DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/13/25, 02/03/26 and 03/30/26 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B).
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. 11089457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. 11089457 with obvious wording variations.
Instant Application
U.S. 11089457
A method implemented by one or more processors of a client comprising:
causing content displayed on a client device to be captured as image data; processing, in response to causing the content displayed on the client device to be captured as image data, the image data;
identifying, based on processing the image data, one or more entities present in the image data;
determining, based on one of more of the entities present in the image data, to store a particular set of entities at the client device; and
causing, in response to determining to store the particular set of entities at the client device, the particular set of entities to be stored at the client device.
1. A method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a screen capture image, the screen capture image capturing content displayed on a display of a mobile device; determining text in the screen capture image by performing text recognition on the screen capture image;
processing the text using a trained set prediction model to predict one or more fixed sets of entities based on the text;
storing at least one fixed set of entities of the predicted fixed sets of entities in a personalized entity repository in memory on the mobile device; and
subsequent to storing the at least one fixed set of entities: using the stored at least one fixed set of entities to identify an entity in an additional screen capture image captured at the mobile device; and rendering, at the mobile device, content that is based on the identified entity.
For claims 8 and 15, the claims have features similar claim 1. Therefore, the claims can be compared as above
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Das et al. (U.S. 20130061148).
For claim 1, Das et al. disclose a method implemented by one or more processors of a client comprising:
causing content displayed on a client device to be captured as image data (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. A user may operate an MD to capture an image of at least a portion of a menu that includes the user's item of interest. A display of the MD may comprise a camera view display allowing the user to selectively aim the MD to capture a desired portion of a menu, for example. At block 620, the MD may display the captured image. For example, returning to FIG. 2, menu portion 250 may be displayed in screen 220. At block 630, the MD may receive signals representative of the user's menu item selection, which may be selected from among a plurality of menu items in the displayed captured image. Of course, a selected menu item may comprise a single displayed menu item, and claimed subject matter is not limited in this respect. As described above, a user may select a particular menu item by touching a portion of the displayed menu item, if the MD comprises a touch screen. Otherwise, cursors or other pointing and/or selecting devices may be used to select a particular menu item. In other implementations, more than one menu item may be selected, and claimed subject matter is not limited in this respect.);
processing, in response to causing the content displayed on the client device to be captured as image data, the image data (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. Menu 250 may comprise an image captured by MD 210 and displayed in screen 220 (e.g., a display or viewfinder of MD 210). Menu 250 may comprise a portion of a menu. For example, displayed portion of menu 250 shows about six menu items, whereas many more items may be included in a full menu. A user may select one or more menu items included in the displayed portion of menu 250.)
identifying, based on processing the image data, one or more entities present in the image data (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. Menu 250 may comprise an image captured by MD 210 and displayed in screen 220 (e.g., a display or viewfinder of MD 210). Menu 250 may comprise a portion of a menu. For example, displayed portion of menu 250 shows about six menu items, whereas many more items may be included in a full menu. A user may select one or more menu items included in the displayed portion of menu 250.);
determining, based on one of more of the entities present in the image data, to store a particular set of entities at the client device (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. Menu 250 may comprise an image captured by MD 210 and displayed in screen 220 (e.g., a display or viewfinder of MD 210). Menu 250 may comprise a portion of a menu. For example, displayed portion of menu 250 shows about six menu items, whereas many more items may be included in a full menu. A user may select one or more menu items included in the displayed portion of menu 250.); and
causing, in response to determining to store the particular set of entities at the client device, the particular set of entities to be stored at the client device (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. The MD may receive signals representative of the user's menu item selection, which may be selected from among a plurality of menu items in the displayed captured image. the MD may communicate with a remote server, such as server 140 shown in FIG. 1, for example, to attempt to retrieve an image of the selected menu item. The MD may receive a previously captured image (or a review or a critique, for example) from the network. The image received from the network may be displayed at least partially over, adjacent to, or near the text of the selected menu item. For example, a stored image may include information regarding a corresponding menu item, restaurant, date and/or time that image was captured, whether there exists corresponding reviews, ratings, memory locations of possible reviews or ratings, just to name a few examples.)
For claim 2, Das et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein causing the content displayed on the client device to be captured as the image data occurs in response to a user input (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. If screen 220 comprises a touch screen, then a user may select menu item 230 by touching at least a portion of screen 220 displaying the menu item 230.)
For claim 4, Das et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining to store one or more sets of entities at the client device is further based on metadata associated with the image data (Fig. 2 and [0028], [0034] and [0039]-[0043]. A stored image may include information regarding a corresponding menu item, restaurant, date and/or time that image was captured, whether there exists corresponding reviews, ratings, memory locations of possible reviews or ratings, just to name a few examples.)
For claim 6, Das et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the particular set of entities is a topic-based set of entities (at least [0026]. Such an image may be captured by an image capturing device of an MD, for example, and the captured image may be displayed in a camera view of the MD. The displayed menu may comprise text that may be parsed in a process to identify at least one of the displayed menu items. Though claimed subject matter is not so limited, words or symbols may be parsed from text in response to a selection of the text by a user at a user interface of an MD. In one implementation, a processor of an MD may associate a location of the MD and/or parsed text with a previously captured image of a menu item previously presented to a customer.)
For claim 7, Das et al. disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the particular set of entities is a location-based set of entities (at least [0026]. Such an image may be captured by an image capturing device of an MD, for example, and the captured image may be displayed in a camera view of the MD. The displayed menu may comprise text that may be parsed in a process to identify at least one of the displayed menu items. Though claimed subject matter is not so limited, words or symbols may be parsed from text in response to a selection of the text by a user at a user interface of an MD. In one implementation, a processor of an MD may associate a location of the MD and/or parsed text with a previously captured image of a menu item previously presented to a customer.)
For claims 8-9, the claims have features which are similar claims 1-2. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-2.
For claim 11, the claim has features which are similar claim 4. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 4.
For claims 13-14, the claims have features which are similar claims 6-7. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 6-7.
For claims 15-16, the claims have features which are similar claims 1-2. Therefore, the claims are also rejected for the same reason in claims 1-2.
For claim 18, the claim has features which are similar claim 4. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 4.
For claim 20, the claim has features which are similar claim 6. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole Das et al. (U.S. 20130061148) in view of Oddiraju et al. (U.S. 20120044137).
For claim 3, Das et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein causing the content displayed on the client device to be captured as the image data occurs in response to the elapse of a period of time.
In the same field of endeavor, Oddiraju et al. disclose causing the content displayed on the client device to be captured as the image data occurs in response to the elapse of a period of time (at least [0052]. Automatic screen capture control system 574 may be configured to direct screen capture system 46 to automatically capture and store a screenshot of what is being displayed on display screen 36 at predetermined time intervals or at predetermined times. Such predetermined time intervals or predetermined determined times may be selected and established as a setting by person using display system 220. For example, in one embodiment, screen shots or predefined portions of screenshots may be automatically captured and stored every 5 seconds or at predefined times (i.e., 1:00 PM, 1:20 PM etc.). Such intervals or predefined times may be set by the person using system 220 so as to vary during the course of the day, week or month, or may be temporarily paused.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Das et al. as taught by Oddiraju et al. for purpose of updating captured screenshot.
For claims 10 and 17, the claims have features which are similar claim 3. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 3.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole Das et al. (U.S. 20130061148) in view of Myllymaki et al. (U.S. 20110313657).
For claim 5, Das et al. do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining to store the particular set of entities at the client device comprises: updating, in response to identifying one or more of the entities present in the image data, a score associated with the particular set of entities, wherein determining to store the particular set of entities at the user device is further based on the score satisfying a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Myllymaki et al. disclose determining to store the particular set of entities at the client device comprises: updating, in response to identifying one or more of the entities present in the image data, a score associated with the particular set of entities, wherein determining to store the particular set of entities at the user device is further based on the score satisfying a threshold (at least [0055] and [0082]. One or more points of interest are provided to the user based on the scoring of the points of interest and the ranking of the categories. The process 800 can be combined with other processes described herein. For example, scoring the points of interest can be based on proximity, time-related attributes, updates and/or uniqueness. Process 900 shown in FIG. 9 describes scoring points of interest based on proximity and uniqueness. Similarly, process 900 can be combined with other processes described herein. For example, scoring the points of interest can be further based on time-related attributes and/or updates. Other combinations and subcombinations are possible and contemplated by this description.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Das et al. as taught by Myllymaki et al. for purpose of identifying one or more of the points of interest is provided to the electronic device for presentation to the user on a display of the electronic device based on the ranking.
For claims 12 and 19, the claims have features which are similar claim 5. Therefore, the claim is also rejected for the same reason in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lyon et al. (U.S. 20190080180) disclose image processing techniques may be implemented to determine these less interesting image data captures do not include interesting or unique features (e.g., no natural scenery is recognized and/or a location associated with the captured image data is not near a designated landmark) and exclude them from being considered related (even though the image data may be captured within an identified timeline). In some embodiments, a user interface may display or present image data that may be considered related for further evaluation by a user. In this way, a user may include additional image data, or exclude identified image data, prior to the generation of a compilation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
