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, 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method / system / which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claims 1, 12, recites, intentionally distorting first content and providing different modified versions of the first content to different content distribution destinations.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of providing the data to destinations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental interactions between people (at the destinations) and user for whom the data is provided, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also can be performed mentally, which falls within the “Mental Processes”. Please see MPEP, B A Claim That Encompasses a Human Performing the Step(s) Mentally With or Without a Physical Aid Recites a Mental Process, C A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process, D Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process, III. MENTAL PROCESSES, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “storage device”, “record”, “image or audio”, “content”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the storing, distorting, providing, is no more than a statement that software instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). They amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f). The claimed including “storage device”, “record”, “image or audio”, “content” are generic.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The communication systems generically uses “storage device”, “record”, “image or audio”, “content” for communication among the users.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply use the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with storing, distorting and providing information to the destinations for the users specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20, contain, “intentionally”, which being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. It is not clear what is considered as “intentionally” versus “not intentionally”. It is not clear what all is included in “intentionally” versus “not intentionally”. “intentionally” is a relative term.
Claims 1, 12, contain, “inaccurate”, which being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. It is not clear what is considered as “inaccurate” versus “accurate”. It is not clear what all is included in “accurate” versus “inaccurate”. “inaccurate” is a relative term.
Claim 8, contain, “accurate”, which being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. It is not clear what is considered as “accurate” versus “not accurate”. It is not clear what all is included in “accurate” versus “not accurate”. “accurate” is a relative term.
Claim 5, contain, “intended group”, which is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. It is not clear what the group includes and does not include. It is not clear what is considered intended versus not intended.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are dependent claims of claims 1 and 12 and hence subject to the same rejections.
Note: If the distortion is done properly, then the distorted content is also considered “proper” “accurate” as desire.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 contains the first content is audio content”. However claim 1 contains, “intentionally distorting first content, including a first image or audio, to produce distorted content which is inaccurate content”. As rejected above, “the first image” is considered for examination as maximum number of claims 1-18 are for first image. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6, 12-14, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lester, 10475145.
Referring to claims 1, Lester discloses a method, the method comprising:
storing in a storage device, a first record including information relating to an obfuscation
program
(the described program components and systems can generally be integrated together in a single software product or packaged into multiple software products, col., 23, lines 22-25
(35 instructions received from software in memory 232. For example, the processor 236 is configured to submit a plurality of training images containing content identifying different semantic concepts to the convolutional neural network 240. The convolutional neural network 240 is configured to analyze image pixel data for each of the plurality of training images to identify features corresponding to a particular semantic concept. Based on the plurality of training images, the convolutional neural network 240 generates a saliency map when a new image is fed through the convolutional neural network 240. Col., 6, lines 16 – 20
For example, some of the images in image database 252 may be stored to provide background fields that may be useful in decompressing and reconstructing images. For such images having valuable background information, a background descriptor may emphasize this aspect in relevant feedback database 254. The tagging can serve as an indication of an association between a corresponding saliency value and one or more style classes. The metadata may be a metadata file including the background descriptor and stored as a flat document or an index identifying a storage location in image database 252. For example, the metadata file may include one or more rows of data including an image identifier, an image URL, a style identifier (e.g., identifying the corresponding style class), and a background descriptor, col., 11, lines 15-35 ),
intentionally distorting first content, (blurring, etc using the settings, col., 9, lines 52-63) including a first image, to produce distorted content which is inaccurate content (col., 14, lines 1-15, user preferences and settings for different types and level of alterations), said distorted content including multiple different modified versions of the first content (col., 14, lines 1-15, different images using user selections for the alternations, user-provide image that is blurred to produce blurred image, darkening the image to produce darkened image, defocusing the image to produce defocused image, skewing the portion of the image to produce skewed image, removing portion of the image to produce image without removed portion,
a photographer may be determined to purchase images more than an editor. In this aspect, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be overlapped with the image that the photographer is viewing rather than the image the editor is viewing. In some embodiments, a frequent purchaser is more likely to purchase images than the one-time purchaser is. In this regard, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be overlapped with the image that the frequent purchaser is viewing rather than the image the one-time purchaser is viewing. In another embodiment, a frequent visitor of the website is more likely to purchase images than the one-time visitor is. In this regard, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be applied to the image that the frequent visitor is viewing, col., 12, lines 33-43
(39 a plurality of types of watermarks or a plurality of aggressiveness levels that are optimal for the image. The suggestions can include a preview of the image overlapped with the suggested type of watermark based on the suggested level of aggressiveness. Col., 17, lines 12-18
(40) provide a first plurality of sample images to a trained convolutional neural network to generate a first saliency model and a second plurality of sample images to generate a second saliency model. The first plurality of sample images can be a different set of images than the second plurality of sample images. Col., 9, lines 25-28
providing different modified versions of the first content to different content distribution
destinations (col., 17, lines 37-48, col., 14, lines 1-15, figs. 3A-5D, based on different settings,
determine that a viewer living in Singapore is more likely to purchase a landscape image of Singapore than a viewer living in South Africa is. In this regard, a weight assigned to the region criterion is likely to be higher for a viewer living in the same continent than a viewer living in a different continent. In some embodiments, the weight assigned to the region criterion may be determined based on the distance of a user (i.e., region associated with a user account) and the geographic location identified in the image. The region of the user can be identified from a user profile associated with the user account. The region information can be retrieved from the interaction history database 254. For example, the region information may be determined based on an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the user. Each IP address may include a unique identifier that identifies the region of the IP address, col., 12, lines 44 - 58
For purposes of load balancing, multiple servers 130 can host the neural network and multiple servers 130 can host the image database, col., 5, lines 53-59
multiple computers that are located at one site or distributed across multiple sites and interconnected by a communication network., col., 18, lines 50-55
Referring to claim 2, Lester discloses,
wherein intentionally distorting the first content includes generating multiple different distorted
images from the first image (col., 9, lines 52-63, col., 14, lines 1-15); and
wherein providing different modified versions of the first content to different content distribution
destinations includes distributing different modified versions of the first image at different times
to different websites. (col., 17, lines 37-48, col., 14, lines 1-15, figs. 3A-5D, images using different settings)
Referring to claim 3, Lester discloses,
wherein the first record includes said different modified versions of the first content, said
different modified versions of the first content including a first modified image and a second
modified image (col., 9, lines 52-62).
Referring to claim 4, Lester discloses,
storing in said first record user image distortion preference information indicating a first
type of image distortion to be applied to content, corresponding to a first user, to be distributed to
a first website (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28).
wherein said step of intentionally distorting the first content includes performing the first type of
image distortion on the first content when generating a modified image to be distributed to the
first website (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28).
Referring to claim 5, Lester discloses,
The method of claim 4, wherein said first content is received with information indicating
the intended group or web site to which the content is to be distributed and information
indicating a user to which the first content corresponds. (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28)
Referring to claim 6, Lester discloses,
wherein the first record corresponds to the first user and is a first user record (account, col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28)
using the group or web site to which the content is to be distributed to identify
information included in the first user record that is to be used to control the type of distortion to
be applied to the first content to generate a modified version of the first image for distribution to
the first website (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28)
Referring to claim 12-14, the system claim is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same rationale as the method claim 1-3, respectively.
Referring to claim 19, 20, the limitations of claims 19, 20 do not further limit the first content being image content.
Claim 1 contains, “intentionally distorting first content, including a first image or audio, to produce distorted content which is inaccurate content”. As rejected above, “the first image” is considered for examination.
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of PHAM et al., 20170331805
Referring to claim 7, Lester discloses, wherein the first content includes a first image, the method further comprising: generating an obfuscation plan corresponding to said first image, said obfuscation plan including information (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28).
Lester do not disclose, which Pham discloses, when and where to distribute different images (para 29, 53, 55, 59).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The different blurred images would be available for the posting based on user’s preference as per Lester, which would be shared to different public audiences at different locations and when the user desires to post, para 86, 136.
Referring to claim 11, Lester discloses, providing different modified versions of the
first content to different content distribution destinations, as per the citations of claim 1. PHAM discloses posting different distorted images generated from the first content to different web sites, para 86, 136
Referring to claim 16, Lester discloses, wherein the first record further includes planed distribution information for the first modified image, as per the citations of claim 1. PHAM discloses indicating when the first modified image is to be distributed; and indicating when the second modified image is to be distributed (para 29, 53, 55, 59)
Claim(s) 7, 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Chang et al., 20160291855
Referring to claim 7, Lester discloses, wherein the first content includes a first image, the method further comprising: generating an obfuscation plan corresponding to said first image, said obfuscation plan including information (col., 12, lines 33-43, Col., 17, lines 12-18, Col., 9, lines 25-28).
Lester do not disclose, which Chang discloses, when and where to distribute different images (different websites, para, 60, 2, 43).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The different blurred images would be available for the posting based on user’s preference as per Lester, which would be shared to different users at different locations using different websites and when the user desires to post, para 60, 2, 43.
Referring to claim 11, Lester discloses, providing different modified versions of the
first content to different content distribution destinations, as per the citations of claim 1. Chang discloses posting different distorted images generated from the first content to different web sites, para 60, 2, 43
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Chen et al., CN 112101216 A.
Referring to claim 8, Lester discloses, determining a number of distorted images to generate and distribute based on the determined number of images corresponding to the first individual or object, said determined number of distorted images being greater than the determined images (
a photographer may be determined to purchase images more than an editor. In this aspect, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be overlapped with the image that the photographer is viewing rather than the image the editor is viewing. In some embodiments, a frequent purchaser is more likely to purchase images than the one-time purchaser is. In this regard, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be overlapped with the image that the frequent purchaser is viewing rather than the image the one-time purchaser is viewing. In another embodiment, a frequent visitor of the website is more likely to purchase images than the one-time visitor is. In this regard, a lower level watermark (less aggressive watermark) can be applied to the image that the frequent visitor is viewing, col., 12, lines 33-43
(39 a plurality of types of watermarks or a plurality of aggressiveness levels that are optimal for the image. The suggestions can include a preview of the image overlapped with the suggested type of watermark based on the suggested level of aggressiveness. Col., 17, lines 12-18
(40) provide a first plurality of sample images to a trained convolutional neural network to generate a first saliency model and a second plurality of sample images to generate a second saliency model. The first plurality of sample images can be a different set of images than the second plurality of sample images. Col., 9, lines 25-28
Lester do not disclose, which CHEN discloses, number of publicly available accurate images (abstract).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known collection of information from Internet. The different images available for a user would be available to download from the Internet. Rather than asking a user for the image, a face recognition would enable collection of pictures that are available on the Internet, abstract.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Chen et al., CN 112101216 A and Goodman, 10656801.
Referring to claim 9, Lester and Chen do not disclose, which Goodman discloses determining a period of time over which to distribute generated distorted images corresponding to the first image (claim 14, col., 1, lines 48-58, col., 20, lines 28-45).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement time duration for distribution and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The scheduling time would be provided that would enable the posting based on user’s preference for sharing the image to public at the scheduled time, claim 14, col., 1, lines 48-58, col., 20, lines 28-45.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Chen, Goodman, and Chang.
Referring to claim 10, Lester discloses generating said number of distorted images as part of said step of intentionally distorting first content, as per the citations of claim 1. Lester, Chen, Goodman do not disclose, Chang discloses, distributing at least some of said generated distorted images to different web sites at different times (different websites, para, 60, 2, 43).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The different blurred images would be available for the posting based on user’s preference as per Lester, which would be shared to different users at different locations using different websites and when the user desires to post, para 60, 2, 43.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Chen, Goodman, and PHAM.
Referring to claim 10, Lester discloses generating said number of distorted images as part of said step of intentionally distorting first content, as per the citations of claim 1. Lester, Chen, Goodman do not disclose, PHAM discloses, distributing at least some of said generated distorted images to different web sites at different times (para 29, 53, 55, 59).
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The different blurred images would be available for the posting based on user’s preference as per Lester, which would be shared to different public audiences at different locations and when the user desires to post, para 86, 136.
Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of Yokono et al., 20110135192
Referring to claim 17, Lester do not disclose, which Yokono discloses, wherein the indicated type of modification includes one of: altering of facial feature spacing, rotation of a facial feature or feature replacement, para 136
Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement these limitations different blurred images and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known biometric information. The different blurred images with altered information would be available for the posting based on user’s preference associated with the biometric information., para 136.
Claim(s) 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lester in view of XIAO, 20170278546
Referring to claim 18, Lester do not disclose, which XIAO discloses, information indicating a level of first type of image distortion to be applied to content, corresponding to a first user, para 241, 345, 355, 158). Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by Lester to implement time duration for distribution and also one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it could provide utilizing well-known posting information. The scheduling time would be provided that would enable the posting based on user’s preference for sharing the image to public at the scheduled time, para 241, 345.
Conclusion
Pertinent prior arts: Lee et al., 20200382719 (para 69, 98, 104, 120, 121).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3973. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado, can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/HARESH N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights