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 .
Response to Remark(s)
Applicant's amendment filed January 28th, 2026 has been fully entered and considered. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 101 and 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 1st, 2025. Regarding the prior art rejection, all new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-12 and 15-18 are pending, claims 1 and 3 have been amended, claims 2 and 13-14 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 15-18 remains rejected.
Response to Argument(s)
Regarding the double patenting rejection, the examiner acknowledges that the Applicants defers the filing of any Terminal Disclaimer until any indication of allowable subject matter (page 6 of the Applicants’ remarks). Therefore, the double patenting rejection is still maintained, the rejection remains as stated in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 1st, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to independent claim 1 the previously applied prior art rejections are withdrawn. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
However, regarding the argument made by the Applicants, in their remarks, in page 8, which states that the amended claim 1 is amended in way to further describe the tagging to then assert that the proposed Patterson does not provide a foundation for Applicant’s content tagging, which uses words for content features.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner recognizes the new scope of the claim to further clarify that the tagging is based on metadata tag including words such as recited in the claim. However, the examiner did not depend on Patterson to map the step of tagging, but used the secondary prior art of Ardizzone to teach the previously claimed tagging step such as in Ardizzone’s section 3.2, 1st paragraph, wherein the extracted face tag/face feature representation can be represented by words representation such as keyword representation according to section 3.2.3, moreover, the face feature extracted is a person within the photo. See the 103 rejection below for details, new amended features found to be taught by Ardizzone for the clarified tagging step.
101 rejection:
Regarding the 101 rejection, the examiner finds the Applicant’s amendment to the independent claim 1 to help overcome the 101 rejection. Particularly, the last limitation of the claim:
“automatically generating a unique fictitious narrative spoken by the digital picture frame through the speaker and matching the request and the one or more matching photos, wherein the unique fictitious narrative is guided by displayed image content, photo metadata, and settings provided by the viewer”
Which indicates an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application such as, the additional elements, under Step 2A Prong 2, to be the step of “automatically generating a unique fictitious narrative ….by the viewer” which is an additional element of data generation, this additional uses the result of the previous steps of the digital picture frame through the speaker and matching the request and the one or more matching photos, and the unique fictious narrative generated is unique and guided by a series of information, indicating a uniqueness and practical application. Moreover, it’s recited to be specific that the generated unique fictitious narrative is spoken by digital picture [the digital picture with integrated speaker].
Therefore, the 101 rejection has been overcome and withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Patterson (“How to Use an Amazon Echo Show as a Photo Frame, Aug. 2022, TechHive, Home, Smart Assistants, techhive.com” hereinafter as “Patterson”) in view of Edoardo Ardizzone et. al. (“A Novel Approach to Personal Photo Album Representation and Management, 2008, Proceedings Volume 6820, Multimedia Content Access: Algorithms and Systems II” hereinafter as “Ardizzone”) further in view of Corinne Tan et. al. (“Improving Accessibility to Copyright Works for Persons with Print Disabilities in Australia and Singapore, August 2021, IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 52, pp. 1020-1049” hereinafter as “Tan”) and Yi-Chieh Wu et. al. (“Intelligent Voice Assistant to Facilitate Elementary School English Learning: A Case Study Using Amazon Echo Dot, Nov. 2021, 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia” hereinafter as “Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, Patterson discloses a method of displaying a digital photo collection on a digital picture frame including a digital display mounted within a frame, a microphone and speaker connected to the frame, and a network connection module, the method comprising (page 2 shows an image of a digital display frame of an echo dot with a microphone and a speaker, the echo dot can also connect to network connection [network connection module as claimed, by BRI]): storing tagged photos in a database (page 7, last par, discloses when an album is created, the selected photos are stored in the album [database as claimed, by BRI], selected photos are analogous to tagged photos, by BRI); receiving a request from a viewer of the digital picture frame (page 9, last 2 paragraphs, discloses the viewer can request a command to the echo dot); automatically determining a search parameter from the request (page 9, last 2 pars., discloses Alexa will launch photo frame mode [search parameter as claimed, by BRI, since the launching is to access the photo album according to the selection of the viewer for displaying] according to the command); automatically connecting to the database over a network (the Alexa and Echo Dot connects over network to connect to the photo album of Facebook as shown in the photos); and automatically displaying on the digital display one or more matching photos obtained from the database over the network connection (page 9 discloses basing on the viewer’s command, the echo dot will launch the Echo Show automatically over the internet connection from the album created and selected); and automatically generating a fictitious narrative (figure in page 2 shows that in the echo show there is a caption showing date and the description of the photo [analogous to a unique narrative as claimed, by BRI]) spoken by the digital picture frame through the speaker (since the echo show would execute when there is a verbal command from the viewer to carry out the echo show, therefore, it is analogous to “through the speaker” as claimed, by BRI, matching the request since the speaker would execute the command that matches the default command of the echo show to execute the function, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim) and matching the request and the one or more matching photos (the certain album must be priorly selected for the echo show, hence the command must match the one or more matching photos selected, such as the voice command can be “Alexa, start Photo Frame” such as show in page 9; therefore, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim), wherein the unique fictitious narrative is guided by displayed image content, photo metadata, and settings provided by the viewer (the caption or the unique narrative is displayed in image content as shown in page 2, and guided by the settings of the echo dot device set by the viewer, the selected photo album by the viewer [photo metadata] and the settings provided by the viewer, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
However, Patterson does not explicitly disclose automatically extracting content features from photos of the digital photo collection; creating metadata tags for each photo as a function of corresponding extracted content features for the photo, wherein each of the metadata tags includes a word describing one extracted photo content feature selected from: an activity content shown within the photo, a location content shown within the photo, a person or animal shown within the photo, an attribute of a person or animal shown within the photo, or a color shown within the photo; confirming the created metadata tags for the photo using photo metadata of the photo or a related photo; automatically connecting to the database over a network; clustering the tagged photos into a plurality of sub-clusters in the database, each of the plurality of sub-clusters for a corresponding metadata tag; automatically searching the database and the plurality of sub-clusters for metadata tags and digital photos matching the search parameter; and automatically generating a unique fictitious narrative spoken by the digital picture frame through the speaker.
In the same field of album creation (title and abstract, Loui), Ardizzone discloses automatically extracting content features from photos of the digital photo collection (section 3.2.1 discloses extracting feature representations from the each for creating of the album, by BRI, is analogous to the claimed limitation); creating metadata tags for each photo as a function of corresponding extracted content features for the photo (since each photo is created a face feature tag for the album creation, each face feature tag can be understood to be analogous to the metadata tag as claimed, by BRI, since the face feature extracted provides context for another piece of data already in the album, to create the album of the same face features for querying in section 4, section 3.2.4, shows the different equations or functions used in the process of creating the album with the face features shared across, hence, it can be understood to be analogous to the “a function of corresponding extracted content features for the photo” as claimed being the extract face tag/face representation/face descriptor [as disclosed in section 3.1.2]) wherein each of the metadata tags includes a word describing one extracted photo content feature selected from: an activity content shown within the photo, a location content shown within the photo, a person or animal shown within the photo, an attribute of a person or animal shown within the photo, or a color shown within the photo (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “a person within the photo” which is taught in Ardizzone’s section 3.2, 1st paragraph, wherein the extracted face tag/face feature representation can be represented by words representation such as keyword representation according to section 3.2.3, moreover, the face feature extracted is a person within the photo); confirming the created metadata tags for the photo using photo metadata of the photo or a related photo (section 3.1.2 discloses building new face space and recompute the detected face in the face space which is to confirm and make sure that the same face features are shared within the same face space, therefore, is analogous to confirming the created metadata tags [the face descriptors] for the photos are being shared within the same face space, “or” indicates a selection, therefore, the examiner only selects “of the photo” for this mapping); clustering the tagged photos into a plurality of sub-clusters in the database, each of the plurality of sub-clusters for a corresponding metadata tag (section 4, last paragraph of page 682007-8, discloses when the query is performed, the system perform retrieval of images with the same labels, which indicates that the images are being stored together and associated together to the same label [same metadata tag] therefore, the storing of the same label’s images is analogous to the sub-clusters in the database, and the resulting image being queried together indicating a clustering processing, which is further discloses in section 4, 1st paragraph, wherein the album creation process being queried using keyword indicating the label representing features such as faces, being a keyword, wherein the photo collection based on face is being generated together for the album, therefore, the photo collection here is the sub-clusters for faces); automatically searching the database and the plurality of sub-clusters for metadata tags and digital photos matching the search parameter (section 4 discloses querying the photo from the created photo album, wherein the images being stored together in the system as images sharing the same label, as discussed above to be the sub-clusters, are also being searched for query [according to section 4, last paragraph of page 682007-8], hence, the searching is within the photo album [the database] and the sets of labels with their associated images [among the sub-clusters], with the search parameter here being a given face image input and search for the matching face feature photo album to the input face image [search parameter], therefore, it analogous to the recited limitation; therefore, Patterson teaches that the Echo Show can search up and look for photos from a selected photo to be displayed on the screen, and Ardizzone further teaches a photo album can be automatically created therefore, it teaches that the photo album of Patterson can also be created automatically through the process of Ardizzone to then teach the claimed invention of claim 1, by BRI).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson to have a method of displaying a digital photo collection on a digital picture frame including a digital display mounted within a frame, a microphone and speaker connected to the frame, and a network connection module, the method comprising: storing tagged photos in a database; receiving a request from a viewer of the digital picture frame; automatically determining a search parameter from the request; automatically connecting to the database over a network; and automatically displaying on the digital display one or more matching photos obtained from the database over the network connection and automatically extracting content features from photos of the digital photo collection; creating metadata tags for each photo as a function of corresponding extracted content features for the photo; confirming the created metadata tags for the photo using photo metadata of the photo or a related photo; automatically connecting to the database over a network; automatically searching the database for metadata tags and digital photos matching the search parameter as taught by Ardizzone to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to create photo album automatically and effectively for querying task (abstract, Ardizzone).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone does not explicitly disclose automatically generating a unique fictitious narrative spoken by the digital picture frame through the speaker.
In the same field of voice-based assistance device (page 1022, 2nd par., Tan) Tan discloses automatically generating a unique narrative spoken by the digital picture frame through the speaker (page 1044, 1st paragraph, discloses using software such as voice-based assistants to classify images and extract textual information from the images for person therefore, read out the textual information to the persons with disabilities; therefore, the speaker can read the caption on screen of devices including the generated unique narrative as disclosed in Patteron above).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone to have a method to generate unique narrative spoken by a digital picture frame through a speaker that is based on matching a request and one or more matching photos as taught by Tan to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to have software that allow machine learning model classify images and extract textual information to then be spoken by a speaker the textual information on the screen to assist persons with disabilities compatibly and accurately (page 1044, 1st paragraph, Tan).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone and Tan does not explicitly disclose the unique narrative being a unique fictious narrative.
In the same field of voice-assistant devices (title, Wu) Wu discloses the unique narrative being a unique fictious narrative (page 269, 2nd column, discloses using echo dot to read textbooks [unique fictious narrative, since the book is being read by the echo dot hence, giving narrative] which can be used together with the echo dot of Patterson to read on the screen of the textbook with words shown and being spoken out by the speaker at the same time).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone and Tan to have a method to generate unique narrative spoken by a digital picture frame through a speaker that is based on matching a request and one or more matching photos, wherein the narrative being fictious as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to assist with study learning using echo dot using intelligent voice assistant (page 270, 2nd column, Wu) to help disclose information more accurately (abstract, Wu).
Regarding claim 3, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: automatically providing a verbal interaction with a viewer of the digital picture frame upon receiving the request (Patterson, as discussed above in claim 1, echo dot can interact with the viewer, when the command “Alexa, Start Photo Frame” is executed upon receiving the request, the Echo Dot Device or Alexa communicate with the viewer through verbal interaction to start the echo show, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim) , and the viewer to establish the search parameter (as discussed above in claim 1, Patterson’s page 9, last 2 pars., discloses Alexa will launch photo frame mode [search parameter as claimed, by BRI, since the launching is to access the photo album according to the selection of the viewer for displaying] according to the command).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan, in combination, does not explicitly disclose wherein the verbal interaction comprises a plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations between the digital picture frame, through frame speaker, and the viewer to establish the search parameter, the plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations comprising more than one spoken statement or spoken question from the digital picture frame through the frame speaker.
In the same field of voice-assistant devices (title, Wu) Wu discloses wherein the verbal interaction comprises a plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations between the digital picture frame, through frame speaker (section 3.1.3 discloses the question and answer mode for communication between the user and the Intelligence Voice Assistant [IVA agent], by the agent asking questions and having the user answers them, which is a back-and-forth conversional iterations between the digital picture frame through the frame speaker [the Alexa device]), the plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations comprising more than one spoken statement or spoken question from the digital picture frame through the frame speaker (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “spoken question from the digital picture frame” which is disclose din Wu’s section 3.1.3-3.1.4, wherein a series of back and forth question and answer between the user and the Alexa device being automated such as the process of flowchart in figure 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu to have a method of automatically providing a verbal interaction with a viewer of the digital picture frame upon receiving the request, wherein the verbal interaction comprises a plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations between a digital picture frame, a frame speaker, and a viewer to establish the search parameter, a plurality of automated back-and-forth conversational iterations comprising more than one spoken statement or spoken question from the digital picture frame through the frame speaker as taught by Wu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to assist with study learning using echo dot using intelligent voice assistant (page 270, 2nd column, Wu) to help disclose information more accurately (abstract, Wu) to provide successful voice-only interaction tool (section 3.2, 1st par., Wu).
Regarding claim 4, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises analyzing a location, date, time, and/or occasion setting classification of the photo (Ardizzone, “and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “location” for mapping, which is disclosed in section 3.2.1, wherein, as discussed above, the confirming includes creating and recomputing [analyzing, by BRI] a new face space hence indicates a location, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 5, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises automatically identifying location, activity, and community member involvement for the photo (Ardizzone, section 3.2.1, wherein, as discussed above, the confirming includes creating and recomputing [the recomputing includes recomputing the projection of each detected cropped face, hence, it indicates a identifying of a location hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim] a new face space hence indicates a location, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim; moreover, the face of the people in the photo indicates a member, hence the photo can be more than one person included hence indicates a community, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim of the feature “community feature;” moreover, the creation of the new face space includes a rectification process which, by BRI, is an activity of the processing, hence, is analogous to the recited “activity” all of the processing as mentioned is for the input photo hence, is analogous to “for the photo” as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises mining correlations within metadata tags by determining relationships between different metadata tags of a plurality of the tagged photos (Ardizzone, section 3.1.2, as discussed above in claim 1, discloses the confirming process as claimed, moreover, the confirming process includes the determination that when most of the faces in the face space differ from the training set, then creates a new space face, hence it indicates a determination of correlations within the face descriptors [metadata tags as claimed] through the calculation of eigenvalues such as shown in FIG. 4 [showing the correlations between the face descriptors], and the average face calculated indicates the relationships between the different face descriptors, hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 7, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises determining a relationship between different metadata tags of the photo or the related photo (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “of the photo” for mapping, wherein Ardizzone discloses, in section 3.1.2, that the average face is calculated for the different face descriptors hence, the average represent the relationship between the face descriptors, by BRI, of the photo).
Regarding claim 8, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises mining correlations between different metadata tags of the photo or the related photo (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “of the photo” for mapping, wherein Ardizzone discloses, in section 3.1.2, that the average face is calculated for the different face descriptors hence, the average represent the relationship between the face descriptors, by BRI, of the photo; through the calculation of eigenvalues such as shown in FIG. 4 [showing the correlations between the face descriptors], and the average face calculated indicates the relationships between the different face descriptors).
Regarding claim 12, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises computing a likelihood of a given person being at a given location or at a given time using the photo metadata (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “at given location” for mapping which is disclosed in Ardizzone’s section 3.1.1, wherein the face of a person is detected at given points [given location, by BRI] to be validated based on degree of confidence [likelihood as claimed], by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, the processing includes detection of the face and face point locations and validation of degree of confidence that the face is detected).
Regarding claim 15, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises analyzing an activity, a location, a person, a season, and/or an outfit worn in the photo (“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “a location” for mapping which is disclosed in Ardizzone’s section 3.2.1, wherein, as discussed above, the confirming includes creating and recomputing [analyzing, by BRI] a new face space hence indicates a location, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
Regarding claim 16, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises analyzing and correlating more than one extracted photo content (Ardizzone, section 3.1.2, as discussed above in claim 1, discloses the confirming process as claimed, moreover, the confirming process includes the determination that when most of the faces in the face space differ from the training set, then creates a new space face, hence it indicates a determination of correlations within the face descriptors [metadata tags as claimed] through the calculation of eigenvalues such as shown in FIG. 4 [showing the correlations between the face descriptors], and the average face calculated indicates the relationships between the different face descriptors).
Regarding claim 17, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises comparing a first extracted content feature from the photo to a second extracted content feature from the photo (Ardizzone, section 3.1.2, discloses the confirming process, as discussed above in claim 1, wherein it includes determining when the faces in the image collection different from the training set, then creates a new face space, therefore it includes a comparing process between the faces descriptors of the images in the image collection and the images in the training set, such as the process of determining of the averaged face and eigenvalues of the dace descriptors as disclosed in section 3.1.2).
Regarding claim 18, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein extracted content features a location, a season, a weather content, a time of day, a date, an activity content, and/or one or more attributes of a person of the photo (“and/or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “attributes of a person” for mapping which is disclosed in section 3.2.1 of Ardizzone, wherein the content features includes attributes of the person face, by BRI).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Patterson (“How to Use an Amazon Echo Show as a Photo Frame, Aug. 2022, TechHive, Home, Smart Assistants, techhive.com” hereinafter as “Patterson”) in view of Edoardo Ardizzone et. al. (“A Novel Approach to Personal Photo Album Representation and Management, 2008, Proceedings Volume 6820, Multimedia Content Access: Algorithms and Systems II” hereinafter as “Ardizzone”) further in view of Corinne Tan et. al. (“Improving Accessibility to Copyright Works for Persons with Print Disabilities in Australia and Singapore, August 2021, IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 52, pp. 1020-1049” hereinafter as “Tan”) and Yi-Chieh Wu et. al. (“Intelligent Voice Assistant to Facilitate Elementary School English Learning: A Case Study Using Amazon Echo Dot, Nov. 2021, 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia” hereinafter as “Wu”) and Jon Anders Amundsen (“Using the Geographical Location of Photos in Mobile Phones, July 2008, Master of Science in Computer Science, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Tech., Department of Computer and Information Science” hereinafter as ”Amundsen”).
Regarding claim 9, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises comparing learned context data stored (the creating of face space also includes comparison such as disclosed in Ardizzone, section 3.1.2, discloses the confirming process, as discussed above in claim 1, wherein it includes determining when the faces in the image collection different from the training set, then creates a new face space, therefore it includes a comparing process between the faces descriptors of the images in the image collection and the images in the training set, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim, such as the process of determining of the averaged face and eigenvalues of the dace descriptors as disclosed in section 3.1.2; and the face descriptors includes learnt face space such as disclosed in section 3.1.2, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu does not explicitly disclose for a date of the photo or the related photo.
In the same field of photo album creation (title and abstract, Amundsen), Amundsen discloses for a date of the photo or the related photo (“or” indicates a selection, the examiner selects “of the photo” for mapping which is disclosed in section 4.7, the feature of the photo includes timestamp such as timestamp of Loui’s section 1, 2nd par.; wherein Amundsen discloses, in section 4.7, the timestamp includes the date associated with the photo for the feature of the photo).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu to have a process of confirming the created metadata tags for the photo comprises comparing learned context data stored for a date of the photo or the related photo as taught by Amundsen to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to create photo collections effectively (abstract, Amundsen).
Regarding claim 10, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the confirming the created metadata tags for the photo of a mobile phone used to take the photo (as discussed above in claim 1 and as discloses in Patterson, the photos for the Echo Show includes photos from Facebook which can be understood to have the use of a mobile phone to take the photo).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu does not explicitly disclose comprises analyzing tracked location information.
In the same field of photo album creation (title and abstract, Amundsen), Amundsen discloses comprises analyzing tracked location information (the photo taken for the album creation includes analyzing information such as tracked location of the phone such as disclosed in section 2.3.2, 1st par).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu to have a process of confirming the created metadata tags for the photo of a mobile phone used to take the photo comprises analyzing tracked location information as taught by Amundsen to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to create photo collections effectively (abstract, Amundsen).
Regarding claim 11, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu and Amundsen discloses the method of Claim 10, further comprising automatically learning a location, activity, and community member involvement on (Ardizzone, section 3.2.1, wherein, as discussed above, the confirming includes creating and recomputing [the recomputing includes recomputing the projection of each detected cropped face, hence, it indicates a identifying of a location hence, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim] a new face space hence indicates a location, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim; moreover, the face of the people in the photo indicates a member, hence the photo can be more than one person included hence indicates a community, by BRI, covers the scope of the claim of the feature “community feature;” moreover, the creation of the new face space includes a rectification process which, by BRI, is an activity of the processing, hence, is analogous to the recited “activity” all of the processing as mentioned is for the input photo hence, is analogous to “for the photo” as claimed).
However, Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu does not explicitly disclose on a per photo basis from the tracked location information of the mobile device.
In the same field of photo album creation (title and abstract, Amundsen), Amundsen discloses on a per photo basis from the tracked location information of the mobile device (the photo taken for the album creation includes analyzing information such as tracked location of the phone such as disclosed in section 2.3.2, 1st par).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Patterson in view of Ardizzone further in view of Tan and Wu to have comprising automatically learning a location, activity, and community member involvement on a per photo basis from the tracked location information of the mobile device as taught by Amundsen to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to create photo collections effectively (abstract, Amundsen).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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 HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights