DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed 29 July 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 29 July 2025, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11 and 20 are amended. This action is Final.
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
This application claims priority to provisional application 63/547,264 filed 3 November 2023.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1-20 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment to the claims.
Clarification - 35 USC § 101
The “computer-readable storage medium” of claim 20 is considered to be limited to statutory mediums based on the explicit disavowal statement in paragraph [0025], lines 7-8, which states “Any computer-readable media claimed here include only those media falling within statutorily patentable categories.”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites receiving a user request to find media that corresponds to a given event, wherein the given event is identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available, and wherein the media is publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user at least some of which have no known connection to the user; accessing media information to find media that matches the received user request; displaying found media to the user, at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than the user that have no known connection to the user; and receiving a selection of a specific media item within the found media to display to the user, wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of “accessing media information to find media that matches the received user request,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitation encompasses observing information to find matches. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of a processor. The additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of receiving a user request to find media that corresponds to a given event, displaying found media to the user and receiving a selection of a specific media item within the found media to display to the user. These limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The concepts of wherein the media is media publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user and wherein the given event is identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements and limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of a processor. The additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional limitations of receiving a user request to find media that corresponds to a given event, displaying found media to the user and receiving a selection of a specific media item within the found media to display to the user. These limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and are also simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The concepts of wherein the media is media publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user and wherein the given event is identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites a social media component that abstracts differences of social media provider's APIs to allow the system to generically query for available media based on time and location from each social media provider; a media data store that stores references to discovered media, a time associated with the discovered media, a location associated with the discovered media, and a preview of the discovered media, wherein the time associated with the discovered media and the location associated with the discovered media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available; a capture component that captures the user's own media from a digital device of the user and stores metadata about the captured media so that the media can be included along with publicly exposed media in future searches for the user; a mining component that collects and finds potentially relevant media by crawling various social media sites and other sources of publicly available media; a linking component that forms links between media references that identify media that share common information; a query component that receives queries from the user of the system; and a viewing component that organizes returned media that matches the query and presents the returned media to the user, at least some of the returned media comprised of media captured by people other than the user that have no known connection to the user.
The limitations of a social media component that abstracts differences of social media provider's APIs to allow the system to generically query for available media based on time and location from each social media provider; a mining component that collects and finds potentially relevant media by crawling various social media sites and other sources of publicly available media; and a linking component that forms links between media references that identify media references that share common information under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass determining differences in attribute names, observing content and then forming links between content. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, a social media component, a media data store, a capture component, a mining component, a linking component, a query component and a viewing component. The additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The concepts of publicly exposed media, a specified handle, wherein the one or more locations and one or more time periods associated with all of the media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available and at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of stores references to discovered media, a time associated with the discovered media, a location associated with the discovered media, and a preview of the discovered media; captures the user's own media from a digital device of the user and stores metadata about the captured media so that the media can be included along with publicly exposed media in future searches for the user; receives queries from the user of the system; and organizes returned media that matches the query and presents the returned media to the user are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements and limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of a processor, memory, a social media component, a media data store, a capture component, a mining component, a linking component, a query component and a viewing component. The additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The concepts of publicly exposed media, a specified handle, wherein the one or more locations and one or more time periods associated with all of the media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available and at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of stores references to discovered media, a time associated with the discovered media, a location associated with the discovered media, and a preview of the discovered media; captures the user's own media from a digital device of the user and stores metadata about the captured media so that the media can be included along with publicly exposed media in future searches for the user; receives queries from the user of the system; and organizes returned media that matches the query and presents the returned media to the user are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites receiving a crawl request to access publicly posted videos and stories by providing a specified handle of a third-party provider and a crawl interval at which to crawl for new media; at the specified interval, accessing media since the last interval at the third-party provider; grouping the accessed media according to media metadata to create media linking information that links media that occurs at one or more locations and one or more time periods to other media that occurs at the same one or more locations and one or more time periods, wherein the one or more locations and one or more time periods associated with all of the media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available; and storing references to the accessed media with the media linking information in a media data store that can be accessed in response to user searches for publicly available media captured by persons other than the user, at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user.
The limitation of “grouping the accessed media according to media metadata to create media linking information that links media that occurs at one or more locations and one or more time periods to other media that occurs at the same one or more locations and one or more time periods,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitation encompasses organizing photographs based on location and a date stamp. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of storage medium, instructions and a processor. These additional elements are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the limitations of receiving a crawl request to access publicly posted videos and stories by providing a specified handle of a third-party provider and a crawl interval at which to crawl for new media; at the specified interval, accessing media since the last interval at the third-party provider; and storing references to the discovered media with the media linking information in a media data store that can be accessed in response to user searches for publicly available media captured by persons other than the user. The concepts of publicly exposed media, a specified handle, wherein the one or more locations and one or more time periods associated with all of the media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available and at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements and limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of storage medium, instructions and a processor. These additional elements are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the limitations of receiving a crawl request to access publicly posted videos and stories by providing a specified handle of a third-party provider and a crawl interval at which to crawl for new media; at the specified interval, accessing media since the last interval at the third-party provider; and storing references to the discovered media with the media linking information in a media data store that can be accessed in response to user searches for publicly available media captured by persons other than the user. The concepts of publicly exposed media, a specified handle, wherein the one or more locations and one or more time periods associated with all of the media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available and at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim from which they depend from. Each additional limitation of the dependent claims are also directed to the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional limitations of the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim from which they depend from. The additional elements of each of the dependent claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional limitations of the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim from which they depend from. The additional elements of each of the dependent claims are adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional limitations of the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount to an inventive concept.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US Patent No 9,881,085 to Tan (hereafter Tan).
Referring to claim 1, Kwon discloses a computer-implemented method to find media in response to a user search, the method comprising:
receiving a user request to find media that corresponds to a given event (see [0056]; [0097] – Recommended content may be searched and received, according to the details input by the user, on the basis of event metadata including a period from Apr 21, 2012 to Apr 24, 2012, a location in Seoul, an event name of ICE, and a host of KIST), wherein the given event is identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available (see [0055]; [0056]; [0058]; Fig 6 – The event metadata generating unit generates event metadata regarding content selected by the user to be uploaded. The process of uploading content is considered to be analogous to the claimed process of capturing content based on paragraph [0017] of the Application’s published specification.), and wherein the media is media publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user (see [0045]-[0049] – Content owned by friends available on social network services.);
accessing media information to find media that matches the received user request (see [0063]-[0069] – The searching unit is configured to search the content uploaded to the SNS server for recommended content to be provided to the user based on the event metadata and the social metadata. The searching unit searches the SNS server for social metadata and recommended content through the network. The searching unit requests the searched recommended content from the SNS server and may receive the requested recommended content.);
displaying found media to the user (see [0072]; [0101] – A region may be provided that displays the recommended content provided to the user.); and
receiving a selection of a specific media item within the found media to display to the user (see [0045] – The user may receive and browse a number of pieces of recommended content and then select a set of contents from the recommended contents to create a new album by using a multimedia contents recommendation.),
wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor (see [0104]; [0105]).
While Kwon discloses that the social network service includes a service that stores, shares and displays various types of content uploaded by service users to the SNS server so as to be provided to other services users (see [0048]), Kwon fails to explicitly state that some of the other users are unknown to the first user and gives examples of sharing content with friends and family members. Therefore, Kwon fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of wherein the media is publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user at least some of which have no known connection to the user. Tan teaches the limitations of
receiving a user request to find media that corresponds to a given event (see column 15, lines 30-49 – Determine whether a viewer has requested a video from a group of videos associated with the same event.), wherein the event is identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available (see column 5, line 49 – column 6, line 8; Fig 2 and associated text), and wherein the media is publicly exposed media captured by people other than the user at least some of which have no known connection to the user (see column 5, lines 3-19; column 8, line 60 – column 9, line 13 – As shown, an aggregation application can receive video data and video metadata from multiple video sources. For example, the aggregation application can receive user-generated content from users of a video-sharing service, a video hosting service, or the like. The aggregation application can determine whether the video is a public video or a private video. A public video can include any video that is made available to the public by a user that provided the video.);
accessing media information to find media that matches the received user request (see column 5, lines 3-19 – When a viewer requests a video, the aggregation application can determine whether the video is associated with other videos as part of a group of videos depicting the same event or whether the video is associated with a particular event.); and
displaying found media to the user, at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than the user that have no known connection to the user (see column 8, line 67 – column 9, line 13; column 15, line 50 – column 16, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the social network server of Kwon to allow access to public content as taught by Tan. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a plethora of relevant content to a user since the SNS servers of Kwon are known services which allow for people to continuously upload multimedia content taken by using the mobile terminals to an online services and show other people the uploaded content, thereby forming social networks (Kwon: see [0005]; [0049]).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Kwon and Tan (hereafter Kwon/Tan) discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the given event is specified by a time period [a period from Apr 21, 2012 to Apr 24, 2012] or a location [a location in Seoul] (Kwon: see [0097] – Recommended content may be searched and received, according to the details input by the user, on the basis of event metadata including a period from Apr 21, 2012 to Apr 24, 2012, a location in Seoul, an event name of ICE, and a host of KIST).
Referring to claim 4, Kwon/Tan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein accessing media information comprises accessing one or more social media providers that provide publicly available media via a live search application-programming interface (API) (Kwon: see [0049] – The SNS server may include Facebook and Twitter. According to paragraph [0011] of Applicant’s Specification, Facebook and X, which is formerly Twitter, are examples of providers that provide APIs that allow for searching and accessing metadata.).
Referring to claim 5, Kwon/Tan discloses the method of claim 4 wherein accessing media information comprises comparing metadata of media held by each provider to determine media that matches the user request (Kwon: see [0063]-[0069] – The searching unit is configured to search the content uploaded to the SNS server for recommended content to be provided to the user based on the event metadata and the social metadata. The searching unit searches the SNS server for social metadata and recommended content through the network. The searching unit requests the searched recommended content from the SNS server and may receive the requested recommended content.).
Referring to claim 7, Kwon/Tan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein accessing media information comprises receiving a specific time in the user request, determining a period around the specific time within which to define that a given media item matches, and finding media having metadata that specifies a time within the period (Kwon: see [0097] – Recommended content may be searched and received, according to the details input by the user, on the basis of event metadata including a period from Apr 21, 2012 to Apr 24, 2012, a location in Seoul, an event name of ICE, and a host of KIST).
Referring to claim 8, Kwon/Tan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein displaying found media comprises displaying a summary of the found media via a collage of images or a reel of videos (Kwon: see [0101] – The recommended content may be displayed in thumbnail forms or icon forms.).
Referring to claim 10, Kwon/Tan discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising receiving one or more narrowing criteria that refine the user request to identify less media in response to the user request, and displaying a subset of the displayed found narrowing criteria (Kwon: see [0098] – As the user directly inputs additional metainformation, the user receives recommended multimedia appropriate for the user’s intention.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US Patent No 9,881,085 to Tan (hereafter Tan) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No 11,902,702 to Champa (hereafter Champa).
Referring to claim 3, while Kwon/Tan teaches as the user directly inputs additional metainformation, the user receives recommended multimedia appropriate for the user’s intention in paragraph [0098], Kwon/Tan fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation of refining the request by narrowing the time period or picking particular sub-locations of the location. Champa discloses searching for videos using a time range and location, including the further limitation of refining the request by narrowing the time period or picking particular sub-locations of the location (see column 9, lines 11-23 and column 11, lines 38-46 – Users may modify the time range and/or radius of the search results list.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refine the request of Kwon/Tan by either narrowing the time period or location in the manner taught by Champa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to narrow the search results by updating the search criteria (Kwon: see [0098]; Champa: see column 9, lines 11-23 and column 11, lines 38-46).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US Patent No 9,881,085 to Tan (hereafter Tan) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2024/0147025 to US PGPub 2019/0034440 to Li et al (hereafter Li).
Referring to claim 6, while Kwon/Tan teaches searching based on a location, Kwon/Tan fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein accessing media information comprises receiving a latitude and longitude that defines a point in the user request, determining a radius from that point within which to define that a given media item matches, and finding media having metadata that specifies a location within the radius. Li teaches searching for content by location (see [0005] and [0006]), including the further limitation wherein accessing media information comprises receiving a latitude and longitude that defines a point in the user request (see [0033]; [0054] – The designated location may comprise a location name or identifier, then the latitude and longitude data can be acquired based on this location name or identifier.), determining a radius from that point within which to define that a given media item matches (see [0038]-[0040]; Fig 1, S103 – Determining the grid’s corresponding optimal search radius from correspondence relationships between grids and optimal search radiuses.), and finding media having metadata that specifies a location within the radius (see [0043]; Fig 1, S104 – Using the optimal search radius to perform a search corresponding to the target search request and obtain returned results.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter the search results of Kwon/Tan based on a search radius in the manner taught by Li. One would have been motivated to do so to precisely control the size of the returned search result sets and improve the user experience (Li: see [0005]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US Patent No 9,881,085 to Tan (hereafter Tan) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2024/0147025 to US PGPub 2007/0211080 to Adams et al (hereafter Adams).
Referring to claim 9, while Kwon/Tan teaches that the recommended content can include a thumbnail image (see [0068] and [0101]) and receiving selection of a specific media item, Kwon/Tan fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein receiving the selection of the specific media item comprises receiving an indication that the user clicked on or hovered over the specific media item, downloading a fuller size version of the media, and displaying the fuller size version of the media to the user. Adams teaches displaying images, including the further limitation wherein receiving the selection of the specific media item comprises receiving an indication that the user clicked on or hovered over the specific media item, downloading a fuller size version of the media, and displaying the fuller size version of the media to the user (see [0026]; [0027] – If a user wishes to download the high resolution images that are linked to thumbnail representations, the user traditionally clicks on each thumbnail representation to view the higher resolution version. Then the user saves or prints the displayed image.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for a user to click on a thumbnail of Kwon/Tan in the manner taught by Adams. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a user to download a higher resolution image that they can then save or print (Adams: see [0026]; [0027]).
Claim(s) 11, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US PGPub 2024/0346098 to Cicinyte et al (hereafter Cicinyte).
Referring to claim 11, Kwon discloses a computer system for finding publicly exposed media captured by other people, the system comprising:
a processor and memory configured to execute software instructions embodied within the following components (see [0104]);
a social media component [searching unit 122] that abstracts differences of social media provider's application-programming interfaces (APIs) to allow the system to generically query for available media based on time and location from each social media provider (see [0062]; [0069]; [0097] and Fig 7 – The searching unit searches social metadata by determining the sameness/similarity of the corresponding components.);
a media data store [storage unit 124] that stores references to discovered media, a time associated with the discovered media [date information], a location associated with the discovered media [location information], and a preview of the discovered media (see [0054]; [0056] – The storage unit stores content selected by users and event metadata. In addition, the storage unit 124 stores searched social metadata and recommended content.), wherein the time [time] associated with the discovered media and the location [location] associated with the discovered media are identified at the time the media is captured and before it is made publicly available (see [0055]; [0056]; [0058]; Fig 6 – The event metadata generating unit generates event metadata regarding content selected by the user to be uploaded. The process of uploading content is considered to be analogous to the claimed process of capturing content based on paragraph [0017] of the Application’s published specification.);
a capture component that captures the user's own media from a digital device of the user and stores metadata about the captured media so that the media can be included along with publicly exposed media in future searches for the user (see [0052]; [0054]; [0055]; [0061]; [0082]);
a query component [searching region 503] that receives queries from the user of the system (see [0094]; [0098]); and
a viewing component that organizes returned media that matches the query and presents the returned media to the user (see [0101] – A region may be provided that displays the recommended content provided to the user.).
While Kwon teaches querying content from a plurality of social services networks, Kwon fails to explicitly disclose the further limitations of a mining component that collects and finds potentially relevant media by crawling various social media sites and other sources of publicly available media and a linking component that forms links between media references that identify media references that share common information. Cicinyte teaches the aggregation and linking of content, including the further limitations of
a mining component [the crawling engine 205] that collects and finds potentially relevant media by crawling various social media sites and other sources of publicly available media [third party data sources which additionally includes one or more social networking platforms] (see [0022]; [0024] – The crawling engine receives a list of URLs of third-party data source websites and monitors the websites to detect the addition of new content items. The crawling engine may operate according to a content retrieval schedule by querying the third-party data source website for new content on a periodic basis (e.g., every 1-3 minutes) or on a frequency with which the third-party data source uploads new content to its website.);
a linking component [clustering engine 220] that forms links between media references that identify media that share common information (see [0034], lines 9-15; [0036]; [0056] – After the content has been passed through the various stages of cleaning, processing, and AI ML systems, the articles are grouped and stored, for example, based by source, geography, language origin, category, subject, dare, etc.);
a query component [search ability 325] that receives queries from the user of the system (see [0040] – The interface also includes a search ability that enables the user to search the news aggregation application (e.g., for a category, specific topic, keyword, content item, news source, or the like).); and
a viewing component [interface generation engine] that organizes returned media that matches the query and presents the returned media to the user (see [0036]; [0038]), at least some of the found media comprised of media captured by people other than a searching user that have no known connection to the searching user (see [0021] – One or more third-party data sources are coupled to the network for communication with the news aggregation system. A third-party data source is a content provider, such as a news agency or similar entity, having one or more associated websites to which news stories and other content items are posted.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mining and linking component of Cicinyte to crawl and link the sources of Kwon. One would have been motivated to do so to efficiently display content to a user in a relevant manner (Cicinyte: see [0002]).
Referring to claim 13, the combination of Kwon and Cicinyte (hereafter Kwon/Cicinyte) teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the media data store recognizes faces or landmarks in the media to correlate media by this information (Kwon: see [0060]; [0065] – tagged persons; Cicinyte: see [0029]).
Referring to claim 14, Kwon/Cicinyte teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the capture component detects that a user takes a photo or video with the user's smartphone, receives the photo or video, adds additional metadata including a location and time to associate with the media, and stores that information in the media data store (Kwon: see [0052]; [0054]; [0055]; [0056]; [0061]; [0082]).
Referring to claim 15, Kwon/Cicinyte teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the mining component crawls media by accessing the Internet and other networks to collect media and metadata, generating an index that enables information retrieval along particular axes faster, and stores the index for future searches (Cicinyte: see [0034], lines 9-15; [0036]; [0056] – After the content has been passed through the various stages of cleaning, processing, and AI ML systems, the articles are grouped and stored, for example, based by source, geography, language origin, category, subject, dare, etc.).
Referring to claim 16, Kwon/Cicinyte teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the mining component also performs live searches upon user request by issuing a query to a social media provider [SNS server] to find media that matches particular criteria when a user request is received (Kwon: see [0049]; [0068]).
Referring to claim 17, Kwon/Cicinyte teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the query component builds a query that checks a previously built crawling index for media that matches the user query (see [0040] – The interface also includes a search ability that enables the user to search the news aggregation application (e.g., for a category, specific topic, keyword, content item, news source, or the like).).
Referring to claim 19, Kwon/Cicinyte teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the viewing component summarizes each media item and generates a summary display to present to the user (Kwon: see [0068]; [0101]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US PGPub 2024/0346098 to Cicinyte et al (hereafter Cicinyte) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2016/0098492 to Park et al (hereafter Park).
Referring to claim 12, while Kwon/Cicinyte discloses the querying of a plurality of social media providers, Kwon/Cicinyte fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein the social media component leverages a plugin architecture that allows more social media providers to be supported by the system over time by writing a plugin specific to a new social media provider. Park teaches accessing data sources, including the further limitation of wherein the social media component leverages a plugin architecture that allows more social media providers to be supported by the system over time by writing a plugin specific to a new social media provider [source] (see [0035] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the plugin architecture of Park with the searching unit of Kwon/Cicinyte. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to decrease the resources and overhead necessary to add new sources (Park: see [0002]-[0008]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2014/0074879 to Kwon et al (hereafter Kwon) in view of US PGPub 2024/0346098 to Cicinyte et al (hereafter Cicinyte) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US Patent No 11,782,986 to Mehta (hereafter Mehta).
Referring to claim 18, while Kwon/Cicinyte teaches refining a query (Kwon: see [0098]), Kwon/Cicinyte fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation of an artificial intelligence component that augments the user query with additional search criteria to help find relevant media using pattern matching. Mehta teaches refining a user query, including the further limitation of an artificial intelligence component that augments the user query with additional search criteria to help find relevant media using pattern matching (see column 9, line 54 – column 10, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to refine the user query of Kwon/Cicinyte in the manner taught by Mehta. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the query by capturing the user intent, which improves the results (Mehta: see column 9, line 54 – column 10, line