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 Interpretation
In view of the amendment replacing “processing unit” in claim 12 with “processor,” no limitation of claim 12 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in this action. The term “processor” connotes sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites “processing unit”, claim 12 was amended to replace “processing unit” with “processor” . Claim 13 should amended in the same manner.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-12 and 14 of copending Application No. 18569013 (reference application); and/or
over claims 1-12 and 14 of copending Application No. 18569013 (reference application) in view of cited prior art below including Chan (US 20170364737), Lee (US 20100238191), and Moha (US 20120182316). Motivation to combine these references with reference patent is similar to those found throughout the office action below.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are broader in scope and/or are encompassed in the claims of the reference application and/or encompassed in the claims of the reference application in view of the cited prior art.
Instant claims
Reference claims
1
1+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
2
2+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
3
3+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
4
4+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
5
5+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
7
1+7 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
8
8 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
9
8 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
10
9 in view of (Lee and Chen and Moha to the extent necessary)
11
10 in view of (Lee and Chen and Moha to the extent necessary)
12
11 in view of (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
13
12 (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
15
14 (Lee and Chen to the extent necessary)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 17-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system, and a CRM for sorting images based on the people represented in the images. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 12, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 are directed to a method, a system, and a CRM, respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES
The claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method, system, and CRM in claims 1, 12, and 15 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
sorting a subset of said collection of images based on a sorting of people represented in said images (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind, a person could mentally sort images based on a sorting or ranking criteria of the people present in the images);
selecting a subset of the collection of images by filtering based on at least one criterion other than people represented in the images (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind, a person could mentally select images based on a criterion other than the people present in the images such as places and dates)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could a person could look at a set of images, select a subset of these images based on the people present in the set of image, then sort the subset of images based on a ranking of the people present in the subset of images either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 recite(s) the further limitations of:
displaying, on an interface of the electronic device, said subset of said collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to said sorting. (insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data and the interface is a generic computer or component configured to perform the step);
implemented by the electronic device and comprises: storing the collection of images in a storage medium of the electronic device (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of storing data and electronic device and storage medium are generic computers or components configured to perform the step);
Claim 12 recite(s) the further limitations of:
an interface; and a processing unit configured to command displaying, on the interface of the electronic device (insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data and the interface and processing unit are generic computers or components configured to perform the step);
Claim 15 recite(s) the further limitations of:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium; and a processor (generic computers or components configured to perform the step);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to sort and arrange as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-5, and 7-13: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): fall under (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of gathering/generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3-5, 8, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US 20170364737) in view of Lee (US 20100238191).
Regarding claim 1:
Chan discloses: a method for operating an electronic device to browse a collection of images (FIGS. 2 and 4; ¶ [0011] “FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing an example method for ranking images and/or groups of images”) wherein said method comprises:
wherein said method is implemented by the electronic device and comprises: storing the collection of images in a storage medium of the electronic device (Chan discloses computing device 101 including processors 107, system memory 109, mass storage devices 104/110, and display device 102 (¶¶ [0016]-[0020]));
sorting a subset of said collection of images (¶ [0009] “FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example system configured for recognizing faces in a set of images, and grouping and ranking the images and/or the groupings of the images”; ¶ [0011] “FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing an example method for ranking images and/or groups of images.”; ¶ [0060] “The ranking of images or groups of images may be in the form of a relative rank between the images or groups. In another example, the ranking may be in the form of a score or priority assigned to each image or group”);
based on a sorting of people represented in said images (¶ [0005] “…ranking the images and the groupings, based on entities shown in the images… Such rankings may also be influenced by adjacent data that indicates family and friends and the like, and that can be used to identify such entities in the images”; ¶ [0042] “…Ranking engine 240 may rank images that include one or more faces based on face scores of the faces detected in the image… Such scores may be weighted to reflect the relative importance of various faces and/or face aspects in the image… faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined.”) and
displaying, on an interface of the electronic device, said subset of said collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to said sorting (¶ [0044] “Rankings of images produced by ranking engine 240 may be provided as output 242. Such provided rankings may comprise the images themselves, or may be comprised of references to the images, or any combination of the foregoing. Such rankings may be automatically provided, such as being presented in photo albums, shared via social media applications, or the like.”; ¶ [0020] “Output components or devices, such as display device 102, may be coupled to computing device 101, typically via an interface such as a display adapter 111”.).
Chan doesn’t specifically teach selecting a subset of the collection of images by filtering based on at least one criterion other than people represented in the images.
However, Lee teaches: selecting a subset of the collection of images by filtering based on at least one criterion other than people represented in the images (¶ [0020] “…FIG. 5, which is a flow chart of a method for browsing images grouped by person”; ¶ [0025] The browser window 20 may display images in which a plurality of people appear. As shown in FIG. 2, for example, the user may select a folder named "Travel in Italy," which may have images in which a first person (Person A) and a second person (Person B) appear.” A folder criterion is a criterion other than people represented in the images, and selecting images from such album collection is filtering under the broadest reasonable interpretation.).
Therefore, Chan teaches the storing, sorting, and display portions of claim 1, and Lee supplies the filtering and subsets election limitation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan’s image ranking system to first limit the image collection by Lee’s known album filter before applying Chan’s ranking. The motivation would have been to focus the browsing session on a relevant event, folder, album, or date range, reduce the number of images to rank and display, and improve usability and processing efficiency in a predictable manner. This is a routine combination of Lee’s known filtering with Chan’s known ranking, and the result would predictably be a filtered subset that is then sorted and displayed according to the ranking.
Regarding claim 2:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Lee further teaches: further comprising detecting a trigger event performed on the electronic device by a user of the electronic device (¶ [0027] “a user may select a facial region 401 corresponding to Person B (Step 503). A signal may be received to select one of the facial regions. The selected facial region may belong to a specific cluster of faces and the specific cluster of faces may be associated with a specific album of the albums”),
sorting said subset being performed in response to said detection of the trigger event (¶ [0027] “Then, if the facial region 401 corresponds to an image located in the folder browsed in the browser window 40, an image 402 corresponding to the facial region 401 may be displayed in a central location of the photo frame 400, and facial regions associated with the album may be displayed in the people frame in response to the selected facial region (Step 504)”; displaying images associated with an album in response to selecting necessarily requires sorting the images. Moreover, Chan already teaches sorting the images based on a sorting of people represented in the images.
PNG
media_image1.png
353
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 3:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Chan further discloses: further comprising performing on at least one of said images a face recognition algorithm (FIG. 2, ¶ [0030] “ Facial recognition engine 210 is a module that accepts an image as input 212, detects one or more faces in the image, and detects various features in recognized faces.”);
in order to recognize at least one person in said at least one of said images (¶ [0030] “…facial recognition engine 210 may provide facial recognition data as one or more outputs, each of which may be stored in data store 220. One output may be in the form of a face identifier that identifies a detected face in an image 212. Given multiple detected faces in an image, a unique face identifier is typically provided for each face detected in the image… Any face identifier(s) that are output 212 may be accepted as input by data store 220, grouping engine 230, and/or ranking engine 240”; ¶ [0031] “Another output 212 of facial recognition engine 210 may be in the form of a set of facial feature descriptors that describe facial features detected in a face corresponding to the face's identifier”; ¶ [0032] “…may be in the form of a face score corresponding to a face identifier”; ¶ [0033] “…may be in the form of a face signature that, across the images in the set, uniquely identifies an entity that the face represents, at least within the scope of the detected features”).
Regarding claim 4:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 3.
Chan further discloses: wherein performing on the at least one of said images said face recognition algorithm comprises determining parameters characterizing a face of a person represented in said image (¶ 0031] “Another output 212 of facial recognition engine 210 may be in the form of a set of facial feature descriptors that describe facial features detected in a face corresponding to the face's identifier. Given multiple face identifiers as input, a corresponding set of facial feature descriptors is typically provided for each face identifier. In one example, the set of facial feature descriptors may be in the form of coordinates for each detected facial feature, such as the eyes, eyebrows, nose, and mouth of the face.”; ¶ [0033] “…may be in the form of a face signature that, across the images in the set, uniquely identifies an entity that the face represents…if various face shots of Adam appear in several images in a set, then each of Adam's face shots will have the same face signature that uniquely identifies the entity “Adam””).),
the sorting of the people represented in the images of the subset being performed based on said parameters (¶ [0030] “…facial recognition engine 210 may provide facial recognition data as one or more outputs, each of which may be stored in data store 220. One output may be in the form of a face identifier that identifies a detected face in an image 212. Given multiple detected faces in an image, a unique face identifier is typically provided for each face detected in the image… Any face identifier(s) that are output 212 may be accepted as input by data store 220, grouping engine 230, and/or ranking engine 240”; ¶ [0005] “…ranking the images and the groupings, based on entities shown in the images… Such rankings may also be influenced by adjacent data that indicates family and friends and the like, and that can be used to identify such entities in the images”).
Regarding claim 5:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 4.
