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 Amendment
The amendment filed on December 17, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (09/17/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Rejection under 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 – 4, 9 – 10 and 15 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,863,860. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 4, 9 – 10 and 15 – 16 of the instant application are broader and fully encompassed by claims 1 and 5 – 7 of ‘860.
Claims 5 – 8 and 11 – 14 and 17 - 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 – 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,863,860 in view of Arfvidsson et al. (US 2016/0239724).
Regarding claim 5, ‘860 disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. ‘860 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the range of past locations is all locations within a first predefined distance of one another.
In a similar field of endeavor, Arfvidsson et al. teaches techniques for inferential sharing of photos wherein it is determined what locations are most frequently visited by a user and when they are thousands of miles away from those locations and prompting the user if they want to share an image when away from their normal location (fig. 8 – 10; ¶90-92). In light of the teaching of Arfvidsson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Arfvidsson’s teachings with ‘860 system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a system that allows users to easily share photos when on vacation or at a new place.
Regarding claim 6, ‘860 in view of Arfvidsson disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 5. Arfvidsson also teaches wherein the processor determines that the recent location coordinates are outside the determined range of past locations when the recent location coordinates are greater than a second predefined distance from coordinates for the range of past locations (¶91-92).
Regarding claim 7, ‘860 in view of Arfvidsson disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. Arfvidsson also teaches wherein the first and second predefined distances are different (¶91-92).
Regarding claim 8, ‘860 in view of Arfvidsson disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Arfvidsson also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: receive remote image location information for remote images captured by other devices within a predefined range of the image capture device; group the remote image locations using to the remote image location information; identify groups associated with the remote image location information for the remote images that exceed a predefined threshold; designate areas encompassing each of the identified groups as a context selection criteria (¶90-116: wherein it is determined what locations are most frequently visited by a user and when they are thousands of miles away from those locations and prompting the user if they want to share an image when away from their normal location).
Claims 11 – 14 and 17 – 20 are rejected as applied to claims 5 – 8 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of ‘860 in view of Arfvidsson et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639