DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 9 does not require the contingent limitation "verifying whether”, or “based on a determination” or arguably the "displaying" limitation, as the displaying step happens in response to the contingent limitations.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
See also MPEP § 2143.03.
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 1-10 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is indefinite if the verifying uses verification information or the browser performs the predetermined image processing using verification information in the independent claims.
It is further noted that claim 1 does not require to perform the image processing, only to acquire a library, yet it recites “display a result of the processing performed”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: performing the predetermined image processing using the first image processing library.
This is not intended to be a complete list of indefiniteness issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng (20170171462).
Regarding claim 9, Deng teaches An information processing method executed by a terminal device, comprising (abstract, par.26-28):
verifying whether a browser of the terminal device is capable of performing a predetermined image processing using verification information on a photographic subject based on a capturing operation on the photographic subject (par.40-44, browser invokes camera and plugin for performing scanning);
wherein, based on a determination that the browser is capable of performing the predetermined image processing as a result of the verification, the method further comprising: acquiring a first image processing library written in a first programming language to perform the predetermined image processing; performing the predetermined image processing using the first image processing library; and displaying a result of the predetermined image processing performed based on the first image processing library on a screen of the terminal device (par.42-45, invoke camera to scan image and display image).
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require these contingent limitations
wherein, based on a determination that the browser is incapable of performing the predetermined image processing as a result of the verification, the method further comprising: acquiring a second image processing library written in a second programming language to perform the predetermined image processing; performing the predetermined image processing using the second image processing library; and displaying a result of the predetermined image processing performed based on the second image processing library on the screen of the terminal device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (20170171462), and further in view of Gao (20140258891).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Deng teaches A terminal device comprising circuitry configured to: / An information processing method executed by a terminal device, comprising:/ A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors on a terminal device, causes the processors to perform an information processing method, the method comprising (abstract, par.26-28):
verify whether a browser of the terminal device is capable of performing predetermined image processing, using verification information on a photographic subject based on a capturing operation on the photographic subject, wherein, based on a determination that the browser is capable of performing the predetermined image processing as a result of the verification, the circuitry is configured to (par.40-44, browser invokes camera and plugin for performing scanning)
acquire a first image processing library written in a first programming language to perform the predetermined image processing using the first image processing library, and display a result of the predetermined image processing performed based on the first image processing library on a screen of the terminal device (par.42-45, invoke camera to scan image and display image).
Deng does not expressly disclose, however, Gao teaches wherein, based on a determination that the browser is incapable of performing the predetermined processing as a result of the verification, the circuitry is configured to
acquire a second processing library written in a second programming language to perform the predetermined processing using the second processing library, and display a result of the predetermined processing performed based on the second processing library on the screen of the terminal device (par.60-68, determine incapable, call plugin, different plugins).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deng to use additional libraries/plugins to process different information as taught by Gao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase usability (Gao, par.3-22, 64-69).
Regarding claim 3, Deng/Gao teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to acquire the first image processing library and the second image processing library from a server that stores the first image processing library and the second image processing library (Deng, par.42-45, Gao, par.60-66).
Regarding claim 8, Deng/Gao teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to transmit the result of the predetermined image processing to a server (Deng, par.42-47).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng/Gao, and further in view of Westwater (20250036705).
Regarding claim 2, Deng/Gao does not expressly disclose, however, Westwater teaches wherein the first programming language is the same programming language as that of the verification information, and the second programming language is a different programming language from that of the verification information (par.20-24, 40-54).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deng/Gao to use libraries/plugins in different programming languages as taught by Westwater.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase performance and user experience (Westwater, par.23-35, 67-78).
Regarding claim 5, Deng/Gao/Westwater teaches wherein the first image processing library is written in WebAssembly, and the second image processing library is written in Java Script (Westwater, par.23-35, 67-78).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng/Gao, and further in view of Ikeno (20140168707).
Regarding claim 4, Deng/Gao teaches processing images in a browser environment (Deng, par.73-81), but does not expressly disclose, however, Ikeno teaches wherein at least one of the first image processing library or the second image processing library includes a library for correcting the photographic subject so as to fit the photographic subject in a rectangle expressed by a predetermined frame line displayed on the screen of the terminal device (par.74-77).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deng/Gao to process images as taught by Ikeno.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase performance and user experience (Ikeno, par.3-14, 70-80).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng/Gao, and further in view of Zhang (20230244363).
Regarding claim 6, Deng/Gao does not expressly disclose, however, Zhang teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: display on a display another screen including an operation item to receive an editing operation on the result of the predetermined image processing from an operator of the terminal device; and in response to receiving the operation of the operation item, display on the display an editing operation screen on the same screen as the screen displaying the result of the predetermined image processing or a different screen from the screen displaying the result of the predetermined image processing (par.68-72).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deng/Gao to provide for content editing as taught by Zhang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to (Zhang, par.3-14, 65-75).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng/Gao, and further in view of Yoo (20230156118).
Regarding claim 7, Deng/Gao does not expressly disclose, however, Yoo teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to perform verification in a case a permission is given to use a camera that performs the capturing operation (par.10-15, 93-94, 117-120).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deng/Gao to verify camera permissions as taught by Yoo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to increase user experience and security (Yoo, par.90-96).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: the remaining references put forth on the PTO-892 form are directed to image processing. Johnson (20240064388) teaches determining browser capabilities and loading different libraries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David García Cervetti whose telephone number is (571)272-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, HADI S ARMOUCHE can be reached at (571)270-3618. 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.
/David Garcia Cervetti/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409