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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a Judicial Exception without significantly more.
Independent Claims
As Claims 1, 19 and 20:
Step 1: Are the Claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. See the analysis below.
The Claim recites:
detecting a storage of an image captured by an image-capture function of a mobile computing device;
responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, activating an audio recording function to capture an audio recording;
receiving the audio recording captured by the audio recording function; and
storing (a) the audio recording and (b) an association between the audio recording and the image.
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Regarding the non-emphasized limitations:
Step 2A prong 1:
“detecting a storage of an image captured by an image-capture function of a mobile computing device;
responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, activating an audio recording function to capture an audio recording;” is/are directed to a mental processes group of abstract idea. Mental processes are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. Examples of mental processes includes observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions.
These steps are considered mental processes group of abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2:
Limitations “receiving the audio recording captured by the audio recording function; and
storing (a) the audio recording and (b) an association between the audio recording and the image” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? No.
Limitation “receiving the audio recording captured by the audio recording function” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”).
Limitation “storing (a) the audio recording and (b) an association between the audio recording and the image” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(g)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory).
The claim is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As Claim 2, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, activating a voice command function;
requesting, via the voice command function, an input from a user;
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises the input from the user”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “ responsive to detecting the storage of the image, activating a voice command function” is directed mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: The limitation “requesting, via the voice command function, an input from a user;
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises the input from the user” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “requesting, via the voice command function, an input from a user;
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises the input from the user” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 3, the Claim recites “wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining that the image meets a similarity threshold with a training dataset comprising a set of training images, and
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset, activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining that the image meets a similarity threshold with a training dataset comprising a set of training images, and
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset, activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 4, the Claim recites “wherein the set of training images are associated with a set of descriptive information, wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset, associating the descriptive information with the image”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “wherein the set of training images are associated with a set of descriptive information, wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset, associating the descriptive information with the image” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 5, the Claim recites “providing the descriptive information as an audible or visual output of the mobile computing device”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “providing the descriptive information as an audible or visual output of the mobile computing device” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “providing the descriptive information as an audible or visual output of the mobile computing device” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 6, the Claim recites “wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises: annotating the image with the descriptive information”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises: annotating the image with the descriptive information” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises: annotating the image with the descriptive information” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 7, the Claim recites “responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold, selecting a return process application for execution by the mobile computing device to initiate a return of a damaged product, wherein the image meeting the similarity threshold indicates that the image depicts the damaged product”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold, selecting a return process application for execution by the mobile computing device to initiate a return of a damaged product, wherein the image meeting the similarity threshold indicates that the image depicts the damaged product” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 8, the Claim recites “training the machine learning model to activate the audio recording function when images meet the similarity threshold with the training dataset”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “training the machine learning model to activate the audio recording function when images meet the similarity threshold with the training dataset” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 9, the Claim recites “wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining, based on a comparison of the image to a training dataset comprising a set of training images, that the image comprises a particular feature, and responsive to determining that the image comprises the particular feature, activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining, based on a comparison of the image to a training dataset comprising a set of training images, that the image comprises a particular feature, and responsive to determining that the image comprises the particular feature, activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 10, the Claim recites “wherein the particular feature comprises a damaged product, and wherein the audio recording comprises a description of the damaged product”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “wherein the particular feature comprises a damaged product, and wherein the audio recording comprises a description of the damaged product” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “wherein the particular feature comprises a damaged product, and wherein the audio recording comprises a description of the damaged product” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 11, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise:
training the machine learning model to identify the particular feature in images and to activate the audio recording function in response to identifying the particular feature”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “training the machine learning model to identify the particular feature in images and to activate the audio recording function in response to identifying the particular feature” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 12, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise:
responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, outputting a request comprising a description of a set of requested content for the audio recording to be captured via the audio recording function, wherein the description comprises at least of:
a text description of the set of requested content, or
an auditory description of the set of requested content;
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises a voice input from a user.”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, outputting a request comprising a description of a set of requested content for the audio recording to be captured via the audio recording function, wherein the description comprises at least of:
a text description of the set of requested content, or
an auditory description of the set of requested content;” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: The limitation “capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises a voice input from a user” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises a voice input from a user” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 13, the Claim recites “wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
identifying, via an image analysis operation, an image feature in the image;
responsive to identifying the image feature in the image, activating the audio recording function”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “identifying, via an image analysis operation, an image feature in the image;
responsive to identifying the image feature in the image, activating the audio recording function” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 14, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to detecting the storage of the image:
activating an image annotation function for associating an annotation with the image;
generating the annotation; and
storing the annotation in association with the image”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “activating an image annotation function for associating an annotation with the image;
generating the annotation; and
storing the annotation in association with the image” are insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. The Limitations “activating an image annotation function for associating an annotation with the image; generating the annotation; and” were considered insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data).
The limitation “storing the annotation in association with the image” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(g)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory).
The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 15, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to detecting the storage of the image:
applying the annotation to the image”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: There are no additional abstract idea(s). Prong 2: The limitation “applying the annotation to the image” was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(g)). This appears to be well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory).
The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 16, the Claim recites “generating the annotation based on the image, wherein the annotation comprises a description of the image”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “generating the annotation based on the image, wherein the annotation comprises a description of the image” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 17, the Claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise: capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function; and generating the annotation based on the audio recording”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function; and generating the annotation based on the audio recording” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). The Claim is not patent eligible.
As Claim 18, the Claim recites “wherein generating the annotation based on the audio recording comprises: generating a text annotation based on the audio recording”
The non-emphasized limitations describe abstract processes while emphasized limitations recited additional limitation(s).
Step 2A: Are the Claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? Yes, the Claims is an abstract idea. Prong 1: The limitation “wherein the operations further comprise: capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function; and generating the annotation based on the audio recording” is directed to mental processes group of abstract idea. Prong 2: There are no additional limitation(s). Claim(s) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception? No. There are no additional limitation(s). 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zueck (U.S. 8,515,497 hereinafter Zueck).
As Claim 1, Zueck teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of operations, comprising:
detecting a storage of an image captured by an image-capture function of a mobile computing device (Zueck (col. 6 line 32-35, fig. 6), “at block 202 where at least one image is captured with the camera 26. The method then proceeds to block 204 where the images are stored in the memory 122”);
responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, activating an audio recording function to capture an audio recording (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”);
receiving the audio recording captured by the audio recording function (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”); and
storing (a) the audio recording and (b) an association between the audio recording and the image (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 2, besides claim 1, Zueck teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, activating a voice command function (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”);
requesting, via the voice command function, an input from a user (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-37), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch”);
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises the input from the user (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 12, besides Claim 1, Zueck teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image, outputting a request comprising a description of a set of requested content for the audio recording to be captured via the audio recording function, wherein the description comprises at least of:
a text description of the set of requested content, or
an auditory description of the set of requested content (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “voice message”);
capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function, wherein the audio recording comprises a voice input from a user (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 14, besides Claim 1, Zueck teaches wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to detecting the storage of the image:
activating an image annotation function for associating an annotation with the image (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”);
generating the annotation (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”); and
storing the annotation in association with the image (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 15, besides Claim 14, Zueck teaches wherein generating the annotation comprises:
applying the annotation to the image (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 16, besides Claim 14, Zueck teaches wherein generating the annotation comprises:
generating the annotation based on the image, wherein the annotation comprises a description of the image (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 17, besides Claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise: capturing the audio recording via the audio recording function (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “voice message”); and generating the annotation based on the audio recording (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 18, besides Claim 17, wherein generating the annotation based on the audio recording comprises: generating a text annotation based on the audio recording (Zueck (col 6 line 60-63), “Typically the processing of the voice message occurs when an image or video is captured by the camera 26. At block 210, the text-based file identifier is associated with the image that was captured by the camera 26”).
As Claim 19 and 20, the Claims are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zueck in view of Gafni et al. (U.S. 2021/0019573 hereinafter Gafni).
As Claim 3, besides Claim 1, Zueck teaches:
activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”).
Zueck may not explicitly disclose:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining that the image meets a similarity threshold with a training dataset comprising a set of training images, and
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset,
Gafni teaches:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining that the image meets a similarity threshold (Gafni (¶0081 last 6), “the electronic device may identify and select at least a subset of the objects (operation 214) based at least in part on analysis of the image. Next, the electronic device may receive classifications (operation 216) for objects in the subset, such as names for the objects or information that specifies types of objects”) with a training dataset comprising a set of training images (Gafni (¶0114 line 5-10), “multiple images may be used in one or more ways. For example, multiple images of a scene may be acquired from different points of view in order to train object detection and classification”), and
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset (Gafni (¶0081 last 6), “the electronic device may identify and select at least a subset of the objects (operation 214) based at least in part on analysis of the image. Next, the electronic device may receive classifications (operation 216) for objects in the subset, such as names for the objects or information that specifies types of objects”) (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image of Zueck instead be an image analysis module taught by Gafni, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “allow a
user to interactively specify the information needed to simply and efficiently generate and distribute an application that leverage image acquisition capabilities of the second electronic devices, image analysis and logical rules (the one or more inspection criteria)” (Gafni (¶0049 line 1-6)).
As Claim 4, besides Claim 3, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches wherein the set of training images are associated with a set of descriptive information, wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold with the training dataset (Gafni (¶0081 last 6), “the electronic device may identify and select at least a subset of the objects (operation 214) based at least in part on analysis of the image. Next, the electronic device may receive classifications (operation 216) for objects in the subset, such as names for the objects or information that specifies types of objects”), associating the descriptive information with the image (Gafni (¶0086 line 1-5), “the electronic device may provide recommended classifications for the objects in the subset, where the received classifications for the objects in the subset are based at least in part on the recommended classifications”)
As Claim 5, besides Claim 4, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
providing the descriptive information as an audible or visual output of the mobile computing device (Gafni (¶0103 line 9-11, fig. 11 item 1110), “Note that electronic device 110-1 may present recommended classifications 912 and 1110, which are automatically determined by electronic 110-1 (and/or computer 120)”).
As Claim 6, besides Claim 4, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises: annotating the image with the descriptive information (Gafni (¶0103 line 9-11, fig. 11 item 1110), “Note that electronic device 110-1 may present recommended classifications 912 and 1110, which are automatically determined by electronic 110-1 (and/or computer 120)”).
As Claim 8, besides Claim 3, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
training the machine learning model to activate the audio recording function (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”) when images meet the similarity threshold with the training dataset (Gafni (¶0081 last 6), “the electronic device may identify and select at least a subset of the objects (operation 214) based at least in part on analysis of the image. Next, the electronic device may receive classifications (operation 216) for objects in the subset, such as names for the objects or information that specifies types of objects”).
As Claim 9, besides Claim 1, Zueck teaches:
activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”).
Zueck may not explicitly disclose:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining, based on a comparison of the image to a training dataset comprising a set of training images, that the image comprises a particular feature, and responsive to determining that the image comprises the particular feature,
Gafni teaches:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
responsive to detecting the storage of the image, executing a machine learning model, wherein executing the machine learning model comprises:
determining, based on a comparison of the image to a training dataset comprising a set of training images, that the image comprises a particular feature, and responsive to determining that the image comprises the particular feature (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image of Zueck instead be an image analysis module taught by Gafni, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “allow a
user to interactively specify the information needed to simply and efficiently generate and distribute an application that leverage image acquisition capabilities of the second electronic devices, image analysis and logical rules (the one or more inspection criteria)” (Gafni (¶0049 line 1-6)).
As Claim 11, besides Claim 9, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
training the machine learning model to identify the particular feature in images (Gafni (¶0114 line 5-10), “multiple images may be used in one or more ways. For example, multiple images of a scene may be acquired from different points of view in order to train object detection and classification”) and to activate the audio recording function in response to (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”) identifying the particular feature (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”).
As Claim 13, besides Claim 1, Zueck teaches:
activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”).
Zueck may not explicitly disclose:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
identifying, via an image analysis operation, an image feature in the image;
responsive to identifying the image feature in the image,
Gafni teaches:
wherein activating the audio recording function to capture the audio recording responsive at least in part to detecting the storage of the image comprises:
identifying, via an image analysis operation, an image feature in the image (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”);
responsive to identifying the image feature in the image (Gafni (¶0107 line 1-6), “electronic device 110-1 may ask the user for feedback on the determined one or more inspection criteria (which are, in essence, recommended inspection criteria). For example, the user may be asked to confirm or accept a recommended inspection criterion, or to modify or change it”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image of Zueck instead be an image analysis module taught by Gafni, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be to “allow a
user to interactively specify the information needed to simply and efficiently generate and distribute an application that leverage image acquisition capabilities of the second electronic devices, image analysis and logical rules (the one or more inspection criteria)” (Gafni (¶0049 line 1-6)).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zueck in view of Gafni in further view of Sikorski (U.S. 2004/0245334 hereinafter Sikorski).
As Claim 7, besides Claim 4, Zueck in view of Gafni may not explicitly disclose:
wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold, selecting a return process application for execution by the mobile computing device to initiate a return of a damaged product, wherein the image meeting the similarity threshold indicates that the image depicts the damaged product
Sikorski teaches:
wherein executing the machine learning model further comprises:
responsive to determining that the image meets the similarity threshold, selecting a return process application for execution by the mobile computing device to initiate a return of a damaged product (Sikorski (¶0010 line 10-12), “customer decides to return one of the items previously added to the purchased item list, he scans the item bar code using the minus trigger key”), wherein the image meeting the similarity threshold indicates that the image depicts the damaged product (Sikorski (¶0048 line 8-12), “Once the damaged good is determined, the scanning mobile device can act ( e.g., order new good, request guidance, inform manufacturer, …) upon user and/or appointed authority ( e.g., artificial intelligence technique)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image analysis of Zueck in view of Gafni instead be an image analysis module taught by Sikorski, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be so that “a user can capture, analyze, and/or determine product identity based at least in part upon an image of a damaged good” (Sikorski (¶0048 line 6-8)).
As Claim 10, besides Claim 9, Zueck in view of Gafni teaches:
wherein the audio recording comprises a description of the damaged product (Zueck (col. 6 line 36-40, fig. 6), “At block 206, the switch22 is activated that triggers a voice generated picture file mode after the user activates the switch. In one illustrative embodiment the switch automatically activates various steps associated with the voice generated picture file mode”).
Zueck in view of Gafni may not explicitly disclose:
wherein the particular feature comprises a damaged product
Sikorski teaches:
wherein the particular feature comprises a damaged product (Sikorski (¶0048 line 8-12), “Once the damaged good is determined, the scanning mobile device can act ( e.g., order new good, request guidance, inform manufacturer, …) upon user and/or appointed authority ( e.g., artificial intelligence technique)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image analysis of Zueck in view of Gafni instead be an image analysis module taught by Sikorski, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would be so that “a user can capture, analyze, and/or determine product identity based at least in part upon an image of a damaged good” (Sikorski (¶0048 line 6-8)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Earhart (U.S. 2019/0235830) teaches a visual inspection system for inspecting good and products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT HUY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7333. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 12:00-8:00 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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/NHAT HUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147