Chan further discloses: wherein contact details of at least one known person are associated, in the electronic device, with a reference face of said known person and/or with parameters characterizing said reference face (¶ [0033] “…may be in the form of a face signature that, across the images in the set, uniquely identifies an entity that the face represents…if various face shots of Adam appear in several images in a set, then each of Adam's face shots will have the same face signature that uniquely identifies the entity “Adam””; ¶ [0049] “For example, if the face signature indicates the entity “Adam”, and no group for images with faces of Adam exists, then a group is created for images with faces of Adam, and the image is added. If a group for faces of Adam already exists, then the image with Adam's face is added to the Adam group (step 350)”);
the sorting of the people represented in the images of the subset being performed based on said reference face and/or said parameters (¶ [0030] “…facial recognition engine 210 may provide facial recognition data as one or more outputs, each of which may be stored in data store 220. One output may be in the form of a face identifier that identifies a detected face in an image 212. Given multiple detected faces in an image, a unique face identifier is typically provided for each face detected in the image… Any face identifier(s) that are output 212 may be accepted as input by data store 220, grouping engine 230, and/or ranking engine 240”).
Regarding claim 7:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Chan doesn’t specifically teach comprising selecting the subset of said collection of images, each image of the subset representing at least one person.
However, Lee teaches: comprising selecting the subset of said collection of images, each image of the subset representing at least one person (¶ [0020] “…FIG. 5, which is a flow chart of a method for browsing images grouped by person”; ¶ [0025] “…As shown in FIG. 2, for example, the user may select a folder named "Travel in Italy," which may have images in which a first person (Person A) and a second person (Person B) appear”).
Regarding claim 8:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Chan further discloses: wherein sorting the people represented in the images of the subset of said collection of images is performed according to a given criterion about said people represented in the images (¶ [0042] “…Further, faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined. In one example, such a determination may be based on adjacent information input 221, or based on other input to system 200 such as input provided by the person or other entity.”; ¶ [0059] “…the rankings may be weighted by or based on the face signature indicating an entity determined to be a friend or family or the like. In this example, images and/or groups of images with a larger number of friends or family or the like may be ranked higher that images and/or groups of images with a lesser number of such”);
said given criterion being in particular an intimacy link level representative of an intimacy link level between a person involved in an operation performed using said electronic device and people represented in the images (¶ [0042] “…Further, faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined. In one example, such a determination may be based on adjacent information input 221, or based on other input to system 200 such as input provided by the person or other entity.”; ¶ [0059] “…the rankings may be weighted by or based on the face signature indicating an entity determined to be a friend or family or the like. In this example, images and/or groups of images with a larger number of friends or family or the like may be ranked higher that images and/or groups of images with a lesser number of such”);
such that sorting a subset of said collection of images is performed according to said given criterion (¶ [0042] “…Further, faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined. In one example, such a determination may be based on adjacent information input 221, or based on other input to system 200 such as input provided by the person or other entity.”; ¶ [0059] “…the rankings may be weighted by or based on the face signature indicating an entity determined to be a friend or family or the like. In this example, images and/or groups of images with a larger number of friends or family or the like may be ranked higher that images and/or groups of images with a lesser number of such”).
Regarding claim 9:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 8.
While Chan clearly has a criterion about the people and it is in respect to a target person’s family and/or friend as cited in claim 8 rejection above. Chan is silent about determining the “target person” explicitly.
Therefore, Chan doesn’t specifically teach comprising wherein said given criterion about said people is with respect to a target person, the method comprising a determining said target person.
However, Lee teaches: wherein said given criterion about said people is with respect to a target person, the method comprising a determining said target person (¶ [0027] “…a user may select a facial region 401 corresponding to Person B (Step 503). A signal may be received to select one of the facial regions.”).
Regarding claim 12:
Chan discloses: An electronic device to browse a collection of images, wherein the electronic device comprises: a storage medium storing the collection of images an interface; and a processor configured to (FIG 1; display 102, interface 112, processing unit 107, system memory 109, and storage device 104) wherein said method comprises:
command displaying, on the interface of the electronic device, a subset of a collection of images (¶ [0044] “Rankings of images produced by ranking engine 240 may be provided as output 242. Such provided rankings may comprise the images themselves, or may be comprised of references to the images, or any combination of the foregoing. Such rankings may be automatically provided, such as being presented in photo albums, shared via social media applications, or the like.”; ¶ [0020] “Output components or devices, such as display device 102, may be coupled to computing device 101, typically via an interface such as a display adapter 111”.).
said subset being automatically arranged according to a sorting process (¶ [0009] “FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example system configured for recognizing faces in a set of images, and grouping and ranking the images and/or the groupings of the images”; ¶ [0011] “FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing an example method for ranking images and/or groups of images.”; ¶ [0060] “The ranking of images or groups of images may be in the form of a relative rank between the images or groups. In another example, the ranking may be in the form of a score or priority assigned to each image or group”);
and a sorting process; wherein said subset is sorted based on a sorting of the people represented in the images (¶ [0005] “…ranking the images and the groupings, based on entities shown in the images… Such rankings may also be influenced by adjacent data that indicates family and friends and the like, and that can be used to identify such entities in the images”; ¶ [0042] “…Ranking engine 240 may rank images that include one or more faces based on face scores of the faces detected in the image… Such scores may be weighted to reflect the relative importance of various faces and/or face aspects in the image… faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined.”).
Chan doesn’t specifically teach a filtering based on at least one criterion other than people represented in the images
However, Lee teaches: a filtering based on at least one criterion other than people represented in the images (¶ [0020] “…FIG. 5, which is a flow chart of a method for browsing images grouped by person”; ¶ [0025] “…As shown in FIG. 2, for example, the user may select a folder named "Travel in Italy," which may have images in which a first person (Person A) and a second person (Person B) appear” A folder/album/date/month/year criterion is a criterion other than people represented in the images, and selecting images from such album/folder/date collection is filtering under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Therefore, Chan teaches the storing, sorting, and display portions of claim 1, and Lee supplies the filtering and subsets election limitation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan’s image ranking system to first limit the image collection by Lee’s known album/folder/date filter before applying Chan’s ranking. The motivation would have been to focus the browsing session on a relevant event, folder, album, or date range, reduce the number of images to rank and display, and improve usability and processing efficiency in a predictable manner. This is a routine combination of Lee’s known filtering with Chan’s known ranking, and the result would predictably be a filtered subset that is then sorted and displayed according to the ranking.
Regarding claim 13:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Chan further discloses: wherein the processing unit is further configured to sort said subset based on a sorting of the people represented in the images (¶ [0005] “…ranking the images and the groupings, based on entities shown in the images… Such rankings may also be influenced by adjacent data that indicates family and friends and the like, and that can be used to identify such entities in the images”; ¶ [0042] “…Ranking engine 240 may rank images that include one or more faces based on face scores of the faces detected in the image… Such scores may be weighted to reflect the relative importance of various faces and/or face aspects in the image… faces of entities that are determined to be friends or family or the like of a person providing the set of images may be weighted higher than faces of entities that are not so determined.”).
Regarding claim 15: the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above. Chan discloses the CRM in ¶ [0025].
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 20170364737) in view of Lee (US 20100238191) and Moha (US 20120182316).
Regarding claim 10:
Chan in view of Lee discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Chan in view of Lee does not teach: wherein said target person is determined as being the person currently using the device
However, in the same field of endeavor, Moha teaches: wherein said target person is determined as being the person currently using the device (¶ [0052] “…a computing device may be coupled to an image capture device. A new image may be captured using the image capture device. Facial recognition analysis may be performed on the new image to determine if the contact's face can be recognized in the new image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Moha to implement the “target person” of claim 9 as the person currently using the device, because Moha teaches capturing an image with the device’s camera, performing facial recognition to identify the contact (target person), and using that image as an image representing the user on a login screen. Given Chan’s ranking of images with respect a person providing the set of images and Lee’s determination of the target person. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to treat the current logged-in/device user, identified by Moha’s camera/face recognition as the target person for the ranking, yielding a predicable behavior.
Regarding claim 11:
Chan in view of Lee and Moha discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Moha further discloses: wherein determining said target person comprises acquiring a picture with a camera of the device and detecting the target person in said acquired picture (¶ [0052] “…a computing device may be coupled to an image capture device. A new image may be captured using the image capture device. Facial recognition analysis may be performed on the new image to determine if the contact's face can be recognized in the new image”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive. The rejection is not based on the suggestion that the generic electronic device, storage medium or interface themselves are mental steps. Rather, the amended claims recite the abstract idea of organizing image information by filtering, sorting, and displaying according to criteria, implemented on generic computer components. The claims do not recite a specific technological mechanism that improves image processing, storage, indexing, rendering, or operation of the device itself.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lee merely selects an existing folder and does not disclose “filtering.” The claim language does not require creating a new folder or dynamically generating a new data structure at runtime. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, filtering includes limiting a collection to images satisfying a criterion such as album membership, folder membership, date, month, or year. Lee teaches albums/folders and date/month/year album creation, and selecting a folder such as “Travel in Italy.” Thus, Lee supplies the filtering based on a non-people criterion.
Relevant prior art not relied on
Koizumi (20190005312) teaches “the photobook may be a composite image obtained by arranging images, which are automatically selected from images in a desired period (for example, one year) that are held by the user, on a plurality of pages in an automatic layout (for example, an ear album manufactured by FUJIFILM Co., Ltd.).” ¶ [0079]
Yamaji (US 20160371536) teaches “select a second image group imaged on an imaging date within a predetermined range from a first image group that is hierarchically classified according to imaging dates, such as year, season, month, day, and time range.” In ¶ [0056].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights