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
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 07/20/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In remarks applicant argues in substance that:
(a) Applicant argues that Song fails to disclose a “publisher device” because Song’s system uses a centralized server that returns search results, whereas the claims recite a publisher device that “controls its own data” and selectively transmits data to a customer device.
Examiner respectfully disagree because, Song explicitly discloses a system in which a devie receives an image query from a user device and returns responsive images based on similarity. Song teaches receiving customer provided image data and transmitting stored image data in response. As cited in the rejection, Song[0003] and [0018] disclose receiving an uploaded image from a user device as part of a request , and Song [0019-0023] disclose determining similarity and returning data based on that similarity.
Applicant’s attempt to distinguish Song based on the terminology “publisher device” is not limit/commensurate the claim language. The claim do not require any particular architectural distinction beyond a device that stores data and transmits data to another device based on similarity. Song’s server performs these functions and therefore meets the claimed “publisher device”. The fact that Song uses a centralized database does not prevent it from reading on the claimed publisher device.
(b) Applicant argues that Song does not disclose a “user of the publisher device,” because Song’s user corresponds to the requester submitting an image query.
Examiner respectfully disagree because the claim do not require any particular role or relationship between the user and the publisher device beyond indicating a scene associated with the publisher data. Song discloses that stored images originate from users or sources associated with the system (Song, [0003], [0018]. Song’s stored images inherently originates from some user or entity associated with the system, and the claims do not require any specific interaction between the user an the publisher device beyond the existence of stored publisher data.
(c ) Applicant yet again argues that Fattal does not discloses acquired from a substantially same viewing angle because Fattal teaches Multiview disparity and intentionally different viewpoints.
Examiner respectfully disagree because, Fattal discloses capturing multiple images along an arc with controlled disparity levels (Fattal [0021], fig.1). As cited in the rejection, Fattal teaches that disparity may be as low as 1%, or even less, between neighboring views. A low disparity level corresponds to images captured from substantially similar viewing angles. The claim do not require identical viewing angles, nor do they exclude systems that capture multiple view points.
Applicant’s arguments relies on a narrow interpretation of “substantially same viewing angle” that is not supported by claim language. The cited portions of Fattal reasonably teach images captured from viewpoints sufficiently close to meet the claimed “substantially same viewing angle.”
(d) Applicant further argues that Song does not disclose conditional transmission of data based on similarity score, asserting that Song only ranks images and automatically returns results.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Song teaches determining similarity scores and returning responsive to the query (Song, [0018], [0023]). Returning only images deemed responsive inherently constitutes conditional transmission based on similarity. The claims do not require an explicit threshold or access control mechanism; they merely require that transmission depends on similarity score. Song’s system transmits data only when similarity criteria are met, satisfying the claimed limitation. Applicant’s argument attempt to impose additional requirements not present in the claim and is therefore not persuasive.
(e ) Applicant argues that Song and Fattal solve unrelated technical problems and that combining them would modify the fundamental operation of Song.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Song and Fattal relate to image processing and image based decision system. Song teaches determining similarity between images and returning responsive images. Fattal teaches capturing images from controlled viewpoints, including viewpoints with minimal disparity. Incorporating Fattal’s teachings regarding viewpoint control into Song’s similarity based system would have been a predictable improvement to enhance consistency of stored images or improve similarity scoring.
The combination does not require modifying Song’s fundamental operation. It merely supplements Song with know techniques for capturing images in a controlled manner. The rationale provided in the rejection is consistent with KSR, which permits combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predicable results.
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) 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0170004 A1), hereinafter “Song” in view of Fattal et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0155098 A1), hereinafter “Fatt”.
As to claim 1. Kim discloses, a method of sharing data between a device and at least one customer device (Song, Abstract) the method comprising the steps, performed by a processing unit of the publisher device of :
a) receiving, from a customer device a request for obtaining the data from the publisher device the request comprising customer data related to a customer data of a given scene indicated by a user of the device (Song, [0003], some search systems provide the ability to search for images by….uploading an image that is similar to the images for which the user is searching. [0018], this measure of image similarity can be used … to identify images that are responsive to query images or other search queries. These paragraphs show that the system receives an image from a user device as part of a request.);
b) determining a similarity score between the customer data and publisher data related to a data stored in the device (Song, [0019], disclose computing similarity scores (distance) between a query image and stored images. A distance between the feature vector… can be used as a measure of similarity between image A and the reference image. [0022], the distance can be a Euclidean distance, a Manhattan distance, a cosine distance….generally, the similarity between two images increases as the distance between the feature vectors decreases. Also see [0029]); and
c) depending on the similarity score, sending the data to the customer device (Song, [0018], ….used, for example, to identify images that are responsive to query images…. And [0023], a distance ranking…represents a relative measure of similarity ….This measure of similarity can be used to train image similarity model…[0003] and [0018], inherently includes returning search results to the user based on similarity.).
Song however is silent to disclose explicitly, a publisher or image acquired from a substantially same viewing angle.
Fatt discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, a publisher (Fatt, fig.4, [0046], system architecture where the captured images are stored and served. This Multiview capture system is a publisher device. It captures, stores and provides viewpoint-specific images.);
image acquired from a substantially same viewing angle (Fatt, fig.1, [0021], The multiview display 112 may accommodate a maximum or desired disparity level which may be defined as a percentage of the display width between neighboring views. For example, a multiview display 112 may have a predetermined disparity level of about one percent.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Fatt” into those of “Song” to provide a systems that is directed to a camera system configured to capture a multiview image of an object along an arc. Each camera in the camera system may correspond to a common field of view. In addition, a computing system coupled to the camera system may calculate a target camera baseline based on a first value and a second value, and dynamically adjust an inter-camera capture distance to match the target camera baseline. The first value may indicate the common field of view and the second value may indicate a distance between the camera system and the object.
As to claim 2. The combine system of Song and Fatt discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, comprising a preliminary step a0) wherein acquisition means of the publisher device acquire the publisher image (Fatt, [0027], the publisher device acquiring images from controlled viewpoint.) and
the processing unit of the publisher device generates the publisher image data from the publisher image (Song, [0018], “a feature vector for an image specifies …feature value. [0026], obtains…image feature vectors… specifying feature values..”. ).
As to claim 7. The combine system of Song and Fatt discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein, in step c), the similarity score is compared to a threshold and the publisher device sends the data to the customer device depending of the results of the comparison (Song, [0022], he measures of similarity will be evaluated, at least in part, based on feature vectors 108, 110, and 112 for the images 102, 104, and 106 in the triplet and [0018], using similarity results to identify and return responsive images to a query (functional send of results.)).
As to claim 8 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 9 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 11, The combine system of Song and Fatt discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, comprising a step d) wherein the data is displayed by an interface of the customer device and/or used in an application installed on the customer device (Fatt, [0029], explicitly teaches presenting captured image data on a display so a viewer perceives the image; if the customer device includes such a display or app, Fatt supports the limitation that the returned data are displayed by the device interface. Also see Song, [0018]).
As to claim 12. Is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 and 8 above.
As to claim 13. Is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1, 8 and 12 above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and “Fatt” as applied above in view of Venkatesan et al. (Patent No.: US 7421128 B2), hereinafter “Venk”.
As to claim 3. The combine system of Song and Fatt discloses the invention as in parent claim above. Song and Fatt however are silent to disclose explicitly, comprising a step a2) wherein the processing unit of the publisher device hashes the publisher image to obtain the publisher image data, the publisher image data being a hash code of the publisher image.
Venk however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, comprising a step a2) wherein the processing unit of the publisher device hashes the publisher image to obtain the publisher image data, the publisher image data being a hash code of the publisher image (Ven, fig.1, col.5, lines 10-20, The processing system 32 has an image hashing unit 40 that hashes individual images to produce hash values that uniquely represent the images.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Venk” into those of “Song and Fatt” to provide a system that has an image store, a digital hashing unit, and a watermark encoder. A digital image hashing unit computes a hash value representative of a digital image in such a manner that visually similar images hash to the same hash value and visually distinct images hash to different values. The hash value is stored in an image hash table and is associated via the table with the original image. This image hash table can be used to index the image storage. A watermark encoder computes a watermark based on the hash value and a secret.
As to claim 10 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and “Fatt” as applied above in view of Ives et al. (Pub No.: US 2017/0076522 A1), hereinafter “Ives”.
As to claim 4. The combine system of Song and Fatt discloses the invention as in parent claim above. Song and Fatt however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the publisher device is in the vicinity of the customer device and exchanges with the customer device via a shortrange wireless connection.
Ives discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the publisher device is in the vicinity of the customer device and exchanges with the customer device via a shortrange wireless connection (Ives, [0004], using short-range communication authorized users access the restricted resources).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of “Ives” into those of “Song and Fatt” to provide communications over short-range connections are used to facilitate whether access to resources is to be granted. For example, upon device discovery of one of an electronic user device and an electronic client device by the other device over a Bluetooth Low Energy connection, an access-enabling code associated with a user device or account can be evaluated for validity and applicability with respect to one or more particular resource specifications. User identity can be verified by comparing the user against previously obtained biometric information.
As to claim 5. The combine system of Song, Fatt and Ives discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the customer image and the publisher image are images of a scene of the surroundings of the publisher device (Fatt, [0028], the multiview camera as a device that captures and organizes multiple views of a scene (i.e. stores viewpoint-specific images). Those stored views constitute publisher images of the device’s surroundings.).
As to claim 6. The combine system of Kim and Nic discloses the invention as in parent claim above including, wherein the data comprises credentials for getting access to a service and the data is used by the customer device to get access to the service (Ives, [0004], using short-range communication authorized users access the restricted resources).
As to claim 14, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
As to claim 15, is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached at 571 272-7952. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights