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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on August 28, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 16: “a control unit…configured to…”
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows the following structure corresponding to the claimed control unit:
“The control unit 130 may be any device capable of processing data including, for example, a processor. The term 'processor,' as used herein, refers to, for example, a hardware- implemented data processing device having circuitry that is physically structured to execute desired operations including, for example, operations represented as code and/or instructions included in a program. Examples of the above-referenced hardware-implemented data processing device include, but are not limited to, a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), a processor core, a multiprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA).” [Specification, paragraph 50]
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-6, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0385736), referred herein as Chen, in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0329943), referred herein as Choi.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of providing content executed by a control unit (figs 1 and 2; title) comprising:
receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, and identifying user information for a user account of a user logged in to the user terminal (paragraph 4, lines 1-9; paragraph 31, lines 1-8 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 38, lines 1-9 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 39, lines 1-9; a user logged in to an account at the terminal requests content to be viewed);
editing a plurality of scene images constituting the content to insert profile information of the user, responsive to identifying the user information (paragraph 32, lines 1-9 and the last 4 lines; paragraph 34; paragraph 39, lines 1-16; paragraph 63, lines 1-21; paragraph 68; in response to identifying user information, the images are edited and user information is inserted into the images), and
providing the content that includes the plurality of edited scene images to the user terminal (paragraph 32, the last 4 lines; paragraph 39, lines 13-16 and 20-22; the content edited based on the user information is then transmitted to the user terminal).
Chen teaches obtaining the user information from a user profile specifying user features, settings, and options (see, for example the citations above to paragraphs 32, 34, and 39, among others) but does not explicitly teach inserting an identity of the user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Choi teaches editing images constituting requested content from a user (fig 8; paragraphs 125 and 126; paragraph 140, lines 1-1-12 and the last 3 lines; paragraph 161), wherein the image editing inserts an identity of the user and provides the content that includes the edited images to the user (paragraph 175, lines 1-18; paragraph 194, lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user identification of Choi with the image editing of Chen because this helps protect the integrity of the image data such that improper modification, transmission, or piracy of the images can be prevented and/or remedied, which can be particularly important in shared content editing such as that disclosed by Chen (see, for example, Choi, paragraphs 118 and 119).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a post-editing aspect ratio of at least some scene images of the plurality of scene images may be different from a pre-editing aspect ratio of the at least some scene images after the plurality of scene images is edited (Chen, paragraph 36; cropping and tilting change the aspect ratio, for example).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein a change in an aspect ratio of any scene image of the plurality of scene images varies depending on the user information (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraphs 35 and 36; editing selections vary based on user profiles, user history, preferences, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of scene images is edited according to one of a first editing style, a second editing style, or a third editing style (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-9),
the first editing style is an editing style that inserts a pixel into a scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (Chen, paragraph 63, lines 1-4 and 13-21; paragraph 68; the resolution increase, for example),
the second editing style is an editing style that removes some pixels of the scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 36, lines 1-3; cropping removes pixels, for example), and
the third editing style is an editing style that retains the scene image to be edited among the plurality of scene images (Chen, paragraph 42, the last 7 lines; paragraph 53, lines 1-14; restoring and/or retaining the original image, for example).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the editing of the plurality of scene images is performed in combination of the first editing style, the second editing style, and the third editing style, on the basis of the user information (Chen, paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraphs 35 and 36).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 5, wherein whether editing is to be performed according to any one of the first to third editing styles for each of the plurality of scene images is determined on the basis of the user information (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 39, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, an edit target area in which editing is to be performed is specified for each of the plurality of scene images on the basis of a preset reference, and wherein the editing of the plurality of scene images is performed such that the edit target area includes the user information (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-9; paragraph 34; paragraph 47, lines 1-8 and 19-31; paragraph 66, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 13, wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, the edit target area is specified with reference to pixel energy of a plurality of pixels constituting each of the plurality of scene images (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 6-13; paragraph 33, lines 1-6; paragraph 34; paragraph 57, lines 1-6; paragraph 58).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the system and unit, which are taught by Chen, figs 1, 2, and/or 4, and paragraphs 29 and 30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium, which is taught by Chen, paragraphs 29 and 30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Choi, further in view of Letocha et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0042546), referred herein as Letocha.
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of scene images varies according to selections constituting the user information (Chen, paragraph 31, lines 1-8 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 38, lines 1-9 and the last 7 lines).
Chen in view of Choi does not explicitly teach the method, wherein a number of the plurality of images varies according to a number of characters.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Letocha teaches a method for providing content, comprising receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, editing content based on the request, and providing the content to the user (paragraph 42, lines 1-14; paragraph 43, lines 1-9; paragraph 44, lines 1-11; paragraphs 46 and 53), wherein a number of the plurality of images varies according to a number of characters (paragraph 51, lines 1-13; paragraph 54; paragraph 56, lines 1-11; paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image number variance of Letocha with the image editing of Chen in view of Choi because this this helps to ensure that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a user’s desired input and the ultimately output image information, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of the image modifications (see, for example, Letocha, paragraph 5; paragraph 9, lines 1-20).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Choi, further in view of Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,817,739), referred herein as Gupta.
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Choi teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the preset reference corresponds to a type of graphical object included in the plurality of scene images, and wherein in the editing of the plurality of scene images, editing is performed in consideration of the type of graphical object (Chen, paragraph 32, lines 1-13; paragraph 34).
Chen in view of Choi does not explicitly teach that the editing is performed on a remaining area except for an area that includes an important object in each of the plurality of scene images, according to the preset reference.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gupta teaches a method for providing content, comprising receiving a viewing request for content from a user terminal, enabling editing of the content based on the request, and providing the edited content to the user (column 9, lines 20-42 and 55-65), wherein the editing is performed on a remaining area except for an area that includes an important object in each of the plurality of scene images, according to the preset reference (column 30, lines 43-51 and 54-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selective area editing of Gupta with the editing of Chen in view of Choi because this makes the image editing process more efficient and simpler, and focuses the editing on desires areas, thereby improving both the user experience and image output (see, for example, Gupta, column 7, lines 52-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-10 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and all intervening claims. The reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is articulated in the Non-final Office Action of February 19, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have resolved these issues in the claims; thus the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have resolved the 112(b) issues in the claims; thus the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. The Examiner agrees that Chen does not teach the newly amended claim limitations; however, the Examiner respectfully submits that Choi teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tung (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0045078); Image processing device, image processing method, and program.
Hu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0244459); Watermarking in a virtual desktop infrastructure environment.
Zhang (U.S. Patent No. 11,671,475); Verification of data recipient.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights