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 statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 42-50, 52-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2019/0005327 to Ekambaram et al.
Regarding claim 42, Ekambaram et al discloses a method comprising: at a device including an image sensor [0022], one or more processors [0039], and non-transitory memory [0041]: capturing, using the image sensor, an image of an environment at a particular time [0019]; detecting a context based at least in part on the image of the environment [0019]; in accordance with a determination that the context is included within a predefined set of contexts, storing, in a database, an entry including data indicating detection of the context in association with data indicating the particular time [0025] and [0032]; receiving a query regarding the context [0033]; and providing a response to the query based on the data indicating the particular time [0034].
Regarding claim 43, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein detecting the context includes detecting a physical object present in the environment [0027].
Regarding claim 44, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein detecting the context includes detecting an activity performed in the environment [0025].
Regarding claim 45, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein detecting the context includes detecting a status of an object present in the environment [0026].
Regarding claim 46, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein detecting the context is further based on at least one of sound in the environment at the particular time or motion of the device at the particular time [0019].
Regarding claim 47, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the entry further includes data indicating a location of the device at the particular time [0019].
Regarding claim 48, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the entry further includes at least a portion of the image of the environment at the particular time [0019].
Regarding claim 49, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the response indicates a latest time the context was detected [0029].
Regarding claim 50, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the response indicates a location of the device at a latest time the context was detected [0029].
Regarding claim 52, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein providing the response includes providing a verbal response [0037].
Regarding claim 53, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein providing the response includes displaying a response window including at least a portion of the image of the environment at the particular time [0035].
Regarding claims 54 and 55 and the capturing of a second image in a second environment, Ekambaram et al discloses in [0022] where a user can store, fetch, and render images and features of objects of interest to the user in a data storage location; and [0025] where a user can designate any object of interest by tapping an “interested” button.
Regarding claim 56, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, further comprising receiving user input indicative of registration of the context, the registration causing the context to be included within the predefined set of contexts [0025].
Regarding claim 57, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the user input indicative of registration of the context includes selection of a pre-programmed context [0025].
Regarding claim 58, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 56, wherein the user input indicative of registration of the context includes demonstration of the context [0025].
Regarding claim 59, Ekambaram et al discloses the method of claim 42, wherein detecting the context is performed in response to determining that a function of the image of the environment breaches an interest threshold [0026].
Independent claims 60 and 61 are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as that of claim 42 above.
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 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.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekambaram et al in view of US 2018/0322706 to Drouin et al.
Regarding claim 51, Ekambaram et al discloses an image capture method that captures an image and recognizes an object of interest to the user, which further triggers the context of the environment to be stored along with the image in a database for later retrieval. However, Ekambaram et al fails to teach that the response, by the system after having received a request by the user for the context, indicates a number of times the context was detected within a time window.
In the same field of endeavor, Drouin et al teaches at [0030] that trigger configurations (i.e. contextual data) is stored in a database 140 and the trigger data can include time limitations, such as the amount of time since a past event (a ‘time window’ inherently exists between a past event and a current event and the number of times that event occurred within that window would be at least one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the contextual trigger data considered by Ekambaram et al to include a time window which considers the amount of times the context occurred within the time window as taught by Drouin et al as this would allow Ekambaram et al to retrieve objects of interest in yet another way, thus expanding the usability of the contextual data to the end user. Considering that Ekambaram et al already teaches a multitude of environmental contexts, the addition of a time window would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art sets forth the general state of the art in image retrieval based upon contextual data stored with the image in a database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672