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 amendments filed 03/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-20 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC § 103 rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 02/22/2026. However, new 35 USC § 103 rejections have been issued as necessitated by amendment. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously set forth 35 USC § 112 rejections.
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, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji (US 2012/0020648 A1) in view Noguchi (CN 101755460 B), Kogusuri (US 2003/0202777 A1), Yamaji(2018) (US 2018/0144195 A1) and Ronk (US 2002/0057343 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaji teaches an information-processing device comprising:
one or more memories (paragraph [0075]); and
one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories (paragraph [0071]), wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to:
record still images, moving images (Figs 1-3, Paragraph [0001]), and information about the moving images in association with the still images (paragraph [0012]) on a recording medium;
sort the still images based on whether a predetermined condition is satisfied (paragraph [0015], [0018], [0024], [0121]);
select a still image according to a user instruction (paragraph [0006], [0024]) from among still images that are sorted out, in the sorting, as not satisfying the predetermined condition (paragraphs [0024], [0072], [0073], [0124]);
obtain information about a moving image in association with a still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition and a moving image in association with the selected still image (paragraph [0017], [0075], [0076] );
obtain, based on the information, the moving image in association with the still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition and the moving image in association with the selected still image (paragraph [0076],[0082] [0106], [0121]); and
generate a single image by combining a plurality of the moving images in association with the still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition and the selected still image (paragraph [0047], [0121], [0170]),
wherein the plurality of moving images in association with the still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition and the selected still image is captured within a predetermined period of time at least either before or after capturing of the still images (Fig. 1b , paragraph [0076]).
Yamaji fails to teach
wherein the still images received from an image capturing device are renamed after being recorded on the information-processing device to include a timestamp indicating an image capture date and time;
generate a single combined moving image and
wherein the still images and the information about the moving images in association with the still images are recorded on a still image file, wherein information about a moving image is recorded on a header of the still image file, the information about the moving image including a timestamp indicating an image capturing date and time for the moving image related to the still image.
However, Noguchi teaches generate a single combined moving image (paragraphs [0047], [0048]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Noguchi with Yamaji, substituting Yamaji’s generation of a layout with images arranged to express a movement (Fig. 22, paragraph [0046] of Yamaji) with the singular combined moving image of Noguchi. Doing so would improve the expression of movement by making it smoother (paragraph [0115]).
Noguchi in view of Yamaji fails to teach wherein the still images received from an image capturing device are renamed after being recorded on the information-processing device to include a timestamp indicating an image capture date and time;
wherein the still images and the information about the moving images in association with the still images are recorded on a still image file, wherein information about a moving image is recorded on a header of the still image file, the information about the moving image including a timestamp indicating an image capturing date and time for the moving image related to the still image.
However, Kogusuri teaches wherein the still images and the information about the moving images in association with the still images are recorded on a still image file (paragraphs [0071], [0104]).
Kogusuri fails to teach wherein the still images received from an image capturing device are renamed after being recorded on the information-processing device to include a timestamp indicating an image capture date and time;
wherein information about a moving image is recorded on a header of the still image file, the information about the moving image including a timestamp indicating an image capturing date and time for the moving image related to the still image.
However, Yamaji (2018) teaches wherein the information about the moving images is recorded on a header of the still image file, the information about the moving image including a timestamp indicating an image capturing time for the moving image (paragraph [0147], [0148], [0156]) Yamaji (2018) describes including information of the still images on a header when saving them to a still image file. While Yamaji (2018) doesn’t specifically describe saving moving image information to the still image header, it does describe saving information about the still image to the file header. Additionally Yamaji (2018) describes the information stored as including shooting times of the still images. This shooting time information is used in synchronizing the shooting times of the moving and still images in order to perform image analysis of the images. In other words, this saving of shooting times in the still image header can be considered information about the moving image. Furthermore, Yamaji (2018) describes removing a time range of low importance in the process of associating still and moving images. This process ensure that only still images associated with the moving image are used in the subsequent image analysis process. This association is also done using header information of the still images, as the shooting times are stored in the still image headers.
Yamaji (2018) is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to specify that saving the moving image information associated with the still image is done in the header of a still image file and to utilize this system of image analysis in Yamaji (2018) within the generation of a single combined moving image of Noguchi to improve processing time.
Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri and Yamaji (2018) fails to teach wherein the still images received from an image capturing device are renamed after being recorded on the information-processing device to include a timestamp indicating an image capture date and time;
However, Ronk teaches wherein the still images received from an image capturing device are named after being recorded on the information-processing device to include a timestamp indicating an image capture date and time (paragraph [0116]); Ronk describes naming the files based on the image capture time, it would be an obvious change to explicitly specify the file is renamed instead of named as the result and process of doing so is the same. Additionally while it does not explicitly state the timestamp includes a date and time, it is common knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art that a timestamp (such as the TIMESTAMP data type present in SQL) includes date and time information. Ronk is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ronk with Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri and Yamaji (2018) in order to implement a naming convention which includes a timestamp in order to enhance information given in a filename.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches The information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein, in a case where the selection is performed before the combined moving image is generated, the combined moving image is generated by rearranging the moving image in association with the still image that is sorted out as satisfying the predetermined condition and the moving image in association with the selected still image (paragraphs [0121], [0129], [0124]) in chronological order of an image capturing date and time and by combining the rearranged moving images (Fig 1b & 24, paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein, in a case where the selection is performed after the combined moving image is generated, a new combined moving image is generated by combining the moving image in association with the selected still image after the combined moving image (paragraphs [0133]-[0135]). Yamaji describes recomposing the layout of images based upon a user selection. This is analogous to generating a new layout of images after the initial generation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this same re-composition approach to the combined image generation of Noguchi.
Regarding claim 6, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein, in a case where the selection is performed after the combined moving image is generated, in addition to the combined moving image, a combined moving image is generated by combining the moving image in association with the selected still image (paragraphs [0133]-[0135]). Yamaji describes recomposing and re-extracting frame images when a user provides a new layout selection. This concept of recomposing the arrangement with re-extracted frame images from Yamaji, with the combined moving image of Noguchi is analogous to repeating the generation of combined moving images.
Regarding claim 9, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches The information-processing device according to claim 8. Yamaji (2018) further teaches wherein the information about the moving images includes at least one of a file name, an identification (ID), and a timestamp for each of the moving images (paragraph [0148]). Yamaji (2018) describes saving information on shooting times (analogous to time stamps) to the still image header. The motivation to combine Yamaji (2018) with Yamaji in view of Kogusuri would have been the same as that of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to receive, from an image capturing device, the still images, the moving images (paragraph [0072]), and the information about the moving images in association with the still images (paragraph [0075]). Yamaji describes receiving still images, moving images and layout and arrangement data which is analogous to information about the moving images in association with the still images.
Regarding claim 12, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches and wherein, in the sorting, the still images are sorted based on a predetermined condition (paragraph [0015], [0018], [0024], [0121]).
Yamaji (2018) further teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to perform trimming on the still images (paragraph [0131]) based on a size and a position of a subject included in the still images (paragraph [0017]-[0019], [0053], [0131]). Yamaji (2018) describes trimming an image and doing so based on the presence of a subject in the image. Yamaji (2018) is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yamaji (2018) with Yamaji in view of Noguchi to trim the still image based on a subject, include these trimmed images in the sorting process and improve image analysis.
Regarding claim 16, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji (2018) further teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to detect a face of a person from a still image,
wherein, in a case where the detected face matches a face preliminarily registered in the information-processing device, the still image is sorted in the sorting as a still image that satisfies the predetermined condition, and
wherein, in a case where the detected face does not match the face preliminarily registered in the information-processing device, the still image is sorted in the sorting as still image that does not satisfy the predetermined condition (Fig 6B, paragraph [0062]-[0063]). Yamaji (2018) describes a facial detection method referred to as a “person-of-interest detector” which detects identifies whether a detected face matches a target face. This process is analogous to detecting a face that matches a face preliminarily registered in the device. Furthermore, the determination of whether or not the target face is identified in an image is analogous to satisfaction or non-satisfaction of a predetermined condition. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the facial recognition process of Yamaji (2018) with the grouping process of Yamaji in order to enhance the creation of a photo album by automating a type of user selection of photos.
Regarding claim 17, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to capture an image of a subject, and wherein, in the recording, still images and moving images obtained in the image capturing are recorded on a recording medium (Fig 5, Fig 42, paragraphs [0065], [0066],[0097], [0121], [0125]).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji further teaches wherein, in the selection, the still images recorded on the recording medium are selected according to a manual operation by a user (paragraph [0073], [0132], [0133], [0135]).
Method claim 19 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the method claim 19 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Computer-readable medium claim 20 is drawn to the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the computer-readable medium claim 20 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim(s) 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Chiang (US 2014/0320699 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk fails to teach wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to:
store, in a first folder, the still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition; and
store, in a second folder, the still images that are sorted, in the sorting, as not satisfying the predetermined condition, the second folder being different from the first folder.
However, Chiang teaches
wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to:
store, in a first folder, the still image that is sorted out, in the sorting, as satisfying the predetermined condition; and
store, in a second folder, the still images that are sorted, in the sorting, as not satisfying the predetermined condition, the second folder being different from the first folder (paragraph [0016], Fig. 4). Chiang describes sorting images based on the results of facial recognition. This facial recognition can be considered satisfaction of a predetermined condition. This facial recognition satisfies the predetermined condition of a face being recognized, and the assignment of a folder is based on this predetermined condition. Chiang is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Chiang with Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk in order to implement a sorting method for analyzed images, which aids in further image processing.
Regarding claim 10, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Chiang teaches the information-processing device according to claim 2, Yamaji further teaches wherein in the recording, the still images stored in the first folder and the second folder are recorded on the recording medium (paragraphs [0097], [0121], [0125]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Yamada (US 2022/0172471 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information-processing device according to claim 2, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk fails to teach wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to perform the selection by transferring the still images stored in the second folder to the first folder according to a user instruction.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to perform the selection by transferring the still images stored in the second folder to the first folder according to a user instruction (paragraph [0053]). Yamada describes a folder selection operation for multiple images, done by a user. This folder selection selects a folder for album creation. This album is a collection of images, analogous to an image folder. Therefore, while Yamada doesn’t specifically describe moving still images from the second folder to the first folder, its description of a folder selection for multiple images included in an album is analogous. Yamada is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement a user instructed image selection such as the one in Yamada.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Read (CN 101015218 A).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information processing device according to claim 12. Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk fails to teach wherein the trimming is not performed on the moving images.
However Read teaches wherein the trimming is not performed on the moving images (page 5 paragraph 2). Read describes not trimming a moving image. Read is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of read with Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk to not perform trimming on the moving images as it complicates alignment of the pixels in the image.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Wang (EP 3798900 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches The information-processing device according to claim 1, where an image of a child is included as a subject in the still images (Fig 5, Fig 42, paragraphs [0065], [0066]). Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk fails to teach wherein, in a case where an image of a child is included as a subject in the still images the still images are sorted in the sorting as the still images that satisfy the predetermined condition, and wherein, in a case where an image of a child is not included as the subject in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that do not satisfy the predetermined condition.
However, Wang teaches wherein, in a case where an image of a child is included as a subject in the still images the still images are sorted in the sorting as the still images that satisfy the predetermined condition, and wherein, in a case where an image of a child is not included as the subject in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that do not satisfy the predetermined condition (Fig 1 #120, paragraph [0005]). Wang describes a system for classifying whether a person in an image is a child. The classification of a child being present in an image is analogous to a predetermined condition being satisfied when a child is present in an image. Therefore, the classification of a child being present in an image is analogous to the claimed invention’s satisfaction of a predetermined condition when a child is included as a subject in the still image. Wang is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing and classification. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the child recognition teachings of Wang as a predetermined group in Yamaji in order to improve the grouping process.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk and in further view of Ricci (US 2018/0013211 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk teaches the information processing device according to claim 1. Yamaji in view of Noguchi, Kogusuri, Yamaji (2018) and Ronk fails to teach wherein, in a case where an image of an obstacle is not present in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that satisfy the predetermined condition, and wherein, in a case where an image of an obstacle is present in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that do not satisfy the predetermined condition.
However, Ricci teaches wherein, in a case where an image of an obstacle is not present in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that satisfy the predetermined condition, and wherein, in a case where an image of an obstacle is present in the still images, the still images are sorted in the sorting as still images that do not satisfy the predetermined condition (paragraphs [0303],[0321]). Ricci describes obstacle detection which can be done using still images. Ricci is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ricci with Yamaji in view of Noguchi and use obstacle detection for the predetermined condition which can aid in assuring images are clear and unobstructed by an obstacle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petruk (US 20190235126 A1) teaches “a name-stamping, date-stamping, or time-stamping the image, such as what date or time the image was captured or naming the image with a naming convention” (paragraph [0036]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights