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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 5/9/2024, 5/30/2024, 8/2/2024, 9/24/2024, 2/18/2025, and 10/30/2025 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claims 1-5 elements including storage, controller, user terminal, image switching, image displaying features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following claims 1-5 highlighted elements are vague and indefinite because the identification information and time information are not clear;
“…an identification information on a person as a subject and a time information are added…
a different identification information from a first identification information, which is the identification information added to the first image…
a same identification information as the first identification information is added and to which a time information indicating a different time from that indicated by the first time information is added…”
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.
The USPTO Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility MPEP 2111.01:
CLAIMS MUST BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATION
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
• Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
• Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a recording medium typically covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See the OG Notice of 23 February 2010 entitled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media", 1351 OG 212.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Since none of the clearly and unambiguously exclude propagating signals from the full scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, because signals can be considered to "store" the values of the information being transmitted, at least during the transient period of the transmission, the term "storage" also fails to clearly and unambiguously exclude such signals from the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 3 defines a recording medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code). However, the claim does not define a “non-transitory computer-readable medium or non-transitory computer-readable memory” and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some non-transitory computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily non-transitory computer readable, and thus NOT able to impart any functionality of the recited program.
The examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to embody “non-transitory computer-readable medium” or equivalent; assuming the specification does NOT define the computer readable medium as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium” which are deemed non-statutory (refer to “note” below). Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho (US 2015/0253962).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a remote monitoring apparatus comprising:
a storage that stores a plurality of images to each of which an identification information on a person as a subject and a time information are added (see para. 0098, 0120, Cho discusses electronic device displays multiple images to a user that contain a person and time); and
a controller that is programmed to distribute a first image of the plurality of images to a user terminal (see para. 0120, Cho discusses electronic device displays multiple images to a user), wherein
the controller is programmed to distribute to the user terminal a second image to which a different identification information from a first identification information, which is the identification information added to the first image, is added and to which a time information indicating a same time as that indicated by a first time information, which is the time information of the first image, is added when receiving from the user terminal a first switching instruction indicating image switching of the first image in a first direction (see para. 0117, 0120, Cho discusses electronic device display that receives dragging gesture that displays a second image that matches the time information of the first image), and
distribute to the user terminal a third image to which a same identification information as the first identification information is added and to which a time information indicating a different time from that indicated by the first time information is added, when receiving from the user terminal a second switching instruction indicating image switching of the first image in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see para. 0098, 0120, Cho discusses electronic device displays multiple images to a user that contain the same person with different time information).
Claim 2 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 3 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding recording medium.
Claim 4 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding remote monitoring system.
Claim 5 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding image displaying apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chung et al. (US 2017/0177115) discusses a thumbnail image of the first image can be displayed in the blank space upon movement of the drag input to notify the user that images to be displayed after the first image are associated with the first person.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights