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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to U.S.C. 101 filed on 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is of the opinion that claims are not directed to abstract idea because claims recite interfacing with online resources to perform facial image identification and use of metadata to determine when identified person meet specific establish criteria for being added to the online group and sending of the group notification to second electronic devices over a network to trigger opening of the group registration portal on the second devices. None of these features are considered human activity or mental process. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite creating a group of users based on identification data which is an abstract idea. Claims involve series of steps of receiving criteria to filtering people, obtaining an image, detecting a face of people in the image, identifying the people in the image, obtaining metadata for each identified person, create a group of people who match the criteria and sending a group registration notification which is a process that deals with managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people within a group of certain methods of organizing human activity.
The additional elements of the claims such as, user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor perform the steps of receiving criteria to filtering people, obtaining an image, detecting a face of people in the image, identifying the people in the image, obtaining metadata for each identified person, create a group of people who match the criteria and sending a group registration notification. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of creating a group of users based on identification data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additionally, the claims are directed toward Mental processes because claims reciting the concept performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and Mental processes, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to U.S.C 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-17 and 21-26 have been examined.
Claims 4-5, 7, 12, 18, 20 have been canceled by the Applicant.
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 1-3, 6, 8-11, 13-17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
In the instant case, claims 1-3, 6, 8-9 and 21-24, are directed to an electronic device, claims 10-11, 13-17 and 25 are directed to a method and claims 19 and 26 are directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite creating a group of users based on identification data which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “present…; receive…entry criteria…; obtain an image…; detect…face…; interface…to obtain images and/or metadata…; identify… each person…; obtain metadata for each identified person…; create a group…; and send…a notification….” which grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps of receiving criteria to filtering people, obtaining an image, detecting a face of people in the image, identifying the people in the image, obtaining metadata for each identified person, create a group of people who match the criteria and sending a group registration notification which is a process that deals with managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05).
Additionally, the claims are directed toward Mental processes because claims reciting the concept performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as it has been held that a combination of abstract ideas, in this case organizing human activity and Mental processes, is still an abstract idea. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of the claims such as, user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor perform the steps of receiving criteria to filtering people, obtaining an image, detecting a face of people in the image, identifying the people in the image, obtaining metadata for each identified person, create a group of people who match the criteria and sending a group registration notification. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of updating user profile. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, user interface, electronic device, communication system, online resources, memory, output device, and processor the steps of receiving criteria to filtering people, obtaining an image, detecting a face of people in the image, identifying the people in the image, obtaining metadata for each identified person, create a group of people who match the criteria and sending a group registration notification. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of creating a group of users based on identification data. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea of creating a group of users based on identification data. Specifically, claims 2 and 11 reciting computing a confidence score which is part of the abstract idea. Claims 3 describing obtaining the image which is part of the abstract idea of creating a group of users based on identification data. Claims 6, 8-9 and 13-17 describing adding user information into the group and identifying metadata which is part of the abstract idea of creating a group of users based on identification data. Claims 21, 25-26 describing transmitting request and receiving a response which is also a part of the abstract idea. Claim 22 recites creating, storing and uploading group data and sending to another device which is part of the abstract idea of creating a group of users based on identification data. Claim 23 recite receiving user selection and adding and removing data which is also part of the abstract idea. Claim 24 recites determining a group role and assigning the role to the people and adding to the group which is part of the abstract idea of creating a group of users based on identification data. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, 21-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank (US 20140321720) in view of Li (US 20140324993).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 Bank discloses:
presenting, by a processor of an electronic device comprising a display, a group creation user-interface on the display (See paragraph 0045);
obtaining an image comprising a plurality of persons (See paragraph 0019-0020);
detecting, within the image, faces of at least two people among the plurality of persons (See paragraph 0020);
interfacing, via a communication system of the electronic device, with online sources to obtain images and/or other metadata of people to compare with the detected faces in order to identifying each of the at least two people (See paragraph 0021);
obtaining metadata for each identified person of the at least two people, wherein the metadata includes contact information (See paragraph 0021-0023);
creating a group comprising two or more persons from the plurality of persons who match a criteria, wherein persons who are identified in the image but do not meet the established criteria are excluded, based on associated metadata from contact records or social media platforms that establishes the person does not meet the criteria for being in the group (See paragraph 0032-0033 i.e. first-type social distance group);
sending, via the communication system, using contact information obtained for each of the two or more persons, a notification to corresponding second electronic device (See paragraph 0041).
Bank does not explicitly disclose: receiving, within the group creation user-interface, entry of group entry criteria used for filtering people to include within or exclude from an online group during a group creation process; creating a group comprising two or more persons from the plurality of persons who match the group entry a criteria; notification providing information about creation of an online group, the notification triggering opening of a group registration portal on the second electronic device and enabling user login and access to the online group via the second electronic device.
Li discloses: receiving, within the group creation user-interface, entry of group entry criteria (i.e. geographic position) used for filtering people to include within or exclude from an online group during a group creation process (See paragraph 0040-0041 and 0043); creating a group comprising two or more persons from the plurality of persons who match the group entry a criteria; notification providing information about creation of an online group, the notification triggering opening of a group registration portal on the second electronic device and enabling user login and access to the online group via the second electronic device. (See paragraphs 0050-0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Bank reference with the Li reference in order to establish chat group and improve user experiences. (See Li paragraph 0006).
Additionally, with respect to “notification providing information about creation of an online group, the notification triggering opening of a group registration portal on the second electronic device and enabling user login and access to the online group via the second electronic device” This recites the intended result of positively recited steps of sending. It has been held “clause in a claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)), MPEP 21114.04 I.
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank further discloses: wherein further the at least one processor: computes a confidence score for each detected face among the plurality of persons; and creates the group to include each person corresponding to a detected face having a confidence score exceeding a predetermined threshold (See paragraph 0040).
With respect to claims 6 and 13, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank further discloses: automatically adds persons from the plurality of persons to the group based on corresponding metadata for an added person satisfying the group entry criteria. (See paragraph 0032).
With respect to claims 8 and 15, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank further discloses: match a face from the image to a face associated with a stored contact (See paragraph 0021-0023).
With respect to claims 9 and 16, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank further discloses: wherein to obtain metadata for each identified person of the at least two people, the at least one processor: for each of the at least two people, obtains at least one of a telephone number and an email address from the stored or online contact (See paragraph 0021-0023).
With respect to claim 17, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank further discloses: obtaining the image from one of an image capture device or a storage location on the electronic device that contains previously acquired image (See paragraph 0019).
With respect to claims 21 and 25-26, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Li further discloses: transmit, via the communication system to an application computer system on the network, a request for group creation, the application computer system completing the group creation and maintaining access to the created group on the application computer system; and receive a response from the application computer system indicating completion of group creation, wherein at least some of the group creation and management functions are implemented on a network-accessible application (See paragraph 0047-0058). ess to the online group via the second electronic device. (See paragraphs 0050-0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Bank reference with the Li reference in order to establish chat group and improve user experiences. (See Li paragraph 0006).
With respect to claims 22, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Li further discloses: create and store the group on the electronic device; initiate upload of the group data, via the communication system, to an online group repository maintained by a group management server; and send an electronic communication to at least one other electronic device associated with each group member to inform the member of the creation of the group and trigger the at least one other electronic device to present a group login portal enabling the member to enter and access the group using provided group login credentials.(See paragraph 0061-0064 and 0065-0071). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify the Bank reference with the Li reference in order to establish chat group and improve user experiences. (See Li paragraph 0006).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank (US 20140321720) in view of Li (US 20140324993) in further view of ZHANG (US 20210320995).
With respect to claim 3, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank in view of Li does not explicitly disclose: electronic device further comprising an image capture device, and wherein the group creation user-interface presents a selectable button for activating the image capture device, wherein to obtain the image, the at least one processor detects selection of the selectable button within the group creation user interface and obtains the image from the image capture device. ZHANG discloses: electronic device further comprising an image capture device, and wherein the group creation user-interface presents a selectable button for activating the image capture device, wherein to obtain the image, the at least one processor detects selection of the selectable button within the group creation user interface and obtains the image from the image capture device (See paragraph 0095 and 0109). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the combination of the Bank and Li references with the ZHANG reference in order to quickly add user to group chat (See ZHANG paragraph 0012).
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank (US 20140321720) in view of Li (US 20140324993) in further view of Koren (US 20160224871).
With respect to claim 14, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank in view of Li does not explicitly disclose: determining a group role for each identified person who matches the group entry criteria, in part based on the metadata obtained for the identified person; assigning a corresponding group role to each of the two or more people in the group; and adding the group role to the metadata for the two or more people. Koren disclose: determining a group role for each identified person who matches the group entry criteria, in part based on the metadata obtained for the identified person; assigning a corresponding group role to each of the two or more people in the group; and adding the group role to the metadata for the two or more people. (See paragraphs 0012-0015 and 0028-0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the combination of the Bank and Li references with the Koren reference in order to provide the ability to cross reference a variety of data to generate social relationship (See Koren paragraph 0012).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank (US 20140321720) in view of Li (US 20140324993) in further view of ZHANG (US 20210320995) and in further view of CHOI (US 20090037477).
With respect to claim 23, Bank in view of Li discloses all the limitations. Bank in view of Li does not explicitly disclose: receive, within the group creation user-interface, entry of a selection of individual faces from the group image by tapping, double-tapping, and/or clicking of a face within the group image; adding the person associated with the selected face to the group; and in response to detecting a double-tapping of a face already selected to be placed within the group, remove the person corresponding to the face from the group. ZHANG discloses: receive, within the group creation user-interface, entry of a selection of individual faces from the group image by tapping, double-tapping, and/or clicking of a face within the group image; adding the person associated with the selected face to the group (See Fig 11-13 and paragraphs 0135-0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the combination of the Bank and Li references with the ZHANG reference in order to quickly add user to group chat (See ZHANG paragraph 0012). Bank in view of Li and in further view of ZHANG does not explicitly disclose: in response to detecting a double-tapping of a face already selected to be placed within the group, remove the person corresponding to the face from the group. CHOI discloses: in response to detecting a double-tapping of a face already selected to be placed within the group, remove the person corresponding to the face from the group (See paragraph 0137-0138). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify the combination of the Bank, Li and ZHANG references with CHOI reference in order to tagging the facial image of individual.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZESHAN QAYYUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697