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
Applicant amended claim 11 to replace the term “processing unit” with the term “processor.” In view of the amendment, claim 11 is no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and recites “processing unit”, claim 11 was amended to replace “processing unit” with “processor” . Claim 13 should amended in the same manner.
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) 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 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) system, and a CRM configured to browse a collection of 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, 11, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES
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 claims 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, 11, and 14: the claims recite the steps (functions) of:
determining a target person, said target person being a person involved in an operation performed using said electronic device (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; the claim does not recite a particular technique for determining who the person in the image is that cannot be performed in the human mind) ;
automatically adapting a subset of said collection of images based on people represented in said images as a function of said target person, wherein said adapting comprises selecting and/or sorting said subset of said collection of images (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; the claim does not recite any particular technological manner for selecting or sorting beyond the desired result, and automating the process is not by itself make the claim eligible);
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 determine a target person operating an electronic device, and select images of people based on similarity or relationship to that person either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps that the picture is acquired with a camera and that the steps are implemented by an electronic device 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, 11, and 14 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The claims recite(s) the further limitations of:
storing the collection of images in a storage medium (insignificant extra-solution data storage using generic computer components);
acquiring a picture with a camera of the electronic device (insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity using a generic camera);
displaying, on an interface of the device, said subset of said collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to said adapting (insignificant post-solution extra activity of generating data using generic computers or components);
an interface; and a processing unit (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps);
non-transitory computer-readable medium (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps)
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. The claims do not recite any particular face-recognition pipeline, image processing technique, storage architecture, or user-interface mechanism that improves the functioning of the device itself. Instead, the additional elements merely use generic computer components as tools to gather a picture, store images, and display the result of the abstract identification and selection and/or sorting concept.
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, 11, and 14 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to determining, adapting, selecting, sorting, and displaying as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 11, and 14 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 11, and 14 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, 11, and 14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2-9, 12, and 15: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The additional limitation(s) fall under (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating/gathering data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the steps).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moha (US 20120182316).
Regarding claim 1:
Moha discloses: a method for operating an electronic device to browse a collection of images (FIG. 4; abstract: “Assisted face selection is disclosed. According to some implementations, a method can include obtaining contact information associated with a contact and displaying on an interface of a computing device an image (e.g., a thumbnail image) representative of the contact”),
wherein said method comprises:
storing a collection of images in a storage medium (¶ [0030] “Images 302-316 may be stored on a local storage device or a network storage device.”; ¶ [0048] “…automatic face selection process 600 may be performed automatically in response to storing new images on a storage device, adding new images to an image library or capturing a new image with an image capture device, such as a camera”).
acquiring a picture with a camera of the electronic device (¶ [0009] “capturing a new image of the contact with an image capture device, performing facial recognition on the new image and one or more other images to identify other images that contain a facial view of the contact, and displaying the other images and the new image”; ¶ [0010] “capturing an image of a contact, determining whether the captured image includes a facial view of the contact using facial recognition”; ¶ [0023] “user interface 200 may be used to capture a photograph of a contact to be used as the image representing the contact”; and ¶ [0040] “The contact-representative or known image may be an image currently displayed as image 110 or an image captured with an image capture device (e.g., a camera) using interface 200. Facial recognition analysis may be performed on images available to the system based on the face-identifying information for the contact's face in order to find other images that include the contact's face.”; ¶ [0048] “…automatic face selection process 600 may be performed automatically in response to storing new images on a storage device, adding new images to an image library or capturing a new image with an image capture device, such as a camera”).
determining a target person, said target person being a person represented in an acquired picture (¶ [0009] “capturing a new image of the contact with an image capture device, performing facial recognition on the new image and one or more other images to identify other images that contain a facial view of the contact, and displaying the other images and the new image”; ¶ [0010] “capturing an image of a contact, determining whether the captured image includes a facial view of the contact using facial recognition”; ¶ [0023] “user interface 200 may be used to capture a photograph of a contact to be used as the image representing the contact”; and ¶ [0040] “The contact-representative or known image may be an image currently displayed as image 110 or an image captured with an image capture device (e.g., a camera) using interface 200. Facial recognition analysis may be performed on images available to the system based on the face-identifying information for the contact's face in order to find other images that include the contact's face.”; ¶ [0048] “…automatic face selection process 600 may be performed automatically in response to storing new images on a storage device, adding new images to an image library or capturing a new image with an image capture device, such as a camera”);
automatically adapting a subset of said collection of images based on people represented in said images as a function of said target person (¶ [0008] “automatically determining that one or more images correspond to the contact and automatically selecting one based on metadata”); ¶ [0039] “other images corresponding to the contact are determined by analyzing metadata”; ¶ [0048] “…automatic face selection process 600 may be performed automatically in response to storing new images on a storage device, adding new images to an image library or capturing a new image with an image capture device, such as a camera”);
wherein said adapting comprises selecting said subset of said collection of images (¶ [0039] “At block 408, other images corresponding to the contact are determined. For example, in response to receiving the indication to change the contact-representative image at block 406, other images accessible to the system are analyzed to determine whether the other images correspond to the contact. Other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by analyzing metadata associated with the other images…”; ¶ [0040] “…other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by performing facial recognition analysis on the images…an image currently representing a contact, or an image known to include the contact, may be analyzed using a facial recognition algorithm to determine face-identifying information for the contact's face…corresponding images 410 may be determined based on metadata associated with other images or facial recognition analysis of other images. Any suitable known Facial recognition algorithm or analysis can be used”);
and/or sorting said subset of said collection of images (¶ [0031] “Images 302-318 may be arranged on interface 300 with the image currently representing the contact (e.g., image 318) at the center of the arrangement and the other images (images 302-316) arranged around image 318… images 302-316 are arranged in chronological, or reverse chronological, order. For example, the metadata associated with images 302-316 may be analyzed to determine when the images were captured and the images may be arranged around image 318 in chronological, or reverse chronological, order from left to right, top to bottom. In some implementations, images 302-316 are arranged according to ranking. For example, images 302-316 may be arranged around image 318 according to a user-assigned ranking associated with the images. The images may be arranged according to ranking from left to right, top to bottom with the highest ranked images at the top left and the lowest ranking at bottom right. In some implementations, images 302-316 may be arranged according to an event associated with the images. For example, the images displayed together on user interface 300 may be images from a single event. The user may be able to select which events the user is interested in and display only the images from the selected event. In some implementations, images 302-316 can be displayed in three dimensions in a three-dimensional user interface”; and ¶ [0048]-[0050] disclose automatic face selection process may be performed automatically; images corresponding to a contact are determined; an image is automatically selected) and
displaying, on an interface of the device, said subset of said collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to said adapting (¶ [0041] “At block 412, corresponding images 410 are displayed. For example, corresponding images 410 may be presented to a user on user interface 300 of FIG. 3. Corresponding images 410 may be displayed on user interface 300 as images 302-316”).
Regarding claim 3:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha further discloses: further comprising performing on at least one of said images a face recognition algorithm in order to recognize at least one person in said at least one of said images (¶ [0040] “…other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by performing facial recognition analysis on the images…an image currently representing a contact, or an image known to include the contact, may be analyzed using a facial recognition algorithm to determine face-identifying information for the contact's face…corresponding images 410 may be determined based on metadata associated with other images or facial recognition analysis of other images. Any suitable known Facial recognition algorithm or analysis can be used”).
Regarding claim 4:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha 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, the adapting of the subset being performed based on said parameters (¶ [0040] “…other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by performing facial recognition analysis on the images… Facial recognition analysis may be performed on images available to the system based on the face-identifying information for the contact's face in order to find other images that include the contact's face. Thus, corresponding images 410 may be determined based on metadata associated with other images or facial recognition analysis of other images. Any suitable known Facial recognition algorithm or analysis can be used, including but not limited to techniques employing one or more of Principal Component Analysis, Linear Discriminate Analysis, Elastic Bunch Graph Matching, Hidden Markov model, and neuronal motivated dynamic link matching”. All of these techniques involve parameters such as facial landmarks or feature vectors. ).
Regarding claim 5:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha 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, the adapting of the subset being performed based on said reference face and/or said parameters (¶ [0036] “…At block 402, contact information 400 is obtained. For example, contact information may be obtained from an address book application, a chat application, or another application that maintains, uses or stores contact information. Contact information may be obtained from a storage device, such as a local hard drive or network drive, for example. According to some implementations, contact information may include an image that currently represents the contact. In some implementations, contact information includes location information for retrieving an image currently representing the contact. Contact information may include contact identifying information, such as names, addresses (e-mail and/or physical) and phone numbers, for example”; ¶ [0040] “…other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by performing facial recognition analysis on the images… Facial recognition analysis may be performed on images available to the system based on the face-identifying information for the contact's face in order to find other images that include the contact's face. Thus, corresponding images 410 may be determined based on metadata associated with other images or facial recognition analysis of other images. Any suitable known Facial recognition algorithm or analysis can be used, including but not limited to techniques employing one or more of Principal Component Analysis, Linear Discriminate Analysis, Elastic Bunch Graph Matching, Hidden Markov model, and neuronal motivated dynamic link matching”. All of these techniques involve parameters such as facial landmarks or feature vectors. ).
Regarding claim 6:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha further discloses: wherein adapting the subset of said collection of images comprises selecting said subset of said collection of images based on people represented in the images as a function of said target person, in particular selecting the subset of said collection of images representing said target person (¶ [0039] “At block 408, other images corresponding to the contact are determined. For example, in response to receiving the indication to change the contact-representative image at block 406, other images accessible to the system are analyzed to determine whether the other images correspond to the contact. Other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by analyzing metadata associated with the other images…”; ¶ [0040] “…other images may be determined to correspond to the contact by performing facial recognition analysis on the images…an image currently representing a contact, or an image known to include the contact, may be analyzed using a facial recognition algorithm to determine face-identifying information for the contact's face…corresponding images 410 may be determined based on metadata associated with other images or facial recognition analysis of other images. Any suitable known Facial recognition algorithm or analysis can be used”).
Regarding claim 7:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha further discloses: wherein adapting the subset of said collection of images comprises sorting said subset of said collection of images based on people represented in the images as a function of said target person (¶ [0031] “Images 302-318 may be arranged on interface 300 with the image currently representing the contact (e.g., image 318) at the center of the arrangement and the other images (images 302-316) arranged around image 318… images 302-316 are arranged in chronological, or reverse chronological, order. For example, the metadata associated with images 302-316 may be analyzed to determine when the images were captured and the images may be arranged around image 318 in chronological, or reverse chronological, order from left to right, top to bottom. In some implementations, images 302-316 are arranged according to ranking. For example, images 302-316 may be arranged around image 318 according to a user-assigned ranking associated with the images. The images may be arranged according to ranking from left to right, top to bottom with the highest ranked images at the top left and the lowest ranking at bottom right. In some implementations, images 302-316 may be arranged according to an event associated with the images. For example, the images displayed together on user interface 300 may be images from a single event. The user may be able to select which events the user is interested in and display only the images from the selected event. In some implementations, images 302-316 can be displayed in three dimensions in a three-dimensional user interface)” and
displaying, on an interface of the device, said subset of said collection of images, the displayed subset of images being arranged according to said adapting (¶ [0041] “At block 412, corresponding images 410 are displayed. For example, corresponding images 410 may be presented to a user on user interface 300 of FIG. 3. Corresponding images 410 may be displayed on user interface 300 as images 302-316”).
Regarding claim 9:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha further discloses: 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”).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14: the claims limitations are encompassed and in similar limitations in claim 1; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above. See the system in FIG . 7 of Moha and ¶ [0053] for the CRM.
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moha (US 20120182316) in view of Lee (US 20100238191).
Regarding claim 2:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
While Moha teaches a trigger operation in (¶ [0038] “ At block 406, an indication to change the contact-representative image is received. For example, a user may provide input selecting image 110 of FIG. 1 to indicate that the user wishes to change the image”)
Moha does not specifically teach: further comprising detecting a trigger event performed by a user on the electronic device, the determining of the target person being performed in response to said detection of the trigger event.
However, in a related field, Lee teaches: further comprising detecting a trigger event performed by a user on the electronic device (FIG. 5, ¶ [0027 “…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”)
the determining of the target person being performed in response to said detection of the trigger event (FIG. 5, ¶ [0027 “…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”)
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 to have modified Moha to incorporate the teachings of Lee by including: further comprising detecting a trigger event performed by a user on the electronic device, the determining of the target person being performed in response to said detection of the trigger event in order to improve Moha’s contact-image workflow, the combination would have been motivated to adopt Lee’s people-browsing trigger to that identification of the person occurs in response to a user selection.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moha (US 20120182316) in view of Weng (US 20100226584).
Regarding claim 8:
Moha discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha in view of Lee does not specifically teach: wherein adapting a subset of said collection of images is performed according to a given criterion about said people represented in the images with respect to the target person, said given criterion being in particular an intimacy link level between the target person and said people represented in the images
However, in a related field, Weng teaches: wherein adapting a subset of said collection of images is performed according to a given criterion about said people represented in the images with respect to the target person (FIG. 3, and ¶ [0007] “…a method of browsing face regions in digital images in a photo displaying system comprises detecting a plurality of face regions from a plurality of images, grouping the face regions into a plurality of clusters based on similarities of the face regions”);
said given criterion being in particular an intimacy link level between the target person and said people represented in the images (FIG. 3, and ¶ [0007] “…determining a degree of connection between the clusters, modifying the degree of connection between the clusters according to a relationship of the face regions, and displaying the face regions according to the degree of connection between the clusters”; ¶ [0035] “…The degrees of connection between the clusters are determined based on the similarity analysis on the face regions in Step 304 shown in FIG. 3. “… In Step 306 shown in FIG. 3, a relationship between the cluster "Person B" and the cluster "Person C" is determined from the social information of the group photos. Because specific groups of people, such as friends, classmates, or family members, will take photos together, the face regions from the cluster "Person B" and the cluster "Person C" are from photos with the other face regions that are grouped in the common clusters. More particularly, the face regions from the clusters "Person B" and "Person A" appear in the same Image A, and the face regions from the clusters "Person C" and "Person A" appear in the same Image B. Although the clusters "Person B" and "Person C" are not identified as the same cluster in the previous analysis, the social information obtained from the group photos infer that the cluster "Person B" and the cluster "Person C" represent the same person. In Step 306 shown in FIG. 3, the degree of connection between any two clusters is modified according to the relationship of the face regions. Similarly, the face regions from the cluster "Person B", "Person D" and "Person E" appear in the same Image C, and the face regions from the clusters "Person C", "Person D" and "Person E" appear in the same Image D. Higher number of common faces in two clusters represents a higher degree of connection. Higher number of common persons from the same images, e.g. the face region R6 and the face region R7 are from the same Image C, may also represent higher degree of connection. In other words, the probability of the two clusters representing the same person is increased. Similarly, if faces of common clusters are from the same album, this may also represent higher degree of connection”).
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 to have modified Moha to incorporate the teachings of Weng by including: wherein adapting a subset of said collection of images is performed according to a given criterion about said people represented in the images with respect to the target person, said given criterion being in particular an intimacy link level between the target person and said people represented in the images in order to improve relevance and show images involving people most connected to the target person first.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moha (US 20120182316) in view of Zhao (US 20170076077).
Regarding claim 15:
Moha in discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Moha does not specifically teach: wherein the person is a person using the electronic device, the camera is a front camera of the electronic device and acquiring the picture comprises acquiring the picture of the person using the electronic device with the front camera of the electronic device.
However, in a related field, Zhao teaches: wherein the person is a person using the electronic device, the camera is a front camera of the electronic device and acquiring the picture comprises acquiring the picture of the person using the electronic device with the front camera of the electronic device (¶ [0013] “The device 1 may have an exterior front face in which there is a front-facing camera 3 and a display screen 4. As will be more fully explained below, camera 3 is used to capture an image of the device user 2 while the user is facing the display screen 4”; ¶ [0027] “…the device will capture an image using its camera (e.g., the front-facing camera 3 of FIG. 1) (block 31). The device will then analyze the image to determine whether a user's face is present in the image (block 32). If a user's face is detected, the device repeats the operations of capturing and analyzing an image until a user's face is not detected for a predetermined period of a time or until the user interacts with or moves the device.”).
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 to have modified Moha to incorporate the teachings of Zhao by including: wherein the person is a person using the electronic device, the camera is a front camera of the electronic device and acquiring the picture comprises acquiring the picture of the person using the electronic device with the front camera of the electronic device in order to improve the person selection step in the Moha system, allowing the device to automatically browse and retrieve stored images of the person who is presently using the device, with no change in the basic operation of the underlying image selection framework.
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 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15 of copending Application No. 18568998 (reference application); and/or
over claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15 of copending Application No. 18568998 (reference application) in view of cited prior art below including Moha (US 20120182316), Lee (US 20100238191), Weng (US 20100226584), and Zhao (US 20170076077). 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 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.
For example:
Instant claims
Reference claims
1
1+7+11 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
2
2 in view of (Lee and Moha to the extent necessary)
3
3 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
4
4 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
5
5 (Moha to the extent necessary)
6
1+7+11 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
7
1+11 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
8
8+9 (Moha and Weng to the extent necessary)
9
10 (Moha to the extent necessary)
11
12 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
12
12+13 in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
14
15 in in view of (Moha to the extent necessary)
15
1+11 in view of (Moha and Zhao to the extent necessary)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Applicant’s 101 arguments.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 now recites implementation by the electronic device, storing images in a storage medium, acquiring a picture with a camera of the electronic device, and automatic adaptation, and therefore allegedly cannot be interpreted as covering mental steps. Applicant also argues that the claim is integrated into a practical application because it allows taking a picture of someone and retrieving photographs of that person, or detecting the person using the device through the front camera and retrieving that person’s photographs.
These arguments are not persuasive. The claim still recites determining a target person and selecting and/or sorting images as a function of that person, which is an abstract mental process of observation, evaluation, and organization of information. The additional limitations relied upon by Applicant merely recite generic data gathering, storage, and display operations using generic device components, specifically a storage medium, a camera, and an interface. Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to Applicant’s 102/103 arguments.
Applicant argues that Moha is directed to handling contact information and changing a contact thumbnail image, and that there is therefore “no mechanism in Moha to acquire a picture as described in claim 1” and no disclosure of automatically adapting a subset of stored images as a function of a target person represented in the captured image. Applicant also argues that ¶ [0052] of Moha does not disclose the claimed automatic adapting, selecting, sorting, and displaying limitations.
These arguments are not persuasive.
Although Moha disclose contact information embodiments, Moha also expressly discloses a capturing new images embodiment in which a new image of a contact is captured with an image capture device, facial recognition is performed on the new image and on other stored images, and other images containing that same person’s face are identified and displayed. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0023], and [0040].
Second, Applicant’s argument that Moha does not disclose automatically adapting a subset of stored images as a function of the pictured person is also not persuasive. Moha expressly teaches automatically determining that one or more stored images correspond to the captured person, automatically selecting an image, determining corresponding images by metadata and/or facial recognition, arranging images based on date, ranking, or event, and displaying the corresponding images on the interface. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0008], [0009], [0031], [0039]-[0041], and [0048]-[0050].
Third, Applicant’s focus on ¶ [0052] is not persuasive because the rejection is not limited to ¶ [0052]. As set forth above, the rejection relies on the combined disclosures of at least ¶¶ [0008]-[0010], [0023], [0030]-[0031], [0039]-[0041], and [0048]-[0050] of Moha.
Fourth, Applicant’s discussion of “new usages,” such as taking a picture of someone and automatically retrieving photographs of this person in a photo portfolio, does not distinguish the claim from Moha because Moha already teaches capturing an image of a person and using that captured image in facial recognition processing to retrieve other stored images of that same person.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of amended claim 1 under 102(a)(1).
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