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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed 06/03/2026. In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 11-12 and 20 are amended; claims 5 and 14 were cancelled; claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-20 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (“Pham,” US 10,839,066) in view of Hua et al (“Hua,” US 20160217349) and further in view of Goodman et al (“Goodman,” US 20050066201).
Regarding claim 1, Pham discloses an apparatus for verifying whether to allow a user access to a resource, comprising:
one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and (Pham, Col. 18, Line 1 describes one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions)
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions causes the apparatus to: (Pham, Col. 18, Line 1 describes one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions causes the apparatus to)
receive, from the user, a respective selected label for each of the at least three animations; (Pham, describes in FIG 1C receive, from the client device, (Col. 7, Lines 40-44) an input of a respective selected label (Col. 1, Lines 19-38, FIG 1C) for each of the at least three animations (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
allow to the user to access the computer resource in response to the respective selected label of the first animation being the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective selected label of the second animation being the respective correct label for the second animation; and (Pham, describes allow access (Col. 15, Lines 2-5) to the user based at least in part on the respective selected label of the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13, FIG 1C) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) and the respective selected label of the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
Pham fails to explicitly disclose transmit at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label;
However, in an analogous art, Hua discloses transmit at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label; (Hua, [0120], [0020], [0085] sending animations to display to the user wherein the animations are associated with an incorrect label as described in [0035], [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hua with the method/system of Pham to include transmit at least three animations for display to the user on a client device, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label. One would have been motivated to optimizing multi-class multimedia data classification by leveraging negative multimedia data items to train classifiers (Hua, [0004]).
Pham and Hua fail to explicitly disclose and associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation in the one or more memories as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource.
However, in an analogous art, Goodman discloses associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation in the one or more memories as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation: and (Goodman, [0081] describes the system only utilizes answers from users who get the last two known HIPs correct; [0073] describes the unknown response is saved in a database 670 for comparison with other users; [0083]-[0084] describes a random unknown image presented to a plurality of users; responses establish acceptable answers; [0097] repeats the process for 50, 100 or 500 users; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
add the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number, (Goodman, [0094] describes consistency based on a percentage of users exceeding a minimum threshold; [0094] consistent answers annotate an answer list corresponding to a database of unknown images and those images can then be used in future HIPs; [0084] describes consistently answered images can thereafter be treated as known HIPs; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goodman with the method/system of Pham and Hua to include associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation in the one or more memories as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation: and add the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number. One would have been motivated to present known and unknown challenges together and to use responses to the unknown challenge only from users who successfully answer the known challenges for the purpose of preventing automated users from misleading the system and to permit reliable user responses to be used to establish acceptable answers for previously unknown challenge material (Goodman, [0073], [0081] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham further discloses wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations, (Pham, describes in Figures 1C-1F wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations as described as “car driving,” and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations as described in Col. 9, Lines 63-67; Col. 10, Lines 1-22)
Regarding claim 6, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham further discloses wherein to transmit the at least three animations for display to the user on a client device, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transmit selectable labels for the first animation and the second animation, wherein the respective label for each of the first animation and the second animation are selectable by the user from the selectable labels, (Pham, Figures 1C-1F; Col. 14, Lines 62-67; Col. 15, Lines 1-15, FIG 4, describes wherein to transmit the at least three animations for display to the user on a client device, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transmit selectable labels for the first animation and the second animation, wherein the respective label for each of the first animation and the second animation are selectable by the user from the selectable labels)
Hua further discloses wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation, (Hua, [0120], [0020], [0085] describes wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation as described in [0035], [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hua with the method/system of Pham to include wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation. One would have been motivated to optimizing multi-class multimedia data classification by leveraging negative multimedia data items to train classifiers (Hua, [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham further discloses wherein the respective selected label for the third animation is a text entry generated by the user, (Pham describes in Col. 11, Lines 3-8 & 32-52 wherein the input of the respective selected label for the third animation is a text entry generated by the user)
Regarding claim 8, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 7.
Pham further discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to perform statistical clustering of text entries of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of users to select a correct label for the third animation, (Pham, describes in Col. 18, Line 1; Col. 9, Lines 4-24, Col. 15, Lines 1-1-15 wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to perform statistical clustering of text entries of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of users to select a correct label for the third animation as described in Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 12, Lines 1-8)
Regarding claim 9, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham further discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transmit selectable labels for the third animation, wherein the selectable labels include randomly generated combinations of actors and actions or potential labels for the third animation that were previously received from other users, (Pham describes in Column 18, Line 1, Col. 9, Lines 49-62; Col. 10, Lines 7-35 wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transmit selectable labels for the third animation, wherein the selectable labels include randomly generated combinations of actors and actions or potential labels for the third animation that were previously received by other users as described in Figures 1B-1F)
Regarding claim 10, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 8.
Pham further discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to associate a potential label for the third animation as a correct label for the third animation in response to the potential label being selected by a threshold number of users, (Pham, Col. 18, Line 1 & 130, FIG 1C; Col. 9, Lines 25-37 describes wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to associate a potential label for the third animation as a correct label for the third animation in response to the potential label being selected by a threshold number of users)
Regarding claim 11, Pham, Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham further discloses wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to: receive, from a second client device associated with a second user, (Pham discloses in Columns 3-4 that the human-authentication platform may interact with tens, hundreds, thousands or more user devices and receives user input to the animation challenge for a plurality of users)
Goodman further discloses a second respective selected label for each of the at least three animations; (Goodman, [0097] describes the same or similar HIPs are presented to a plurality of users e.g. 50, 100 or 500; [0072]-[0080] describe the three HIP challenge and obtaining/evaluating user responses to the two known portions and unknown portions; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
and prevent the second user from accessing the computer resource in response to either the second respective selected label of the first animation not being the correct label for the first animation or the second respective selected label of the second animation not being the respective correct label for the second animation, (Goodman, [0100]-[0101] , FIG 10 describes known-HIP answer is examined; responses to unknown are used only after acceptable known response; users who fail to give an acceptable known-HIP response are denied access whereas successful users are granted access; [0081] the system only utilizes users who get the last two parts (known HIPs) correct; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goodman with the method/system of Pham and Hua to a second respective selected label for each of the at least three animations; and prevent the second user from accessing the computer resource in response to either the second respective selected label of the first animation not being the correct label for the first animation or the second respective selected label of the second animation not being the respective correct label for the second animation. One would have been motivated to prevent automated or unverified users from misleading the system and improving the reliability of the collected responses (Goodman, [0081], [0101], Fig 10).
Regarding claim 20, Pham discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable instructions for verifying whether to allow a user access to a computer resource, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor cause the processor to:
receive, from the user a respective selected label for each of the at least three animations; (Pham, describes in FIG 1C receive, from the client device, (Col. 7, Lines 40-44) an input of a respective selected label (Col. 1, Lines 19-38, FIG 1C) for each of the at least three animations (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
allow the user to access the computer resource in response to the respective selected label of the first animation being the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective selected label of the second animation being the respective correct label for the second animation; (Pham, describes allow access (Col. 15, Lines 2-5) to the user based at least in part on the respective selected label of the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13, FIG 1C) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) and the respective selected label of the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
Pham fails to explicitly disclose transmit at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation is not associated with a correct label.
However, in an analogous art, Hua discloses transmit at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation is not associated with a correct label; (Hua, [0120], [0020], [0085] sending animations to display on a client device wherein the animations are associated with an incorrect label as described in [0035], [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hua with the method/system of Pham to include transmit at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective correct label and at least a third animation is not associated with a correct label. One would have been motivated to optimizing multi-class multimedia data classification by leveraging negative multimedia data items to train classifiers (Hua, [0004]).
Pham and Hua fail to explicitly disclose associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and add the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number.
However, in an analogous art, Goodman discloses associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and (Goodman, [0081] describes the system only utilizes answers from users who get the last two known HIPs correct; [0073] describes the unknown response is saved in a database 670 for comparison with other users; [0083]-[0084] describes a random unknown image presented to a plurality of users; responses establish acceptable answers; [0097] repeats the process for 50, 100 or 500 users; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
add the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number, (Goodman, [0094] describes consistency based on a percentage of users exceeding a minimum threshold; [0094] consistent answers annotate an answer list corresponding to a database of unknown images and those images can then be used in future HIPs; [0084] describes consistently answered images can thereafter be treated as known HIPs; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goodman with the method/system of Pham and Hua to include associate the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and add the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number. One would have been motivated to present known and unknown challenges together and to use responses to the unknown challenge only from users who successfully answer the known challenges for the purpose of preventing automated users from misleading the system and to permit reliable user responses to be used to establish acceptable answers for previously unknown challenge material (Goodman, [0073], [0081] and [0084]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (“Pham,” US 10,838,066), Hua et al (“Hua,” US 20160217349) in view of Goodman et al (“Goodman,” US 20050066201) and further in view of Ford et al (“Ford,” US 20220303272).
Regarding claim 2, Pham. Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Pham. Hua and Goodman fail to explicitly disclose wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation.
However, in an analogous art, Ford discloses wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation, (Ford, describes [0167] wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation [0166], [0171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ford with the method/system of Pham, Hua and Goodman to include wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation. One would have been motivated to present challenges to users that require inference to real-world properties (Ford, [0001]).
Regarding claim 3, Pham. Hua and Goodman disclose the apparatus of claim 2.
Ford further discloses wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation, (Ford, describes in [0167] wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation [0166], [0171])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ford with the method/system of Pham, Hua and Goodman include wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation. One would have been motivated to present challenges to users that require inference to real-world properties (Ford, [0001]).
Claims 12 and 15-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (“Pham,” US 10,838,066) Hua et al (“Hua,” US 20160217349) in view of Qvarfordt et al (“Qvarfordt,” US 20080127302) and further in view of Goodman et al (“Goodman,” US 20050066201).
Regarding claim 12, Pham discloses a method of verifying whether to allow a user access to a computer resource, comprising:
receiving, from the user, a respective selected label for each of the at least three animations; (Pham, describes in FIG 1C receive, from the client device, (Col. 7, Lines 40-44) an input of a respective selected label (Col. 1, Lines 19-38, FIG 1C) for each of the at least three animations (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
allow the user to access the computer resource in response to the respective selected label of the first animation being the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective selected label of the second animation being the respective correct label for the second animation; (Pham, describes allow access (Col. 15, Lines 2-5) to the user based at least in part on the respective selected label of the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13, FIG 1C) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the first animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) and the respective selected label of the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13) being the respective correct label (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-9) for the second animation (Col. 6, Lines 1-13)
Pham fails to explicitly disclose transmitting at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective corrective label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label.
However, in an analogous art, Hua discloses transmitting at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective corrective label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label (Hua, [0120], [0020], [0085] sending animations to display on a client device wherein the animations are associated with an incorrect label as described in [0035], [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hua with the method/system of Pham to include transmitting at least three animations for display to the user, wherein at least a first animation and a second animation of the at least three animations are associated with a respective corrective label and at least a third animation of the animations is not associated with a correct label. One would have been motivated to optimizing multi-class multimedia data classification by leveraging negative multimedia data items to train classifiers (Hua, [0004]).
Pham and Hua fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations;
However, in an analogous art, Qvarfordt discloses wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations; (Qvarfordt, [0052] discloses that users solve multiple CAPTCHAs consisting of two sets including already vetted CAPTCHAs. The answers to this first set determine whether the entity is human and whether access is allowed. Once a CAPTCHA has been sufficiently vetted, a solution or solution set is associated with it; [0052] discloses a second set of novel CAPTCHAs whose reasonable human responses are not yet established. User responses to this second set are used to determine reasonable responses, and only after sufficient vetting is the CAPTCHA moved into the first set and associated with a solution; [0015] describes a video clip CAPTCHA includes a first test and a second video clip, with the user’s solution to the second test stored and compared to other users’ solutions; after a statistically significant number of solutions, the most common solution become the proper solution)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qvarfordt with the method/system of Pham and Hua to include wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations. One would have been motivated to provide vetted and novel CAPTCHA sets to permit known challenges to verify that a user is human while using responses from verified users to establish reliable solutions for previously novel challenges (Qvarfordt, [0052], [0015]).
Goodman, Hua and Qvarfordt fail to explicitly disclose associating the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and adding the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number.
However, in an analogous art, Goodman discloses associating the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and (Goodman, [0081] describes the system only utilizes answers from users who get the last two known HIPs correct; [0073] describes the unknown response is saved in a database 670 for comparison with other users; [0083]-[0084] describes a random unknown image presented to a plurality of users; responses establish acceptable answers; [0097] repeats the process for 50, 100 or 500 users; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
adding the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number, (Goodman, [0094] describes consistency based on a percentage of users exceeding a minimum threshold; [0094] consistent answers annotate an answer list corresponding to a database of unknown images and those images can then be used in future HIPs; [0084] describes consistently answered images can thereafter be treated as known HIPs; also see [0011], [0009], [0111])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goodman with the method/system of Pham, Hua and Qvarfordt to include wherein the first animation and the second animation are selected from a pool of labeled animations and the third animation is selected from a pool of unlabeled animations; associating the respective selected label for the third animation with the third animation as a potential label for the third animation in response to allowing the user to access the computer resource based on the respective correct labels for the first animation and the second animation; and adding the third animation to a pool of labeled animations with the potential label as a correct label for the third animation in response to a number of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of allowed users being the same and satisfying a threshold number. One would have been motivated to present known and unknown challenges together and to use responses to the unknown challenge only from users who successfully answer the known challenges for the purpose of preventing automated users from misleading the system and to permit reliable user responses to be used to establish acceptable answers for previously unknown challenge material (Goodman, [0073], [0081] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 12.
Pham further discloses wherein transmitting at least three animations for display to the user on a client device comprises transmitting selectable labels for the first animation and the second animation, wherein the user selects the respective selected label for each of the first animation and the second animation from the selectable labels, (Pham, Figures 1C-1F; Col. 14, Lines 62-67; Col. 15, Lines 1-15, FIG 4, describes wherein to transmit the at least three animations for display to the user on a client device, the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to transmit selectable labels for the first animation and the second animation, wherein the user selects the respective selected label for each of the first animation and the second animation from the selectable labels)
Hua further discloses wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation, (Hua, [0120], [0020], [0085] describes wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation as described in [0035], [0074])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hua with the method/system of Pham to include wherein the selectable labels include the respective correct label for the first animation and the respective correct label for the second animation to be displayed with at least two incorrect labels for each of the first animation and the second animation. One would have been motivated to optimizing multi-class multimedia data classification by leveraging negative multimedia data items to train classifiers (Hua, [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 12.
Pham further discloses wherein the respective selected label for the third animation is a text entry generated by the user, the method, further comprising performing statistical clustering of text entries of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of users to select a correct label for the third animation, (Pham describes in Col. 11, Lines 3-8 & 32-52 describes wherein the respective selected label for the third animation is a text entry generated by the user, (Col. 18, Line 1; Col. 9, Lines 4-24 describes the method, further comprising performing statistical clustering of text entries of potential labels for the third animation from a plurality of users to select a correct label for the third animation as described in Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 12, Lines 1-8)
Regarding claim 17, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 12.
Pham further discloses further comprising transmitting selectable labels for the third animation, wherein the selectable labels include randomly generated combinations of actors and actions or potential labels for the third animation that were previously received from other users, (Pham describes in Column 18, Line 1, Col. 9, Lines 49-62; Col. 10, Lines 7-35 describes further comprising transmitting selectable labels for the third animation, wherein the selectable labels include randomly generated combinations of actors and actions or potential labels for the third animation that were previously received from the other users as described in Figures 1B-1F)
Regarding claim 18, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 17.
Pham further discloses further comprising associating a potential label for the third animation as a correct label for the third animation in response to the potential label being selected by a threshold number of users, (Pham, Col. 18, Line 1 & 130, FIG 1C; Col. 9, Lines 25-37 describes further comprising associating a potential label for the third animation as a correct label for the third animation in response to the potential label being selected by a threshold number of users)
Regarding claim 19, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 12.
Pham further discloses wherein allowing the user to access the computer resource is also based on whether the respective selected label for each of the at least three animations is received within a time limit (Pham, describes Col. 18, Line 1 wherein the one or more processors, individually or in combination, are configured to allowing the user to access the computer resource is also based on whether (Col. 15, Lines 1-15) the respective selected label for each of the at least three animations (Col. 10, Lines 51-67; Col. 11, Lines 1-8) is received within a time limit (Col. 12, Lines 19-34)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham et al (“Pham,” US 10,838,066), Hua et al (“Hua,” US 20160217349), Qvarfordt et al (“Qvarfordt,” US 20080127302) in view of Goodman et al (“Goodman,” US 20050066201) and further in view of Ford et al (“Ford,” US 20220303272).
Regarding claim 13, Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman disclose the method of claim 12.
Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman fail to explicitly disclose wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation, wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation.
However, in an analogous art, Ford discloses wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation, wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation, (Ford, describes [0167] wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation, [0166], [0171] wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation [0166], [0171])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ford with the method/system of Pham, Hua, Qvarfordt and Goodman to include wherein the respective correct label includes an indication of an actor in the animation and an indication of an action in the animation, wherein the actor in the first animation is different than the actor in the second animation. One would have been motivated to present challenges to users that require inference to real-world properties (Ford, [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J WILCOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 A.M. to 5 P.M..
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, Luu T. Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/JAMES J WILCOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2439
/LUU T PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights