in the first image (Zadeh, “[0021] The media detection system 140 provides user interfaces that allow users to pinpoint relevant segments where media content preferred by the users appear, that allow users to configure detectors to search for content, that highlight content preferred by users in media content items. [0042] The user interface element module 150 generates user interfaces that highlight sections of images or video frames that are determined to include the preferred content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the receiving image and highlighting sections of images of Zadeh to receive the image and change the visual object of Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to search videos and other media content to identify items, objects, faces, or other entities within the media content (Zadeh, abstract).
Regarding claim(s) 10, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim(s) 37, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1, except that it further discloses “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, when executed by an electronic device comprising communication circuitry and a display, cause the electronic device to…”.
Bokma further discloses in claim 2 “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be configurable to cause…”.
Regarding claim 26, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1. Claim 26 further recites similar limitations as claim 1 except that the feedback is another feedback data. Namely, a third image is obtained based on another feedback data under similar methodology as recited in claim 1.
Bokma further discloses another feedback data (Bokma, “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Therefore, the feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, demonstrates there could be multiple feedbacks, indicating another feedback data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above embodiment of Bokma into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 26. That is, applying the receiving multiple comments of Bokma to the system of Zadeh and Bokma. Therefore, a third image is obtained based on another feedback data using similar methodology as disclosed by Bokma in claim 1. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide various images based on different feedbacks.
Regarding claim(s) 35, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 26.
Regarding claim 28, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
Claim 28 recites similar limitations as claim 26, except that the another feedback data having negative context with respect to the visual object in the first image; obtain a third image by excluding the another visual object from the first image.
Bokma further discloses the another feedback data having negative context with respect to the visual object in the first image (Bokma, “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Therefore, the feedback may have negative context with respect to the visual object, such as not desirable, lowly rated);
obtain a third image by excluding the another visual object from the first image (Bokma, “[0053] At 708, feedback processor 110 analyzes the feedback. The analysis may determine if logic should be adjusted in design engine 108. For example, if some design variants have low ratings, feedback processor 110 may determine that logic should be adjusted to remove these design variants or to adjust these design variants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the above embodiment of Bokma into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 28. That is, applying the removing design variant based on low ratings of Bokma to the system of Zadeh and Bokma. Therefore, a third image is obtained based on another feedback data using similar methodology as disclosed by Bokma in claim 1. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide various images based on different feedbacks.
Claim(s) 21, 30, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of Nijim et al. (US 10057636).
Regarding claim 21, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but Nijim discloses Based on the visual object from among visual objects in the first image being identified as having an identifier corresponding to the feedback data, identify the visual object as associated with the feedback data (Nijim, col.12, lines 28-39, “The method 300 proceeds to OPERATION 306, where the content identifier engine 106 receives the content object, parses the content object for content identifiers (e.g., text or images) in or linked to the object, and matches the content identifiers against the video content item information data system 109 for finding a search result of a match or a relationship between the content identifier and a video content item. As described above, the video content item information data system 109 stores information related to video content items, for example, titles, actors, directors, production crew, characters, plot summaries, quotes, soundtrack songs, other keywords, and images”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nijim into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 21. That is, applying the finding a video content item of Nijim to identify the visual object of Zadeh and Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to automatically performing an action within a video service based on an identified relationship between a content identifier in a content object and a video content item (Zadeh, col.1, lines 28-31).
Regarding claim(s) 30, 38, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 21.
Claim(s) 22, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210073324).
Regarding claim 22, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but Gupta discloses display, via the display, the feedback data visually associated with the second image (Gupta, figs. 5-8, “[0110] Designer interface 600 displays the document design 602 and the comment panel 604. Since the document review system imports the reviewer comments from FIG. 5, the document design 602 includes the drawing annotation 506, and the comment panel 604 includes the comment 508 made by Reviewer A, as previously described. For example, the comment hierarchy includes one reply comment made to the reviewer comment 508, and therefore the comment panel 604 displays the reply comment 606 with a dashed line linking it to the comment 508. In the reply comment 606, a designer denoted by Designer B has added at 3:56 PM on Jul. 16, 2019 the text “This has been done, thanks” to indicate that the space between the image and the text at drawing annotation 506 of the document design 602 has been increased, per Reviewer A's request”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gupta into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 22. That is, applying the displaying modified image with comments of Gupta to display the second image and feedback of Zadeh and Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an improvement over conventional document review systems that implement unidirectional commenting (Gupta, [0102]).
Regarding claim(s) 31, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 22.
Claim(s) 23, 27, 32, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of JAIN et al. (US 20230110922).
Regarding claim 23, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but JAIN discloses the visual object in the second image has first size larger than second size of the visual object in the first image (JAIN, “[0039] FIG. 4 illustrates an example result of processing modifications to objects on a document in accordance with one or more embodiments. In the example illustrated, the digital design system 102 has received inputs modifying objects on page 302A, including modifications to the size and style of the text in text box objects 304A and modifications to the position and dimensions of image box object 306A. Specifically, the input indicated modifications including increasing the font size and bolding the text in text box objects 304A”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined JAIN into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 23. That is, applying the increasing the font size of JAIN to the visual object of Zadeh and Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to allow a digital design system to recognize modifications to parameters of objects and propagate the modifications to the parameters of similar linked objects (JAIN, [0016]).
Regarding claim(s) 32, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 23.
Regarding claim 27, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
Claim 27 recites similar limitations as claim 26, except that the another feedback data having negative context with respect to the visual object in the first image; changing size of the another visual object from first size to second size smaller than the first size in accordance with the another feedback data.
Bokma further discloses the another feedback data having negative context with respect to the visual object in the first image (Bokma, “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Therefore, the feedback may have negative context with respect to the visual object, such as not desirable, lowly rated).
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but JAIN discloses changing size of the another visual object from first size to second size smaller than the first size in accordance with the another feedback data (JAIN, “[0040] Specifically, the input indicated modifications reducing the size of image box object 306A, resulting in changes to parameters including the position and dimensions of image box object 306A, resulting in image box object 406A”). The same motivation of claim 23 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 36, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 27.
Claim(s) 24, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of Wakazono (US 9661219).
Regarding claim 24, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but Wakazono discloses an edge of the visual object in the second image is visually highlighted related to an edge of the visual object (Wakazono, claims 9 and 11, “the circuitry highlights the edges of the in-focus subject after the edges of the in-focus subject are identified during the focus operation. Highlighting of the edges of the in-focus subject is user-selectable”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Wakazono into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 24. That is, applying the increasing the font size of Wakazono to the visual object of Zadeh and Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been This can improve the visual recognizability at the time of the focusing operation or the focus checking and improve the operability relating to the focus operation or the focus checking (Wakazono, col.4, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim(s) 33, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 24.
Claim(s) 25, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of Sil et al. (US 20240070943).
Regarding claim 25, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but Wakazono discloses identify a tag included in the feedback data; and based on the visual object from among visual objects in the first image being identified as representing a subject corresponding to the tag, identify the visual object as associated with the feedback data (Sil, “[0028] In some implementations, the intent-based preset system further analyzes the user query to identify an object referenced in the user query. For instance, in some cases, the intent-based preset system performs a rule-based search of the user query to extract one or more object keywords. Accordingly, the intent-based preset system determines whether the user query targets an object portrayed in the digital image for editing. [0058] the object 216 referenced in the user query 208 is portrayed in the digital image 206. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the intent-based preset system 106 determines that the modifications to the digital image 206 are to be targeted to the object 216”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Sil into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 25. That is, applying the targeting the object based on the user query of Sil to identify the visual object of Zadeh and Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide flexibility in the presets that are recommended to a client device, reducing the amount of user interactions required for locating a relevant preset (Sil, [0002]).
Regarding claim(s) 34, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 25.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bokma et al. (US 20240013151) in view of Zadeh et al. (US 20200364263), and further in view of HAYATA (US 20240007700).
Regarding claim 29, Bokma in view of Zadeh discloses the electronic device of claim 1.
Bokma further discloses the feedback data having the positive context with respect to the visual object (Bokma, “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Therefore, the feedback may have positive context with respect to the visual object, such as desirable, highly rated);
On the other hand, Bokma in view of Zadeh fails to explicitly disclose but HAYATA discloses the feedback data includes text having positive meaning (HAYATA, “HARU: GOOD JOB!” in fig.10 shows the feedback data includes text having positive meaning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined HAYATA into the combination of Zadeh and Bokma, to include all limitations of claim 29. That is, applying the feedback data including text with positive meaning of HAYATA to the positive feedback of Bokma. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a friendly user interface to receive various types of feedback data such as text.
Response to Arguments
The claim rejection to claims 1, 10, 21-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of amendments. The claim rejection to claims 23-28, 30-36, 38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submitted: Therefore, Bokma does not teach or suggest receipt, from an external device, of feedback data comprising positive context with respect to a visual object in an image, as required by the independent claims (remarks, page 15, 2nd paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bokma discloses “[0017] user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Therefore, the feedback may have positive context with respect to the visual object, such as desirable, highly rated with respect with the displayed design variants.
The applicant submitted: Bokma does not describe modifying a displayed image's specific visual attributes in response to feedback (remarks, page 15, 3rd paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bokma discloses “ [0053] At 710, feedback processor 110 determines whether to adjust the logic of design engine 108. At 712, if the logic should be adjusted, feedback processor 110 may adjust the logic based on the feedback. For example, some possible design variants may be removed or some possible design variants may be adjusted. Also, bounding boxes may be changed to move the text to different areas in the image based on the feedback. For example, the feedback may indicate that the text was hard to read”. Therefore, for example, the text is visually changed in accordance with the feedback data. Furthermore, it is the combination of Bokma and Zadeh to teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the claim mapping.
The applicant submitted: Moreover, Bokma's feedback is from the user of the electronic device that has received and operates on the input image, not feedback from an external device (remarks, page 16, 2nd paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bokma discloses “[0017] For example, a user may review the design variants on a user interface and rate the design variants, such as receiving feedback that design variants are not desirable or desirable, highly rated, lowly rated, etc.”. Take figure 8 for example, the feedback is received from a user system (e.g., 812), which is an external device to the application server (e.g., 850).
The remaining of applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 21-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 2/6/2026