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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should avoid phrases which can be implied such as “Disclosed herein…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 also recite “nearby”. It is unclear the metes and bounds for nearby, such as within a certain radius, communication Bluetooth range, or other communication range to the wearable device. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claims 1 and 14 also recite “active”. It is unclear the metes and bounds for nearby, such as whether active intends to be powered on, active means the device is about to capture an image, or active in that the device is pinging the wearable device with communication signal request. The examiner has interpreted the claims as best understood.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews US 10412434 (hereinafter Matthews), in view of Torikai US 20170353655 (hereinafter Torikai), and in further view of Blom et al US 20070162971 (hereinafter Blom).
As to claim 1, Matthews teaches a system (Figures 5 and 6 show block diagrams of user equipment device and the media system), comprising: a memory (Figure 5, reference number 508 “Storage (e.g., RAM, ROM, Hard Disk, Removable Disk, etc.,)); and at least one processor (Figure 5, reference number 506 “Processing Circuitry”) coupled to the memory (columns 36, lines 55+ to column 37, lines 1-20 and Figure 5 reveal the storage 508 is coupled to the processing circuitry) and configured to:
send, to the camera-capable device, a request for identification information of a user associated with the camera-capable device (Figure 8, reference number 810 and column 47, lines 14-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system transmit a discovery message/request to identify devices in the environment after determining that the media asset comprises content features of the individual related to a user. The request/message is sent to the user computer equipment, or wireless user communication devices which are camera capable devices) ;
receive, from the camera-capable device, a response comprising identification information for the user (Figure 8, reference number 810 and column 47, lines 14-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system receives a response that involves identifying the second device of another user );
determine, based on the identification information, an authorization level for the user (Figure 8, reference number 814 and column 47, lines 40-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system determines, based on the identified second device, that the second user is authorized to grant access rights for the second device); and
send, to the camera-capable device, authorization metadata generated for the camera-capable device based on the authorization level for the user (Figure 8, reference number 818 and column 47, lines 46-64 disclose the control circuitry of the system obtains interaction data between the individual and the second user and determines a degree of interaction between the individual and the second user, and sends access rights/authorization metadata for the second device to the first device (user computer equipment, or wireless user communication devices which are camera capable devices)).
Matthews does not teach cause an electronically-enabled wearable device worn by a subject to detect a nearby camera-capable device; determine that a camera of the nearby camera-capable device is active; the camera-capable device is configured to embed the authorization metadata in media captured by the camera-capable device while the camera-capable device is within range of and remains detectable by the wearable device worn by the subject; and the authorization metadata is configured to allow or disallow, based on the authorization level of the user, one or more of viewing, saving, or sharing of the captured media.
Torikai teaches cause an electronically-enabled wearable device worn by a subject to detect a nearby camera-capable device (paragraph 73 discloses a wearable device can determine that a user has a digital camera/camera-capable device); and determine that a camera of the nearby camera-capable device is active (paragraphs 73 and 190-191 disclose a wearable device can determine that a camera is active state where the user can shoot pictures with the camera).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera capable device teachings in Matthew’s system and incorporate the wearable device as taught by Torikai to provide a technique capable of reducing or preventing the missing of shooting chances for a user carrying an imaging apparatus (paragraph 12 of Torikai).
The combination of Matthew in view of Torikai does not teach, but Blom teaches the camera-capable device is configured to embed the authorization metadata in media captured by the camera-capable device while the camera-capable device is within range of and remains detectable by the wearable device worn by the subject (paragraphs 8-9 disclose a content capturing device may detect one or more devices having one or more predetermined characteristics at the time a particular content/image was captured. The capturing device and other mobile devices in proximity to the capturing device may have BLUETOOTH wireless capabilities. Thus, the capturing device may detect and communicate with the other BLUETOOTH wireless devices within a wireless range. Alternatively, the capturing device may communicate with a wireless or cellular server that may determine a list of matching devices based on stored information that matches a set of received parameters. The captured content/image may contain metadata that includes a variety of information related to the captured content); and the authorization metadata is configured to allow or disallow, based on the authorization level of the user, one or more of viewing, saving, or sharing of the captured media (paragraphs 8-9 disclose the captured content/image may contain metadata that includes a variety of information related to the captured content. Such metadata may include the time the content was captured, the duration of the content (i.e., video content), the size of the content and/or authorization information. For example, if a subject of captured content authorizes the use and storage of the captured content, such authorization may be embedded within the metadata of a content file storing the content. Such authorization information may be used to determine whether the content may be published or printed by a third party photograph printer).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera capable device teachings in Matthew’s system in view of the wearable device as taught by Torikai with Blom’s teachings of the authorization metadata embedded in the camera-capable device such that an individual of any form of multimedia content has the ability to exercise control over their images (paragraph 4 of Blom).
As to claim 2, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the wearable device comprises eyewear (Torikai: paragraph 51 discloses the wearable device may be eyeglasses with a wireless communication function). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 3, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the eyewear comprises a goggles, face shield, eyeglasses, or sunglasses (Torikai: paragraph 51 discloses the wearable device may be eyeglasses or helmet with a wireless communication function). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 4, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the wearable device is in communication with a mobile device associated with the subject (Torikai: paragraph 115 reveals that the smartphone and the wearable device are configured to be able to wirelessly communicate with each other). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
As to claim 5, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the at least one image captured by the camera-capable device includes the subject (Matthew: column 47, lines 26-29 reveal the control circuitry determines whether the media asset/image comprises content featuring an individual related to the second user. Column 32, lines 38-45 reveal media asset can be images).
As to claim 12, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the media captured by the camera-capable device is an image (Matthew: column 47, lines 26-29 reveal the control circuitry determines whether the media asset./image comprises content featuring an individual related to the second user. Column 32, lines 38-45 reveal media asset can be images).
As to claim 13, the combination of Matthew in view of Torikai and Blom teaches wherein the media captured by the camera-capable device is an video (Matthew: column 47, lines 26-29 reveal the control circuitry determines whether the media asset comprises content featuring an individual related to the second user. Column 32, lines 38-45 reveal media asset can be a video).
As to claim 14, Matthew teaches a computer-implemented method (Figure 8 discloses a method) comprising:
sending, to the camera-capable device, a request for identification information of a user associated with the camera-capable device (Figure 8, reference number 810 and column 47, lines 14-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system transmit a discovery message/request to identify devices in the environment after determining that the media asset comprises content features the individual related to a user. The request/message is sent to user computer equipment, or wireless user communication devices which are camera capable devices) ;
receiving, from the camera-capable device, a response comprising identification information for the user (Figure 8, reference number 810 and column 47, lines 14-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system receives a response that involves identifying the second device of another user );
determining, based on the identification information, an authorization level for the user (Figure 8, reference number 814 and column 47, lines 40-45 disclose the control circuitry of the system determines, based on the identified second device, that the second user is authorized to grant access rights for the second device); and
sending, to the camera-capable device, a camera control signal generated for the camera capable device based on the authorization level for the user (Figure 8, reference number 818 and column 47, lines 46-64 disclose the control circuitry of the system obtains interaction data between the individual and the second user and determines a degree of interaction between the individual and the second user , and sends access rights/authorization metadata for the second device to the first device (user computer equipment, or wireless user communication devices which are camera capable devices)).
Matthews does not teach detecting, by an electronically-enabled wearable device worn by a subject, a nearby camera-capable device; determining that a camera of the nearby camera-capable device is active; wherein the camera capable device is configured to disable the media capturing function of the camera-capable device upon receiving the camera control signal.
Torikai teaches detecting, by an electronically-enabled wearable device worn by a subject, a nearby camera-capable device (paragraph 73 discloses a wearable device can determine that a user has a digital camera/camera-capable device); determining that a camera of the nearby camera-capable device is active (paragraphs 73 and 190-191 disclose a wearable device can determine that a camera is active/state where the user can shoot pictures with the digital camera).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera capable device teachings in Matthew’s system and incorporate the wearable device as taught by Torikai to provide a technique capable of reducing or preventing the missing of shooting chances for a user carrying an imaging apparatus (paragraph 12 of Torikai).
The combination of Matthew in view of Torikai does not teach, but Blom teaches wherein the camera capable device is configured to disable the media capturing function of the camera-capable device upon receiving the camera control signal (paragraphs 8-9 disclose the captured content/image may contain metadata that includes a variety of information related to the captured content. Such metadata may include authorization information. For example, if a subject of captured content authorizes the use and storage of the captured content, such authorization may be embedded within the metadata of a content file storing the content. Such authorization information may be used to determine whether the content may be blocked, or published or printed by a third party photograph printer. Paragraph 34 also disclose if a target device responds in the negative/sends a negative signal, the capturing device may ignore the device or eliminate it from the authorization list and does not transmit the captured content file to the target device. Thus, the target device is disabled/blocked from receiving the captured content file).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the authorization metadata in Matthew’s system in view of the wearable device as taught by Torikai with Blom’s teachings of the authorization metadata embedded in the camera-capable device such that an individual of any form of multimedia content has the ability to exercise control over their images (paragraph 4 of Blom).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews US 10412434 (hereinafter Matthews), in view of Torikai US 20170353655 (hereinafter Torikai), in further view of Blom et al US 20070162971 (hereinafter Blom), and in further view of Jin et al US 20100251109 (hereinafter Jin).
As to claim 6, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai and Blom teaches all the limitations recited in claim 5 above, but does not teach wherein the authorization level for the user is one of: a first authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view, save and share the captured media; a second authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view and save the captured media; a third authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view the captured image; and a fourth authorization level indicating that the user is not authorized to view, save, or share the captured media.
Jin teaches wherein the authorization level for the user is one of: a first authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view, save and share the captured media; a second authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view and save the captured media; a third authorization level indicating that the user is authorized to view the captured image (paragraph 82 and Figure 7, sharing level 1 reveal the apparatus provide the corresponding picture in the form of a thumbnail for the user to view the thumbnail of the picture); and a fourth authorization level indicating that the user is not authorized to view, save, or share the captured media (paragraph 82 and Figure 7, sharing level 0 reveal the apparatus may not share the corresponding picture at sharing level 0. As shown in Figure 7, for sharing level 0, a user is not able to view, save, nor share the photo).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camera capable device in Matthew’s system in view of incorporating a wearable device as taught by Torikai and the Blom’s teachings of the authorization metadata embedded in the camera-capable device with Jin’s teachings of authorized sharing levels to provide pictures differentiated according to sharing level and thus allow the user to control access to pictures according to the requesting user(s) (paragraphs 3 and 5 of Jin).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews US 10412434 (hereinafter Matthews), in view of Torikai US 20170353655 (hereinafter Torikai), in further view of Blom et al US 20070162971 (hereinafter Blom), in further view of Jin et al US 20100251109 (hereinafter Jin), and in further view of Chen et al US 8744143 (hereinafter Chen).
As to claim 7, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, and Jin teaches all the limitations recited in claim 6 above, but does not teach, yet Chen teaches wherein determining an authorization level for the user comprises: determining, based on the identification information for the user, a social connection status indicating a degree of connection between the subject and the user within a social network of the subject (column 3, lines 4-8 disclose within a social network, the photo can have permissions allowing various levels of access depending on the user identification such as social connections of friends, friends of friends, or all members); and
assigning, to the user, an authorization level indicating access rights of the user to the captured media, wherein the authorization level is based on a privacy preference set by the subject and indicating an authorization level for each social connection status value of a set of possible social connection status values (column 2, lines 60+ to column 3, lines 1-8 disclose within a social network, the photograph is assigned/can have permissions allowing various levels of access depending on social connections of friends, friends of friends, all members, etc.). If permissions have yet to be obtained, or if permission has been denied, the photograph is published with one or more individuals blurred. If all permissions have been obtained, the photograph appears without blurring).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify camera capable device in Matthew’s system in view of incorporating a wearable device as taught by Torikai, Blom’s teachings of the authorization metadata embedded in the camera-capable device, and Jin’s teachings of authorized sharing levels with Chen’s teachings of authorization level granted based on social connection to provide improved consent-based technique for ensuring privacy for online photos (column 1, lines 28-30 of Chen).
As to claim 8, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, and Jin teaches all the limitations recited in claim 6 above and further teach providing, to the subject, a prompt comprising identification information for the user, a first option, and a second option, wherein: selection of the first option causes a request to connect to be sent to the user (Jin: paragraphs 49 and 51 disclose a user sends a picture request to the picture sharing apparatus, where another user wants to share his or her pictures. The pictures are set based on the sharing levels of the other users. The sharing level may be based upon user information, user terminal information, or a combination thereof ) ; and selection of the second option causes the prompt to be dismissed (Figure 1 shows a prompt settings where the selection of non-visible, the photo is visible to self, thus dismissing the other selections). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 6.
The combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, and Jin does not teach, yet Chen teaches wherein determining an authorization level for the user comprises: determining, based on the identification information for the user, a social connection status indicating a degree of connection between the subject and the user within a social network of the subject (column 3, lines 4-8 disclose within a social network, the photo can have permissions allowing various levels of access depending on the user identification such as friends, friends of friends, or all members. Thus, the system identifies the social connection status of friends, friends of friends, or all members based on the permission level for the photo).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify camera-capable device in Matthew’s system in view of incorporating a wearable device as taught by Torikai, Blom’s teachings of the authorization metadata embedded in the camera-capable device, and Jin’s teachings of authorized sharing levels with Chen’s teachings of authorization level granted based on social connection to provide improved consent-based technique for ensuring privacy for online photos (column 1, lines 28-30 of Chen).
As to claim 9, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, Jin, and Chen teaches wherein the prompt further comprises a third option and wherein: selection of the third option causes a selectable list of possible authorization levels to be displayed to the subject (Jin: Figure 1 shows the prompt setting of possible authorization levels that are displayed to the subject for friends, family, and “all”); and selection of an authorization level from the list of possible authorization levels causes the selected authorization level to be assigned to the user (Jin: paragraph 10 discloses the differentiation unit may select at least one setting corresponding to the user's sharing level from among a plurality of setting items subjected to different differentiation methods, and differentiates the picture according to the selected setting). Motivation similar to the motivation of claim 8.
As to claim 10, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, Jin, and Chen teaches wherein selection of the first option or the second option causes an authorization level to be assigned to the user based on a user configuration set by the subject indicating an authorization level based on the selected prompt option (Jin: paragraph 10 discloses the differentiation unit may select at least one setting corresponding to the user's sharing level from among a plurality of setting items subjected to different differentiation methods, and differentiates the picture according to the selected setting. Chen: column 2, lines 60+ to column 3, lines 1-8 disclose within a social network, the photograph can have permissions allowing various levels of access depending on friends, friends of friends, all members, etc.). If permissions have yet to be obtained, or if permission has been denied, the photograph is published with one or more individuals blurred. If all permissions have been obtained, the photograph appears without blurring ). Motivation similar to the motivation of claim 8.
As to claim 11, the combination of Matthews in view of Torikai, Blom, Jin, and Chen teaches wherein the prompt is presented to the subject as a heads-up display on the electronically-enabled wearable device (Torikai: paragraph 75 discloses the wearable device can display a message/prompt to the user. The name of the subject can also be displayed with the prompt/message). Motivation similar to the motivation presented in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Choi et al US 20080288499 (hereinafter Choi).
Choi teaches various sharing levels which include viewing and saving/downloading a photo (abstract and paragraph 30) as disclosed in claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA FARROW whose telephone number is (571)272-1856. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30am-4:00pm (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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)270-5143. 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.
/F.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437