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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,532 (Patent ‘532, hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the features of claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 18-20 in the instant application are already included in claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 of Patent ‘532. See tables below.
Table I:
Current Application 18/800997
U.S. Patent No. 12,073,532
1, 5, 4, 7, 8, 12, 11, 14, 15, 19, 18, 20
1, 4, 6, 3, 8, 11, 13, 10, 15, 18, 20, 17, respectively
Table II:
Current Application 18/800997
U.S. Patent No. 12,073,532
1. A method, comprising:
at an asset management system having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and responsive to a request from a user device for a deep zoom image of an asset managed by the asset management system:
staging the asset in a transient storage that is bound to a time period;
generating a deep zoom image file for the asset and a corresponding directory of image folders and image files for the asset;
storing the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the transient storage;
presenting, through a user interface on the user device, the deep zoom image of the asset using the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the transient storage; and
deleting the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files from the transient storage after the time period expires.
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, from a user device by a computer implementing a digital asset management system through a browser-based user interface of the digital asset management system on the user device, a request for deep zoom image generation, the request specifying an asset stored in a repository managed by the digital asset management system;
staging, by the computer, the asset in a deep zoom transient storage, wherein the deep zoom transient storage is time-bound to a predefined time period;
initiating, by the computer, a workflow to generate a deep zoom image of the asset, the deep zoom image having a deep zoom image file and a corresponding directory of image folders and image files;
storing, by the computer, the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the deep zoom transient storage separate from the repository of the digital asset management system;
providing, by the computer to the user device, storage location information of the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the deep zoom transient storage, wherein the browser-based user interface of the digital asset management system on the user device renders the deep zoom image of the asset from the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the deep zoom transient storage; and
deleting, by the computer, the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files from the deep zoom transient storage after the predefined time period.
From the tables above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim language of Patent ‘532 to be as current claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 18-20, since all of the features of current claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 18-20 are already included in claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 of Patent ‘532,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerszenberg et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0051364, “Kerszenberg”, hereinafter) in view of Yu (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0293717).
As per claim 1, as shown in Fig. 3-5, Kerszenberg teaches a method, comprising:
at an asset management system (Fig. 3) having a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium and responsive to a request from a user device for a deep zoom image of an asset managed by the asset management system (see ¶ [59-60], requesting a tile with a dimension at a location, and with a zoom level of a corresponding image):
staging the asset in a transient storage that is bound to a time period (further addressed below with reference to Yu) (staging local file system 35, Fig. 3, ¶ [59]));
generating a deep zoom image file for the asset and a corresponding directory of image folders and image files for the asset; storing the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the transient storage (¶ [60], generating and storing deep zoom image DZI, “A Deep Zoom Image (DZI) is composed of two parts: a DZI file and a directory… Aside from the DZI file, the directory may contain some or all tile images, themselves arranged in folders corresponding to the different magnification levels”. The storing of the DZI file is depicted in Fig. 7A-B);
presenting, through a user interface on the user device, the deep zoom image of the asset using the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files in the transient storage (Fig. 6A-B, ¶ [88-89], reading the image corresponding to requested tile (recited above) via a user interface).
Kerszenberg does not expressly teach the transient storage that is bound to a time period, and deleting the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files from the transient storage after the time period expires.
However, Yu teaches a very similar method of managing and distributing deep zoom image files (see ¶ [21]), wherein the method further includes a transient storage that is bound to a time period and deleting the deep zoom image file and the corresponding directory of image folders and image files from the transient storage after the time period expires (see ¶ [29], “The processing server 106 needs to delete the message (which includes the slide file name and location) from the message queue 105 after the slide file is processed”, and ¶ [36], “The original slide file remains for a duration of around 10 minutes until the processing server completes the format conversion and notifies the upload server 103 to delete the file in the vendor-specific format”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of utilizing the time bound transient storage as taught by Yu into the method as taught by Kerszenberg as addressed above, the advantage of which is to reduce system operation costs (¶ [7]).
As per claim 2, the combined Kerszenberg-Yu also teaches wherein the asset is stored in a repository managed by the asset management system (Fig. 3, stored in the local file system 35, ¶ [59] of Kerszenberg) and wherein the asset comprises a high resolution image file (Kerszenberg, ¶ [3], ¶ [36], and also Yu, ¶ [19], ¶ [40]). Thus, claim 2 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 8, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 9, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerszenberg et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0051364) in view of Yu (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0293717) further in view of West et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0073510, “West”, hereinafter).
As per claim 3, the combined Kerszenberg-Yu also teaches wherein the repository maintains a structure for permanent storage of managed assets (Yu, ¶ [37], permanent storage 108), and wherein the structure of the repository is unsuitable for referencing the image files in the image folders according to the hierarchy (at best understood by the examiner because it is not clear what is meant by unsuitable for referencing, and thus broadly interpreted as three-layered storage architecture as taught by Yu at ¶ [37-39] makes it difficult for direct accessing the original image file).
The combined Kerszenberg-Yu does not expressly teach wherein the deep zoom image file for the asset comprises an extensible markup language (XML)-based file that relies on a hierarchy to reference the image files in the image folders.
West teaches a method of image zooming using WSI format (¶ [7]) similar to that of Kerszenberg, wherein the WSI image format can be converted into DZI (deep zoom image) format (¶ [70]), and further teaches the above feature, i.e., wherein the deep zoom image file for the asset comprises an extensible markup language (XML)-based file that relies on a hierarchy to reference the image files in the image folders (¶ [70], “For example, a WSI image converted into a DZI format file can yield an extensible markup language (XML) file with information about one or more dimensions of the WSI image, along with several directories, one for each resolution layer, containing most or all tiles that comprise a respective layer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method as taught by West to the combined Kerszenberg-Yu as addressed above, the advantage of which is to provide better viewing of the image file in a web browser over a network connection (¶ [70]).
As per claim 6, the combined Kerszenberg-Yu-West impliedly teaches wherein the generating comprises determining whether a file size of the asset is within an allowed range (e.g., West, ¶ [70], “Slide scanners output WSI files in a variety of formats, and each file can range in size from a few megabytes to dozens of gigabytes, depending on an image resolution and a compression scheme, if any”) and whether a file format of the asset is acceptable, and wherein the presenting the deep zoom image of the asset is performed responsive to the file size of the asset being within the allowed range and the file format of the asset being acceptable (Kerszenberg, ¶ ]59-60], such as image tiles are already in DZI format). Thus, claim 6 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 7, the combined Kerszenberg-Yu-West does also teach responsive to the file format of the asset being unacceptable, converting the asset staged in the transient storage to an acceptable file format (for example, Yu, ¶ [5-6], converting image file to a static image package, such as Deep Zoom format from original file). Thus, claim 7 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 10, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claims 6 and 7 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerszenberg et al. (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0051364) in view of Yu (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0293717) further in view of Giambalvo (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0124000, “Giambalvo”, hereinafter).
As per claim 4, the combined Kerszenberg-Yu further teaches determining whether the deep zoom image of the asset is in the transient storage; responsive to the deep zoom image of the asset being in the transient storage, having the deep zoom image of the asset rendered directly from the transient storage (Kerszenberg, ¶ [101-102] referring to Fig. 8, generated directly from the cache).
The combined Kerszenberg-Yu does not explicitly teach responsive to the deep zoom image of the asset not being in the transient storage, loading a preview of the asset staged in the transient storage through the user interface.
However, in a similar method of image zooming as shown in Fig. 1, including caching the zoom level image (¶ [35], similar to that of Kerszenberg addressed above), Giambalvo teaches loading a preview of the asset staged in the transient storage (see ¶ [42]) through the user interface (¶ [37]).
Since both Kerszenberg and Giambalvo teaches storing the requested image in a cache before transferring to the user, and Giambalvo teaches previewing the image before the image is available in the cache (¶ [53], by predicting zoom level), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combined Kerszenberg-Yu such that if the image file is not in the cache (i.e., responsive to the deep zoom image of the asset not being in the transient storage), previewing the image at lower quality via the user interface as taught by Giambalvo, instead of fetching a full resolution image into the cache since by doing that less computation resource is required.
As per claim 5, the combined teachings of Kerszenberg, Yu, and Giambalvo also substantially teach creating a Web context for the preview of the asset staged in the transient storage through the user interface (see Giambalvo, ¶ [47], creating a website for user to zoom in to see visual presentation). Thus, claim 5 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Claim 11, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611