DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 07/09/2026 for 18665232. Claims 1-12 are presented.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendments, the 112(f) interpretation of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant's amendments, the 112(b) rejection of claims 3, 4, and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner also notes that while Applicant argues that the claim does not recite a mental process [pgs. 6:3-4, 7:3-4, 9:5], the Office Action cites the selecting, identifying, and adding limitations as covering a method of mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components ("apparatus", "memories", "processors") and thus fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas per Step 2A, Prong 1 and is still directed toward an abstract idea.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that the claims recite "a specific technological apparatus/process", "hardware components and device-level operations", or "a particular architecture" [pgs. 6:4-5, 7:3-5, 8:3-5], mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) [MPEP 2106.04(d)]. The claim recites an apparatus, memories, and processors at a high level of generality that amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract on a computer. Merely applying the exception using generic computer components does not integrate to the judicial exception into a practical application per Step 2A, Prong 2 and is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to Applicant's arguments that the claims constitute a "technological solution to a technological problem" [pg. 8:1-2], an indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art [MPEP 2106.05(a)]. Applicant asserts that the claimed invention makes it easy for the user to select operation target images by referring to the displayed tag information [Specification, para 0058]. Facilitating tag identification addresses a human user activity and is not considered a technical functionality of the computer itself. Aiding or assisting users in their processing of information with a computer is not sufficient in showing an improvement in computer functionality. Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019) [MPEP 2106.05(a)]. Therefore, the problem addressed by the original disclosure does not improve the functioning of the computer itself per Step 2A, Prong 2 and recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Applicants arguments that the additional claim elements of "displaying" are not well-understood, routine, nor conventional [pg. 8:1], the courts have recognized presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed as insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(a)]. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). Displaying information falls under extra-solution activity including both pre-solution and post-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Therefore, the additional claim limitations do not recite significantly more per Step 2B and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current rejection of record under Ito in response to the newly amended limitations.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., "dynamically determining operation-specific display tags using a stored operation-to-tag association relation" [pgs. 10:4-11:1], where "operation-specific tag presentation is automatically controlled using stored operation-to-tag associations for displayed images" [pg. 12:4]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remain rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above.
Dependent claims 2-10 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitation of select an operation for the one or more images, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, "selecting" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of an operation with respect to observed images.
The limitation of identify at least one display target tag based on the selected operation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "identifying" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluation of a display tag based on the evaluated operation.
The limitation of a case where a tag added to the one or more images corresponds to the at least one display target tag, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, "a case" in the context of this claim encompasses a user evaluating that an observed or evaluated tag in relation to observed images has a relationship with the evaluated display target tag.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an apparatus, memories storing instructions, processors executing stored instructions, display units, operation unit, identification unit, and automatically identifying by referring to information stored in a memory in associated with the selected operation, an operation. The apparatus, memories storing instructions, processors executing stored instructions, units, and operation are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer [MPEP 2106.05(h)].
The "referring to information stored in a memory" and "displaying" limitations represents extra-solution activity because they are merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim, amounting to mere data gathering or mere data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the user performs, using the computer components as a tool.
Accordingly, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a apparatus, memories storing instructions, processors executing stored instructions, display units, operation unit, identification unit, and an operation amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The "referring" limitations, as discussed above, represent mere data gathering and are nominal or tangential additions to the claim. The "displaying" limitations, as discussed above, represent mere data output and are nominal or tangential additions to the claim. Further, both of these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
With respect to the "referring" and "displaying" limitations, the courts have similarly found limitations directed to storing and retrieving information in memory and displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics", "electronic recordkeeping", and "storing and retrieving information in memory"].
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also recite limitations of wherein a case where the plurality of display target tags is added to one image of the one or more images (claim 2); wherein the tag added to the one or more images is added based on a priority level of the tag that is obtained as a result of analyzing the one or more images (claim 3); identifying the at least one display target tag based on information in a table (claim 4); selecting at least one operation target image from the one or more images based on an input (claim 5); identifying a warning target tag based on the selected operation, a case where a tag added to the at least one operation target image corresponds to the warning target tag in executing the selected operation (claim 6); wherein the tag added to the one or more images is added based on a likelihood of the tag that is obtained as a result of analyzing the one or more images, a case where the warning target tag is added to the plurality of operation target images (claim 7) that are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components encompassing user evaluations of an observation or evaluation of an observed tag added to observed images, an evaluation of adding a tag to an observed image based on an observation or evaluation of a priority level based on an evaluation or analysis of observed images, an observation or evaluation of a display target tag based on observing information of a table, an observation or evaluation of multiple images, an observation or evaluation of a warning target tag based on the evaluated operation, an evaluation where an observed tag has a relationship with a warning target tag, an observation or evaluation of a tag added to observed images based on an evaluation of a likelihood based on an observation or analysis of observed images, and an observation or evaluation where a warning target tag is added to observed operation target images and thus fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite additional limitations including a display unit (claims 2, 3); identification unit (claims 4, 6); a table (claim 4); the operation unit executing the selected operation (claim 5); a third display unit, executing the selected operation by the operation unit (claim 6); at least one of a delete operation, a download operation, and a share operation (claim 8) that are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and additional limitations including a plurality of display target tags (claim 2); a plurality of operation target images (claim 7) that generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computer systems [MPEP 2106.05(h)] and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The dependent claims also recite additional limitations of displaying information (claims 2, 3, 6, 7) and an input (claim 5) that represent insignificant extra-solution activity including nominal or tangential additions to the claim, amounting to mere data collection or data output [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of storing data and data display are recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities [MPEP 2106.05(d))(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics", "electronic recordkeeping", and "storing and retrieving information in memory"] and remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration [MPEP 2106.05(g)]. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components, linking the use of an exception to a technological field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of an apparatus, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an apparatus amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites method steps substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and recite an abstract idea. While the claim recites additional elements of a medium, program, and apparatus, the elements are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a medium, program, and apparatus amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 20200272652 A1).
As to claim 1, Ito discloses an information processing apparatus [para 0064, client device] comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions [para 0034, medium having program]; and
one or more processors which executes the stored instructions causing the information processing apparatus to function [para 0034, computer executes program method recorded on medium] as:
a first display unit [Fig. 2, para 0064-0065, client includes display] configured to display one or more images [Fig. 4, para 0129, 0138, client displays image];
an operation unit [Fig. 2, para 0068-0069, client includes touch panel obtaining input] configured to select an operation for the one or more images [para 0138-0139, user performs tap input designating image];
an identification unit configured to automatically identify, based on the selected operation, at least one display target tag by referring to information stored in a memory in association with the selected operation [Figs. 2, 6, para 0073, 0075-0081, 0088, 0142, display tag information (read: display target tag) assigned to designation image by client units (read: automatically, note broadest reasonable interpretation of "automatically" includes being performed by a machine and does not preclude intervening steps or input from a user) analyzing image including information retained in storage region]; and
a second display unit configured to display information about the at least one display target tag with the one or more images in a case where a tag added to the one or more images corresponds to the at least one display target tag before execution of the selected operation on the one or more images tag [Figs. 2, 6, para 0073-0075, 0081-0082, 0142-0143, display screen displays text information of tag with thumbnail of designation image, where automatic assignment of tag includes tag occurs with each captured image before client unit displays tag information, note flow of performed steps as shown in Figure 2].
As to claim 2, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one display target tag comprises a plurality of display target tags [Fig. 6, para 0089-0090, tag information includes category tags], and
wherein in a case where the plurality of display target tags is added to one image of the one or more images [Fig. 6, 0089-0090, 0142-0143, category tags automatically assigned to designation image], the second display unit displays information about one tag or a predetermined number of tags among the plurality of added display target tags [Fig. 6, para 0081-0082, 0142-0143, display screen displays text information of category tags automatically assigned to designation image].
As to claim 3, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the tag added to the one or more images is added based on a priority level of the tag that is obtained as a result of analyzing the one or more images [para 0080-0081, 0088-0092, automatically assign tag to designation image based on evaluation value of image], and
wherein the second display unit displays information about a display target tag with a higher priority level among the plurality of display target tags [Fig. 6, para 0090-0092, 0142-0143, display screen displays text information of automatically assigned tag (read: display target tag) with automatically assigned tags in descending order (read: higher priority level) based on number].
As to claim 5, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein after selecting the operation for the one or more images, the operation unit selects at least one operation target image from the one or more images based on an input and executes the selected operation on the selected at least one operation target image [Fig. 5, para 0138-0140, designate image selected by tap input desired to be browsed as designation image (read: operation target image) and display browsing screen of designation image].
As to claim 9, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second display unit overlays and displays the information about the at least one display target tag on the one or more images [Figs. 6, 9, para 0081-0082, 0142-0143, 0159, display selection screen including text information of tag automatically assigned to image as layer superimposed over image in lower layer].
As to claim 10, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second display unit displays the information about the at least one display target tag outside and near the one or more images [Figs. 6, 9, para 0081-0082, 0142-0143, 0159, display selection screen including text information of tag automatically assigned to image as separate (read: outside) layer and superimposed over (read: near) image in lower layer].
As to claim 11, Ito discloses a method for controlling an information processing apparatus [Fig. 2, para 0064-0065, client device includes display] configured to perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 12, Ito discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing an information processing apparatus [Fig. 2, para 0034, 0064, medium having program executed by client processing device] configured to perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Onuki (US 20050146639 A1).
As to claim 4, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the identification unit identifies the at least one display target tag based on information … associating an operation for the one or more images with the at least one display target tag [para 0077-0078, 0080-0081, 0084, assign tag information to image based on determining result of analyzing (read: operation) image in relation to tag information].
However, Ito does not specifically disclose information in a table.
Onuki discloses information in a table [Figs. 12A-12B, para 0091-0094, record information in memory, see tables in Figures 12A and 12B].
Ito and Onuki are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of photo graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information as disclosed by Ito with the table information as disclosed by Onuki with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ito as described above to utilize known standard data structures [Onuki, para 0091].
As to claim 6, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein the identification unit identifies a warning target tag … [para 0075-0076, 0079, 0081-0082, assign tag information regarding scene (read: warning target tag, note broadest reasonable interpretation of warning includes any form of notice) to designated image],
the information processing apparatus further comprising a third display unit configured to display a warning in a case where a tag added to the at least one operation target image corresponds to the warning target tag … [Fig. 6, para 0081-0082, 0142-0143, display screen displays scene text information (read: warning) of scene tag automatically assigned to designation image].
However, Ito does not specifically disclose a warning target tag based on the selected operation, the warning target tag in executing the selected operation by the operation unit.
Onuki discloses a warning target tag based on the selected operation [Figs. 5C, 12A-12B, para 0055, 0074-0075, 0095-0096, create correction tag (read: warning target tag) based on selecting pink-eye correction (read: operation)], display a warning in a case where a tag added to the at least one operation target image corresponds to the warning target tag the warning target tag in executing the selected operation by the operation unit [Fig. 17, para 0128, print information (read: warning, note broadest reasonable interpretation of warning includes any form of notice) with image (read: operation target image) where pink-eye correction has been performed and correction tag applied].
Ito and Onuki are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of photo graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the warning target tag and displayed warning as disclosed by Ito with the warning target tag based on a selected operation and displaying a warning corresponding to the warning target tag based on executing the selected operation as disclosed by Onuki with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Ito as described above to easily determine desired photos [Onuki, para 0128-0130].
As to claim 7, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6,
wherein the tag added to the one or more images is added based on a likelihood of the tag that is obtained as a result of analyzing the one or more images [para 0081-0082, 0084, automatically assign tag to image based on reliability information after analyzing result of image].
However, Ito does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one operation target image comprises a plurality of operation target images, and wherein in a case where the warning target tag is added to the plurality of operation target images, the third display unit displays a warning related to an operation target image with the warning target tag with a higher priority level.
Ito teaches the at least one operation target image [Fig. 4, para 0138-0140, designation image] but not explicitly wherein the at least one operation target image comprises a plurality of operation target images, and wherein in a case where the warning target tag is added to the plurality of operation target images, the third display unit displays a warning related to an operation target image with the warning target tag with a higher priority level.
However, Ito teaches wherein in a case where the warning target tag is added to target images [para 0081-0082, 0090, assign tag information regarding scene to images], the third display unit displays a warning related to a target image with the warning target tag with a higher priority level [Fig. 6, para 0081-0082, 0090-0091, 0142-0143, display screen displays text information (read: warning) of automatically assigned tag with designation image (read: target image) in descending order of number of times tag has been assigned (read: priority level)] and Onuki teaches wherein the at least one operation target image comprises a plurality of operation target images, and wherein in a case where the warning target tag is added to the plurality of operation target images [para 0074-0075, 0095-0096, 0100, 0102, 0128, designate images (read: operation target images) where pink-eye correction has been performed and correction tag applied].
Ito and Onuki are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of photo graphical user interfaces. Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Ito adding warning target tags to images and displaying warnings related to images with higher priority warning target tags to the teachings of Onuki applying warning tags to a plurality of operation target images with a reasonable expectation of success to result in wherein the at least one operation target image comprises a plurality of operation target images, and wherein in a case where the warning target tag is added to the plurality of operation target images, the third display unit displays a warning related to an operation target image with the warning target tag with a higher priority level [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Ito to easily determine desired photos [Onuki, para 0128-0130].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
As to claim 8, Ito discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the operation for the one or more images includes at least one of a[n] operation [Figs. 4-5, para 0138-0140, user taps image desired to be browsed].
Ito teaches wherein the operation for the one or more images includes an operation [Figs. 4-5, para 0138-0140, user taps image desired to be browsed] but not explicitly wherein the operation for the one or more images includes at least one of a delete operation, a download operation, and a share operation.
However, Ito teaches performing multiple operations for the one or more images [Figs. 4-6, para 0129, 0131-0135, 0140-0142, select image buttons to perform button commands] and that image operations includes at least one of a delete operation, a download operation, and a share operation [Figs. 4-5, para 0135, 0141, image buttons include delete, note strikethrough indicates non-selected alternative, also note buttons include share command].
Ito is analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of photo graphical user interfaces. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Ito performing an operation for the one or more image to any image operation with a reasonable expectation of success to result in wherein the operation for the one or more images includes at least one of a delete operation, a download operation, and a share operation [see MPEP 2143].
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this teaching to Ito to select and execute various other functions [Ito, para 0136].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 20200092429 A1) generally discloses photo tag assignment and designating image correction functions.
Ito (US 20200092484 A1) generally discloses photo tag assignment and evaluating image warnings.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights