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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Re claim 21:Step 1: Yes, a process claim
Step 2A, prong 1: The steps of “automatically identifying images stored at an image source based on the command received; automatically creating a design for the image product that incorporates at least some of the images identified based on the command; presenting the design of the image product to a user for preview; and allowing a user to edit the design of the image product.” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, prong 2: The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving a command from a user” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “proactively creating an image product” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (creating image product) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitation, “receiving a command from a user” is merely data/input gathering, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element, “proactively creating an image product” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (creating image product) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (creating image product).
Re claim 31:
Step 1: Yes, a machine (system) claim
Step 2A, prong 1: The steps of “automatically identifying images stored at an image source based on the command received; automatically creating a design for the image product that incorporates at least some of the images identified based on the command; presenting the design of the image product to a user for preview; and allowing a user to edit the design of the image product.” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, prong 2: The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element, “a computing system including a processor, and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor” is applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (computing system) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “receiving a command from a user” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “proactively creating an image product” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (creating image product) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitation, “receiving a command from a user” is merely data/input gathering, which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The additional element, “a computing system including a processor, and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor” is applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element, “proactively creating an image product” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (creating image product) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention still fails amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a particular technological environment (creating image product) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22 recites additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Note that this claim is drawn to ‘receiving an order’, not the actual process of making a physical manifestation.
Claim 32 recites additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). Note that this claim is drawn to ‘receiving an order’, not the actual process of making a physical manifestation.
Claims 23 and 24 recite additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 33 and 34 recite additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 25 recites additional elements “receiving edits” related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and further comprises an additional abstract idea of the image selection adjustments (mental process).
Claim 35 recites additional elements “receiving edits” related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)) and further comprises an additional abstract idea of the image selection adjustments (mental process).
Claim 26 recites additional limitations that comprise applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 36 recites additional limitations that comprise applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 27 recites additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 37 recites additional elements related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 28 recites additional elements comprising image identifying data which related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as further applied to the abstract idea of the image identifying (mental process).
Claim 38 recites additional elements comprising image identifying data which related to mere data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)) which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)) as further applied to the abstract idea of the image identifying (mental process).
Claim 29 recites an additional element that further comprises an additional abstract idea of ranking the images and choosing images based on the ranking (mental process-ranking).
Claim 39 recites an additional element that further comprises an additional abstract idea of ranking the images and choosing images based on the ranking (mental process-ranking).
Claim 30 recites an additional element that further comprises an additional abstract idea of sorting the images (mental process-sorting).
Claim 40 recites an additional element that further comprises an additional abstract idea of sorting the images (mental process-sorting).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Pub 20140101152, see IDS).
Re claims 31 and 21, Chen discloses a system and the associated method for proactively creating an image product, the system comprising:
a computing system (Fig 1; Par 25) including a processor (Fig 1 el 121; Par 25), and a memory (Fig 1 el 109; Par 25) communicatively coupled to the processor (Fig 1 el 121/109; Par 25), the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25):
receive a command from a user (Fig 11 el 1115; Par 56-57);
automatically identify images (Fig 11 el 1150; Par 64-68) stored at an image source (Fig 11 el 1110; Par 51) based on the command received (Fig 11 el 1150; Par 64-68);
automatically create a design for the image product (Fig 11 el 1155; Par 69) that incorporates at least some of the images identified based on the command (Fig 11 el 1155; Par 69);
present the design of the image product to a user for preview (Fig 11 el 1160; Par 70); and
allow a user to edit the design of the image product (Par 70).
Re claims 32 and 22, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to: receive an order from the user (Par 70-71, 73, 42-43) for making a physical manifestation of the image product based on the design (Par 70-71, 73, 42-43).
Re claims 33 and 23, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the command is a text command (Par 57) or a voice command (Par 57-60).
Re claims 34 and 24, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the command includes an indication of a product type (Par 57, 60, 62-63), a style type (Par 57, 63, 69, 72), a theme (Par 53, 57, 60-63, 66), or an event (Par 53, 57, 60-63, 66).
Re claims 35 and 25, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to:
receive edits (Par 40-42, 70) to the design of the image product from the user (Par 40-42, 70) to change (Par 40-42, 70), switch (Par 40-42, 70), or remove (Par 40-42, 70) at least one image automatically identified and incorporated into the design (Par 40-42, 70).
Re claims 36 and 26, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the image source (Par 28, 55, 65) is one of a user device (Par 28, 55, 65), an image service provider (Par 28, 55, 65), or a third party service (Par 28, 55, 65).
Re claims 37 and 27, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to:
present a question to the user to define an additional parameter for the image product (Fig 11 el 1135; Par 61-63).
Re claims 38 and 28, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein to automatically identify images stored at the image source based on the command received (Fig 11 el 1150; Par 64-68), the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to
use an image capture location (Par 45-46, 66) or a tag associated with a face (Par 66) recognized in the images to identify images (Par 45-46, 66).
Re claims 39 and 29, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to:
rank the identified images (Par 6, 67-68) based on image quality (Par 6, 67-68), relevance (Par 6, 67-68), or similarity among images (Par 6, 67-68), wherein higher ranked images are incorporated into the design (Par 6, 67-68).
Re claims 40 and 30, Chen discloses the system of claim 31 and the associated method of claim 21; and further discloses wherein the instructions stored in the memory are further executable by the process (Fig 1 el 113/109/121; Par 25) to:
sort the automatically identified images into page groups (Par 28, 44-46) based on image capture time (Par 28, 44-46) or image capture location (Par 28, 44-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights