DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restriction
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-13 is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species:
Species I: Claims: 4 and 14, directed to a method for selectively outputting data to a target device, and where the target device is a first type device.
Species II: Claims 5 and 15, directed to a method for selectively outputting data to a target device, and where the target device is a second type device.
Species III: Claims 6-9 and 16-19, directed to a method for selectively outputting data to a target device, and where the target device is a third type device.
The species are independent or distinct because the species contain alternate methods for outputting target data in a first scenario. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the
art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
If Species III is elected, a further species election is required:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Sub-Species I: claims 7 and 17, directed to a method for when a number of data units of the target data is greater than a target quantity.
Sub-Species II: claims 8 and 18, directed to a method for when a number of data units of the target data is less than a target quantity.
The species are independent or distinct because the species contain alternate methods of processing and interpreting elements of the target data. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, none are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the
art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Li Jiang on August 21st, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species III and further Sub-Species I, claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, and 19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eramian (US-20170171177-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eramian teaches:
An information processing method comprising:
obtaining target data (“user account,” Para [0029]);
in a first scenario, outputting the target data in a first method (“If the captured image and reference image match, the user is provided access to a secure account,” Para [0011]); and
in a second scenario, outputting the target data in a second method (“If not, the user is denied access to the account,” Para [0011]);
wherein: the first scenario is different from the second scenario (“If the captured image and reference image match, the user is provided access to a secure account. If not, the user is denied access to the account,” Para [0011]);
environment expression corresponding to the first scenario is consistent with environment expression corresponding to the target data (“a keychain may be designated for authentication and the location of the keychain may be determined to be at the office of user 102. Before user 102 is authenticated, the captured image must be of the keychain and the location of the captured image must be the office of user 102,” Para [0035]); and
environment expression corresponding to the second scenario is inconsistent with the environment expression corresponding to the target data (If the items and location in the image do not match, then “the user is denied access to the account,” Para [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Eramian teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches:
the first method includes displaying the target data on a target device (“Service provider server 180, in one embodiment, utilizes a personal item recognition application 190 to determine whether or not to authenticate user 102. In various embodiments, the personal item recognition application 190 receives one or more images of a personal item of user 102 from mobile device 120 and accesses stored images of personal items designated for authentication to determine whether or not grant access to a user account,” Para [0029]);
and the second method includes not displaying the target data on the target device (If the items and location in the image do not match, then “the user is denied access to the account,” Para [0011]).
Regarding claims 10-12, the rejections of claims 1-2 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 10-12.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nurmi (US-20110202968-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nurmi teaches:
An information processing method comprising:
obtaining target data (“posted media items may capture embarrassing images of a person partaking in vices such as smoking or alcohol or even capturing the person performing actions that the person would not want other people to view,” Para [0021]);
in a first scenario, outputting the target data in a first method (“applying one or more privacy rules (e.g., blurring identified features, denying permission to post the media item, alerting the user, etc.) on the media items,” Para [0022]);
and in a second scenario, outputting the target data in a second method (“determining whether the identified features are registered with a privacy service. The method further comprises applying one or more privacy rules on the media items based on the determination,” Para [0011]; i.e., if a feature is not identified, it is posted as is);
wherein:
the first scenario is different from the second scenario (“determining whether the identified features are registered with a privacy service, and then applying one or more privacy rules,” Para [0022]);
environment expression corresponding to the first scenario is consistent with environment expression corresponding to the target data (“a bar in an image may indicate a tavern, club, or bar environment… these identifiable features are stored in the features database 115… a user may register a combination of the user's face along with a beer bottle as the identifiable features to apply a privacy rule or related actions,” Paras [0024-0025]);
and environment expression corresponding to the second scenario is inconsistent with the environment expression corresponding to the target data (“determining whether the identified features are registered with a privacy service. The method further comprises applying one or more privacy rules on the media items based on the determination,” Para [0011]; i.e., if a feature is not identified, it is posted as is).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Nurmi teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches:
obtaining the target data includes:
obtaining the target data (“image”) that includes first data and second data, wherein the first data is data of a first object (“user’s face”), and the second data represents environment expression of a capture device at time of capturing the first data (“a tavern, club, or bar environment” or “a beer bottle”)), and the environment expression corresponding to the target data is reflected by the second data (“a bar in an image may indicate a tavern, club, or bar environment… these identifiable features are stored in the features database 115… a user may register a combination of the user's face along with a beer bottle as the identifiable features to apply a privacy rule or related actions,” Paras [0024-0025]);
outputting the target data in the first method includes:
outputting the first data in the first method (“the user may specify that any media items (e.g., images or videos) that include the features of the user's face and a beer bottle should automatically be blurred before posting to the social networking platform 107,” Para [0025]);
and outputting the target data in the second method includes:
outputting the first data in the second method (“determining whether the identified features are registered with a privacy service. The method further comprises applying one or more privacy rules on the media items based on the determination,” Para [0011]; i.e., if a feature is not identified, it is posted as is).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 13, the rejections of claims 1 and 3 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 10-11 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dong (US-20150047019-A1) teaches a method for determining whether to display information based on a predetermined condition.
Smith-Creasey et al. (US-20240056452-A1) teaches a method for access control in the context of mixed reality devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm ET Monday-Thursday, 7:30am-3:30pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Rachel.ometz@uspto.gov
9/8/26
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights