DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are presented for consideration.
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) 1-5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellsworth et al. [ US Patent Application No 2009/0204885 ], in view of Elliott [ US Patent Application No 2013/0013683 ].
As per claim 1, Ellsworth discloses the invention as claimed including a method of displaying photos on a digital display of a user with a network connection module, the method comprising:
downloading a first interaction application to a first electronic device of the user [ i.e. the mobile client application may be distributed for installation on a plurality of wireless mobile clients ] [ 604, Figure 6; and paragraphs 0075, and 0080 ], the first electronic device including a first digital photo collection [ i.e. display a list of new content stored on client device ] [ Figures 5A, 5B; and paragraphs 0069-0071, and 0085 ];
the first interaction application automatically determining photo content [ i.e. Patrick wants to share pictures and videos with his friends, then adds a mobile media capture widget to display all pictures and videos of day 1 and day 2 ] [ Figure 5B, 5C; and paragraph 0031, 0035-0037, 0046, 0071, and 0072 ];
receiving a first selected digital photo cluster from the first interaction application for display [ i.e. uploading operation, or sends the chosen pictures and videos to the server ] [ Figure 5D; and paragraphs 0049, 0073, and 0081 ].
Ellsworth does not specifically disclose
clustering digital photos of the first digital photo collection according to activity content, and/or community member content of the digital photos;
automatically displaying on the digital display, digital photos of the first selected digital photo cluster in a chronological order.
Elliott discloses
clustering digital photos of the first digital photo collection according to activity content, and/or community member content of the digital photos [ i.e. aggregation and sharing of digital content, such as photos and videos, the digital content may also be subjected to an image recognition process to identify one or more individuals appearing in the photos or videos ] [ Abstracts; and paragraphs 0043, 0063, 064, and 0079 ];
automatically displaying on the digital display, digital photos of the first selected digital photo cluster in a chronological order [ i.e. content generator may be added with contextual information such as time and date, and allow user to review the images ] [ paragraphs 0050, 0071, 0087and 0092 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ellsworth, and Elliott because the teaching of Elliott would to provide method and system for aggregating and sharing digital content associated with social events [ Elliott, paragraph 0001 ].
As per claim 2, Ellsworth discloses downloading a second interaction application to a second electronic device of a user community member [ i.e. the mobile client application may be distributed for installation on a plurality of wireless mobile clients ] [ 604, Figure 6; and paragraphs 0075, and 0080 ], the second electronic device including a second digital photo collection of the user community member [ i.e. reporters were sent to the Coachella concert, however he is still missing pictures of Paul Van Dyk ]; receiving a selected digital photo from the second interaction application for display; and automatically displaying on the digital display the selected digital photo from the second interaction application in a corresponding position of the chronological order [ i.e. integrates videos from his own reporters and Patrick’s pictures ] [ paragraph 0055 ].
5. As per claim 3, Ellsworth discloses wherein each of the first and second digital photo collections is stored on an electronic device recordable medium and/or social media account [ i.e. user account ] [ paragraphs 0081, 0085, and 0087 ].
6. As per claim 4, Ellsworth in view of Elliott discloses the method of claim 1, furthermore, Ellsworth discloses filtering clusters of photos as a function of a further content, wherein photos including predetermined people, activities and/or locations are removed from the clusters [ i.e. drill down to a level of greater granularity ] [ Figure 7B; and paragraph 0088 ], and Elliott discloses filtering clusters of photos as a function of quality, wherein photos of a predetermined low quality are removed from the clusters [ i.e. blurred part, or delete photo ] [ paragraphs 0042, and 0082 ].
7. As per claim 5, Ellsworth discloses wherein the second interaction application automatically clustering digital photos of the second digital photo collection according to time taken, location taken, activity content, or community member content [ i.e. concert ] [ Figure 7C; and paragraph 0055, 0072, 0073; and 0091 ].
8. As per claim 8, Ellsworth discloses wherein the digital photos are automatically downloaded from social media accounts of a plurality of community members [ i.e. Flikr account, youtube account ] [ Figure 7A; and paragraph 0085 ].
9. As per claim 9, Ellsworth discloses clustering the selected digital photo from the second interaction application into the first selected digital photo cluster [ i.e. integrate reporters video and Patrick’s pictures ] [ paragraph 0055 ].
10. As per claim 10, Elliott discloses wherein the digital display automatically determines an identity of a user of the digital display [ i.e. selected individual ] [ Figure 7; and paragraphs 0108-0110 ].
11. As per claim 11, Elliott discloses automatically connecting to an electronic device of the user over a network; and automatically clustering and displaying photos on the digital display obtained from the electronic device over the network connection [ Figure 1; and paragraphs 0045-0050 ].
11. As per claim 12, Ellsworth discloses automatically identifying preferred photos or restricted photos as a function of user information [ i.e. authorized ] [ paragraphs 0081, and 0091 ].
12. As per claim 13, Ellsworth in view of Elliott discloses the method of claim 1, furthermore, Ellsworth discloses filtering clusters of photos as a function of quality and/or content [ Figure 7C; and paragraph 0091 ], and tagging photos in the clusters with additional metadata [ i.e. descriptive metadata ] [ paragraph 0070 ], and Elliott discloses wherein photos of low quality or photos including predetermined people, activities and/or locations are removed from the clusters [ i.e. delete blurred photo ] [ paragraphs 0042, 0082, and 0087 ].
14. As per claim 14, Ellsworth discloses wherein the clustering digital photos of the first digital photo collection further includes time taken and location taken for the digital photos [ paragraphs 0008, 0011, and 0070 ].
Claim(s) 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellsworth et al. [ US Patent Application No 2009/0204885 ], in view of Elliott [ US Patent Application No 2013/0013683 ], and further in view of in view of David et al. [ US Patent No 9,244,598 ].
As per claim 6, Ellsworth in view of Elliott does not specifically disclose displaying a slideshow of the digital photos of the first selected digital photo cluster and a matching second selected digital photo cluster of the second interaction application on the digital display. David discloses displaying a slideshow of the digital photos of the first selected digital photo cluster and a matching second selected digital photo cluster of the second interaction application on the digital display [ i.e. centerpieces let guests submit typed messages to the host ] [ Figure 1; and col 2, lines 25-32 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ellsworth, Elliott and David because the teaching of David would enable to provide interactive centerpiece that engage user’s attention and allow users to interact with an active slideshow of photos [ David, col 2, lines 64-col 3, lines 4 ].
17. As per claim 7, David discloses displaying the slideshow of the digital photos in a display order automatically determined as a function of the time, the location, and/or the community member content [ i.e. displaying slideshows of photograph image data ] [ Abstract; and col 2, lines 33-43 ].
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights