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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present invention application contains 20 claims. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent. Claims 1-20 are examined and rejected by the following detail action.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 of this title, 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, 3-5, 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paalasmaa et al. (“Paalasmaa”, US PG-Pub. 2005/0246324 A1) in view of Loofbourrow et al. (“Loufbourrow”, US PG-Pub. 2012/0185498 A1) and Finlayson (US PG-Pub. 2015/0195264 A1).
Re claim 1,
Paalasmma teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a plurality of collection-specific tokens by analyzing a user-specific collection of digital images accessible via a client device; generating a user-specific token index by associating each digital image from the user-specific collection of digital images with one or more tokens from the plurality of collection-specific tokens; storing the user-specific token index on the client device (Fig. 9, [0026, 0044]. Paalasmaa describes the metadata 906 (as collection-specific tokens) are determined from the data files 904 (i.e. digital images, videos, etc.)(as collection of digital images). The metadata 906 are associated with each data files 904 that are used as user-specific token index as searching criteria for a user-specific collection of digital images).
Paalasmaa fails to teach:
based on receiving an indication of an interaction with a query input field, identifying a token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index; and
providing, for display on the client device, a digital image associated with the token suggestion from the user-specific collection of digital images.
However, Loofbourrow teaches:
based on receiving an indication of an interaction with a query input field, identifying a token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index (Figs. 3, 4, [0024, 0028]. Loofbourrow describes user entered text in the input field 301 shown in block 401. The suggestion engine identifies and generates token suggestions (i.e. dates 307, people 311, subjects 315, etc.) based on the input, displays them for user selection shown in block 405); and
providing, for display on the client device, a digital image associated with the token suggestion from the user-specific collection of digital images (Figs. 3, 4 [0029]. Loofbourrow describes the first set of search results (i.e. digital images) associated with the token suggestions are displayed in block 407).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of Paalasmaa with the tokenized search suggestions teaching of Loofbourrow to aid the user with search suggestions for user convenience and fasten the searching process.
Modified Paalasmaa fails to teach:
a user-specific collection of digital images accessible via a client device associated with a user account.
However, Finlayson teaches:
a user-specific collection of digital images accessible via a client device associated with a user account images (Fig. 2, [0019]. Finlayson describes as “… a user's media collection with a media collection stored on a centralized server (e.g., a cloud-based service) in order to access their media collection remotely through a user account”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of modified Paalasmaa with the remotely access right media content via user account teaching of Finlayson to provide user conveniently access their media anywhere via remote network.
Re-claim 3,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the method in claim 1, Paalasma also teaches the method, wherein: determining the plurality of collection-specific tokens by analyzing the user-specific collection of digital images comprises generating a date-based token comprising a natural day description associated with a specific day of a specific month (Fig. 5, [0016]. Paalasmaa describes the date metadata-based search token identifying the specific day of a specific month).
Paalasmaa fails to teach:
identifying the token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index comprises determining the natural day description corresponds to the interaction with the query input field.
However, Loofbourrow teaches:
identifying the token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index comprises determining the natural day description corresponds to the interaction with the query input field (Fig. 3, 4, [0020, 0024]. Loofbourrow describes the suggestion engine identifies and generates token suggestions (i.e. dates 307, people 311, subjects 315, etc.) based on the input, displays them for user selection shown in block 405).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of Paalasmaa with the tokenized search suggestions teaching of Loofbourrow to aid the user with search suggestions for user convenience and fasten the searching process.
Re-claim 4,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the method in claim 1, Paalasma also teaches the method, wherein: generating the user-specific token index by associating each digital image from the user-specific collection of digital images with one or more tokens from the plurality of collection-specific tokens comprises generating sub-indexes comprising a date-based index and a content-based index (Figs. 6, 8, [0026, 0040]. Paalasmaa describes the multilevel token index search shown in Fig. 8 including the first level token index as a date metadata-based search token and the second level token sub-index as content-based metadata (i.e. description, copyright information, etc.).
Paalasmaa fails to teach:
identifying the token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index comprises identifying the token suggestion in the date-based index, the computer-implemented method further comprising: identifying an additional token suggestion based on identifying that a digital image associated with the token suggestion from the date-based index is associated with the additional token suggestion in the content-based index; and providing the additional token suggestion for display on the client device.
However, Loofbourrow teaches:
identifying the token suggestion from the plurality of collection-specific tokens within the user-specific token index comprises identifying the token suggestion in the date-based index, the computer-implemented method further comprising: identifying an additional token suggestion based on identifying that a digital image associated with the token suggestion from the date-based index is associated with the additional token suggestion in the content-based index; and providing the additional token suggestion for display on the client device (Figs. 3, 4, 5, [0020, 0024, 0029, 0031]. Loofbourrow describes the suggestion engine identifies and generates token suggestions (i.e. dates 307, people 311, subjects 315 (as content-based token), etc.) based on the input, displays them for user selection as first token suggestion (i.e. date-based index) shown in block 407 and second token suggestion (i.e. content-based index) shown in block 421).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of Paalasmaa with the tokenized search suggestions teaching of Loofbourrow to aid the user with search suggestions for user convenience and fasten the searching process.
Re-claim 6,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the method in claim 1, Paalasma also teaches the method, wherein determining the plurality of collection-specific tokens by analyzing the user-specific collection of digital images comprises: identifying date metadata and location metadata associated with a digital image from the user-specific collection of digital images; identifying an event by searching a table of events using the date metadata and the location metadata; and generating an event token comprising a name of the event (Fig. 8, [0035]. Paalasmaa describes the multilevel token index search shown in Fig. 8 to search for the events based on the date and location searching tokens).
Re-claim 7,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the system in claim 1, claim 7 is a method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 1 for a new data file or digital image adding to the collection; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 8,
Paalasmaa teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (Fig. 10, [0046]. Paalasmaa describes a processor 22 and storage device 24) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method having similar limitations in scope of claim 1 teaching by Paalasmaa in view of Loofbourow and Finlayson; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 9,
Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the system in claim 8, Paalasmaa fails to teach a system, wherein providing the token suggestion and the digital image associated with the token suggestion comprises: providing the token suggestion as a selectable search option with respect to the query input field in a graphical user interface; and providing the digital image associated with the token suggestion in an image gallery portion of the graphical user interface.
However, Loofbourrow teaches:
wherein providing the token suggestion and the digital image associated with the token suggestion comprises: providing the token suggestion as a selectable search option with respect to the query input field in a graphical user interface; and providing the digital image associated with the token suggestion in an image gallery portion of the graphical user interface (Fig. 4, [0024, 0028, 0029]. Loofbourrow describes user can select the token suggestions for further search result shown in block 409).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of Paalasmaa with the tokenized search suggestions teaching of Loofbourrow to aid the user with search suggestions for user convenience and fasten the searching process.
Re-claim 13,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the system in claim 8, claim 13 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 14,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the system in claim 8, claim 14 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 15,
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having similar limitations in scope of claim 1 teaching by Paalasmaa in view of Loofbourow and Finlayson; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 16,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the storage medium in claim 15, claim 16 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 17,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the storage medium in claim 15, claim 17 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 18,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the storage medium in claim 15, claim 18 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 19,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the storage medium in claim 15, claim 19 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 20,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the storage medium in claim 15, claim 20 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paalasmaa in view of Loofbourrow and Finlayson, and further in view of Sanders et al. (“Sanders”, US PG-Pub. 2013/0332856 A1).
Re-claim 2,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the method in claim 1, Paalasma also teaches the method, wherein providing, for display on the client device, the digital image associated with the token suggestion comprises: identifying a reduced-sized version of the digital image based on the reduced-sized version of the digital image being associated with the searching token (Fig. 2, [0034]. Paalasmaa describes as “ … thumbnails or icons may be used to further identify the results and result clusters in a list”).
Paalasma does not specifically teach:
identifying a search result being associated with the token suggestion.
However, Loofbourrow teaches:
identifying a search result being associated with the token suggestion (Fig. 4, [0029]. Paalasmaa describes the search results being associated with the token suggestion are identified and displayed in block 407).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of Paalasmaa with the tokenized search suggestions teaching of Loofbourrow to aid the user with search suggestions for user convenience and fasten the searching process.
Modified Paalasma fail to teach:
providing a full version of the digital image based on receiving an indication of a user interaction with the reduced-sized version of the digital image.
However, Sanders teaches:
providing a full version of the digital image based on receiving an indication of a user interaction with the reduced-sized version of the digital image (Fig. 17, [0098]. Sanders describes the concept of user interaction on the thumbnail digital image to get the full version of the digital image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metadata-based or token-based data searching and management system teachings of modified Paalasmaa with the full version digital image viewing teaching of Sanders to aid the user with larger view of the digital image.
Re-claim 10,
In addition to what Paalasmaa-Loofbourrow-Finlayson teaches the system in claim 8, claim 10 is a system claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights