DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per remarks, Applicants argued that (1) Das’s classifying/clustering is based upon the timestamp to identify common events, Das does not disclose clustering using extracted content or photo feature.
As to point (1), the current application discloses the extracted content feature and/or extracted photo image feature, such as by activity, location, time, date etc..[ specification paragraphs 0021, and 0098 ]. In this case, Das clearly disclose collection of images based on time/date clustering of the images [ paragraphs 0041, and 0060 ]. Furthermore, Das discloses generate feature descriptors [ 120, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0035, and 0036 ] by analyze the digital image to characterize a series of features related t the image content including scene class, materials class, facial features of the image content [ Figure 3; and paragraphs 0036-0040 ], and group related images [ i.e. broadly interpreted as clustering common detected extracted content feature and/or extracted photo image feature as claimed ] [ 185, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0068-0070 ]. As such, the claimed language as written, unpatentable over the cited prior art.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. [ US Patent No 2013/0051670 ], in view of Hamilton-Dick et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0201227 ].
4. As per claim 1, Das discloses the invention as claimed including a method of processing a digital photo collection for display on a digital picture frame including a digital display mounted within a frame, and a network connection module [ i.e. display device ] [ Figure 1; and paragraphs 0033, and 0034 ], the method comprising:
automatically extracting content features from photos of the digital photo collection [ i.e. analyze capture metadata include time of day and generate feature descriptors ] [ 310-316, 130, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0041-0043 ];
automatically extracting photo image features for the extracted content features from photos of the digital photo collection [ i.e. analyze image content including color and generate feature descriptors ] [ 300-310, Figure 3; and paragraphs 0037-0040 ];
creating metadata tags for the photos as a function of the extracted content features and the extracted photo image features [ i.e. feature descriptors are related to image content or image capture conditions for the digital images ] [ 130, Figures 2 and 3; and paragraphs 0035, and 0036 ];
storing tagged photos in a database [ i.e. store in database is used to store the feature descriptors in a metadata database ] [ 140, 145, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0051, and 0053 ];
clustering the tagged photos into a plurality of sub-clusters, each for a corresponding common detected extracted content feature and/or extracted photo image feature [ i.e. event clustering step to generate a set of event clusters corresponding to events in the digital image collection ] [ Figure 4; and paragraphs 0060, and 0061 ]; and
mining correlations within the metadata tags [ i.e. frequent pattern mining ] [ 150, Figure 2; Abstract; and paragraphs 0052, 053, 0056, and 0057 ].
Das does not specifically disclose
determining photo content trends within the digital photo collection from the correlations.
Hamilton-Dick discloses
determining photo content trends within the digital photo collection from the correlations [ i.e. to catch or detect trending topic and provide images ] [ Figure 9, and 10A-10C; and paragraphs 0037, 0056 and 0057 ].
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 Das and Hamilton-Dick because the teaching of Hamilton-Dick would enable to provide improved system and method for images in a timely fashion and without requiring extensive manual involvement [ Hamilton-Dick, paragraph 0003 ]..
5. As per claim 2, Das discloses wherein the mining comprises determining relationships between different metadata tags of a plurality of the tagged photos [ i.e. relationships ] [ paragraph 0008 ].
6. As per claim 3, Das discloses comparing sub-clusters of photos across more than one digital photo collection over a network and mining correlations from the more than one digital photo collection [ i.e. comparing ] [ paragraph 0061 ].
7. As per claim 4, Das discloses wherein the extracted content features comprises a location, a season, a weather content, a time of day, a date, an activity content, and/or one or more attributes of a person of the photos [ 310-316, 130, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0041-0043 ].
8. As per claim 5, Das discloses wherein the extracted photo image features comprise a light intensity or a color within the photos [ 300-310, Figure 3; and paragraphs 0037-0040 ].
9. As per claim 7, Das discloses wherein the extracted photo image features comprise a light intensity or a color within the photos [ 300-310, Figure 3; and paragraphs 0037-0040 ].
10. As per claim 11, Das discloses wherein the storing tagged photos in a database comprises storing the metadata tags in a multi-dimensional dataset [ i.e. plurality of frequent itemsets ] [ Abstract ].
11. As per claim 13, Hamilton-Docl discloses wherein the determining photo content trends comprises determining popular locations, clothing items, colors, and/or activities within the plurality of the tagged photos, for a predetermined time period and/or a predetermined age group [ i.e. select or recommended by the system based on an analysis of metadata and/or a narrative associated with an event, and the location of the event ] [ paragraph 0028 ].
12. As per claim 14, Hamilton-Dick discloses mining correlation and determining trend across more than one digital photo collection over a network [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0041, and 0042 ].
13. Claims 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. [ US Patent No 2013/0051670 ], in view of Hamilton-Dick et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0201227 ], and further in view of Rhoads et al. [ US Patent Application No 2010/0048242 ].
14. As per claim 6, Das in view of Hamilton-Dick does not specifically disclose wherein the extracted photo image features comprise a clothing color of the person of the photos. Rhoads discloses wherein the extracted photo image features comprise a clothing color of the person of the photos [ paragraphs 0131, 0360, and 0361 ]. 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 Das, Hamilton-Dick and Rhoads because the teaching of Rhoads would enable to provide distributed architecture to reduce cost and increase reliability [ Rhoads, paragraph 0558 ].
15. As per claim 8, Rhoads discloses wherein the extracted content features includes a season [ paragraphs 0375, and 0510 ] and the extracted photo image feature includes a clothing color of the photos [ paragraphs 0131, 0360, and 0361 ].
16. Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. [ US Patent No 2013/0051670 ], in view of Hamilton-Dick et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0201227 ], and further in view of Al-Shameri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2010/0223276 ].
17. As per claim 9, Das in view of Hamiloton-Dick does not specifically disclose wherein the mining correlations comprises rule mining the metadata tags. Al-Shameri discloses wherein the mining correlations comprises rule mining the metadata tags [ paragraph 0153 ]. 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 Das, Hamilton-Dick and Al-Shameri because the teaching of Al-Shameri would enable to an effective and scalable algorithm which will help to extract information from the large datasets [ Al-Shameri, paragraph 0074 ].
18. As per claim 10, Al-Shameri discloses wherein the rule mining comprises association rule mining by generating a set of association rules or implications with a confidence, and support for the set [ paragraphs 0152, and 0190 ].
19. As per claim 12, Al-Shameri discloses wherein the mining correlations comprises performing slicing operations and/or dicing operations on the multi-dimensional dataset [ i.e. divide ] [ paragraphs 0208, and 0215 ].
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 15-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
22. 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