DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 02/04/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 02/04/2026, claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended, claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
The Applicant’s Interview Summary is acknowledged and it is OK.
The Applicant’s amendments regarding claim objections are accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior claim objections are withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments regarding 35 USC 102(b) rejections are accepted by the Examiner. Therefore, prior 35 USC 102(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant in pages 9-13 of the Remark alleges that claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended to recite the limitation of “’wherein generating the unique key value comprises applying a byte code corresponding to the content of the first image file or the second image file to a hash algorithm to generate the unique key value based on the byte code.’ The rejection of claims 1-20 is therefore rendered moot.” The Applicant asserts that the current specification describes that an image file might be a size of 220 MB and it takes less than a second to generate a unique key value, “it is not practical for a human to perform such an operation in this manner.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a) states:
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
The MPEP further points out that:
It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. For example, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations using a formula that could be practically performed in the human mind may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.
Here, said limitation is recited at a high level of generality and given the broadest and reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the limitation, it involves generating a key value applying a hashing function or algorithm to byte codes (i.e., strings of bits) of an image which is a mathematical calculation. A person of ordinary skill in the art with aid of a pen and paper can use a hashing function to calculate a key value for strings of bits. Based on BRI, the image could be a small image (e.g., a thumbnail image) and a human, despite being a time consuming and cumbersome function, can calculate a key value for such a small image. It is within a human capability to calculate a key value for data using a hashing function.
Secondly, the reason for calculating a key value for an image with 220 MB very fast (less than a second) is due to use of a computer as a tool. In another word, the speed to calculate a key value for an image comes from the capability of a general purpose computer. Here in claim, a general purpose computer (an electronic device) is used to perform the calculation of a key value for an image. It is noted that using a general purpose computer or data being to big and complicated does not preclude the function of calculation of a key value for an image from being performed in the human mind. Thus, said limitation of calculation of a key value for an image includes a mathematical calculation.
Furthermore, such a generation of a key value for an image could be practically be performed in the human mind. A human with aid of a pen and paper can calculate a key value using a hashing function. As such, said limitation falls within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Thus, it is an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant assertion that “even if any abstract characterization were asserted, the claim integrates any such concept into a practical application via specific computer operations (byte- code transformation, hashing, and database matching/storing) in an electronic device. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-20 for similar reasons.”
As it was explained above, the feature of generating a key value using a hashing
algorithm based on an image byte code limitation falls within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. A mathematical concept and/or a mental process alone is not capable of improving a manner in which a computer functions. It is noted that a judicial exception alone cannot provide improvement to a computer or technology. The additional limitations recited in the claims such as use of generic computer components (e.g., electronic device, memory, processors, etc.) or storing data in a database are considered to be either addition of general purpose computer to an abstract idea merely to implement the instructions or extra-solution and well-understood, conventional, generic computer functions that are not sufficient to improve a computer functionality or technology. As such, said limitations fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a).
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 for being directed to abstract idea are maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 103 rejection:
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly amended claims 1, 11, and 20 that “Applicant submits that the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "generate, based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file in which metadata is not stored or a second image file in which metadata does not include photographing date and time information, a unique key value for the image file, wherein generating the unique key value comprises applying a byte code corresponding to the content of the image file to a hash algorithm to generate the unique key value based on the byte code" as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 11 and 20. None of the cited references-alone or in combination- teach or suggest these features” have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection over Sheild et al., US 2009/0164427.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the applicant argues against the references individually. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner contends that Badaskar discloses generating fingerprints for photographs and storing them along with date and time parameters in a database. And, Mo discloses when an image metadata such as time and date information of an image does not exist (null), obtaining the date and time information from a second image (See Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 3, 5, 14, and 27-29). Therefore, the combined teachings of Badaskar and Mo discloses or at least discloses the feature of generating based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file in which metadata is not stored or a second image file in which metadata does not include photographing date and time information the unique key value; and obtain the photographing date and time information by using date and time information related to the image file.
Furthermore, the additional reference, Sheild discloses generating a fingerprint for a multimedia (e.g., image) using byte-code language by applying a hash algorithm (See Sheild: at least para 14, 73, 79). Therefore, the combination of teachings of Shield with Badaskar and Mo discloses or at least suggests the limitation of wherein generating the unique key value by applying a byte code corresponding to the content of the image file to a hash algorithm to generate the unique key value based on the byte code, recited in amended claims 1, 11, and 20.
Therefore, the new combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses or at least suggests the limitations of amended claims 1, 11, and 20. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are maintained.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are directed to a method/device/storage medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite the steps to:
generate, based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file in which metadata is not stored or a second image file in which metadata does not include photographing date and time information, a unique key value for the first image file or the second image file, [given its broadest and reasonable interpretation and recited at a high-level of generality, it involves a mathematical concept and the concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment and concept of mathematical concepts which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can observe a photo and determine if metadata is missing and manually and mentally calculate a value for the photo], wherein generating the unique key value comprises applying a byte code corresponding to the content of the image file to a hash algorithm to generate the unique key value based on the byte code, [given its broadest and reasonable interpretation and recited at a high-level of generality, the function of generating the unique key involves mathematical calculations using a hash algorithm. As such, this limitation involves mathematical concept]
obtain the photographing date and time information by using date and time information related to the first image file or the second image file, [given its broadest and reasonable interpretation and recited at a high-level of generality, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person can mentally determine the date and time of a photo] and
match
information in the first table of the DB. [given its broadest and reasonable interpretation and recited at a high-level of generality, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment which could be practically performed in the human mind]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the additional step to “store the unique key value with the photographing and date information in the first table of the DB” which could be considered as an insignificant extra post-solution activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, in claim 1, the limitation of “memory storing instructions and comprising a database (DB) configured to store a first table in which unique key values and photographing date and time information of image files are stored to be matched; and at least one processor,” recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the additional step to “store the unique key value with the photographing and date information in the first table of the DB” which could be considered a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, in claim 1, the limitation of “memory storing instructions and comprising a database (DB) configured to store a first table in which unique key values and photographing date and time information of image files are stored to be matched; and at least one processor,” recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims.
The dependent claims recite the additional step for “identifying”, “generating key values”, “generating data and time”, and/or “detecting” that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
The dependent claims additional steps for generic computer functions of “identify a first state of the electronic device” (claim 3), “at least one of a charging state of the electronic device or a state in which a display screen of the electronic device is turned off” (claim 4) and to “store the photographing date and time” (claim 8) which are considered to be insignificant extra solution and/or well-understood routine computer routines of receiving and storing data failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badaskar, US 2014/0081633 in view of Mo, US 2016/0062845 and further in view of Sheild et al., US 2009/0164427 (Sheild, hereafter).
Regarding claim 1,
Badaskar discloses an electronic device comprising:
memory storing instructions and a database (DB) configured to store a first table in which unique key values and photographing date and time information of image files are stored to be matched (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 12, 25, 31, 33, and 35, a memory and a photo and tag database for storing fingerprints associated with photographs along with metadata information such as time and date parameters); and
at least one processor, wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 37), cause the electronic device to:
generate, based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file(See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1 and para 25 and 86, generating fingerprints for photographs); and
match and store the unique key value for the image with the photographing date and time information in the first table of the DB (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 12, 25, 31, 33, and 35, storing the fingerprints and metadata (e.g., date and time parameters) in the photo and tag database).
Although, Badaskar discloses generating fingerprints for photographs and storing them along with date and time parameters in a database, Badasker does not explicitly teach generating based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file in which metadata is not stored or a second image file in which metadata does not include photographing date and time information the unique key value; and obtaining the photographing date and time information by using date and time information related to the image file.
On the other hand, Mo discloses when an image metadata such as time and date information of an image does not exist (null), obtaining the date and time information from a second image (See Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 3, 5, 14, and 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Badaskar with Mo’s teaching in order to generate based on identifying that an image file corresponds to a first image file in which metadata is not stored or a second image file in which metadata does not include photographing date and time information the unique key value; and obtain the photographing date and time information by using date and time information related to the image file, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the device by populating missing image metadata information based on cross-referencing
other images.
The combination of Badaskar and Mo discloses the limitations as stated above including generating a fingerprint as a unique key value. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein generating the unique key value by applying a byte code corresponding to the content of the image file to a hash algorithm to generate the unique key value based on the byte code.
On the other hand, Sheild discloses generating a fingerprint for a multimedia (e.g., image) using byte-code language by applying a hash algorithm (See Sheild: at least para 14, 73, 79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Badaskar and Mo with Sheild’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency of key value generation using byte code because it platform independent and calculated quickly.
Regarding claim 2,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, electronic device to, upon identifying generation of the image file, identify whether the image file corresponds to the first image file or the second image file (See Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 5, 20, and 21, first or second image file).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to generate the unique key value for the image file using a byte code corresponding to content of the first image file (See Sheild: at least para 14, 73, 79, generating a fingerprint for a multimedia (e.g., image) using byte-code language).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses wherein the DB comprises a second table in which the photographing date and time information is stored, and wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, upon identifying a third image file in which metadata including photographing date and time information is stored in the image file, store the photographing date and time information of the third image file in the second table (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 12, 25, 31, 33, and 35 and Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 5, 20, and 21, a plurality of image files are identified with date and time information that could be stored in tables of the database).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: generate the unique key value for the image file, based on a request for displaying the image file; and in case that the unique key value exists in the first table of the DB, identify the photographing date and time information stored to be matched with the unique key value for the image file (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 12, 25, 31, 33, 35, and 86 and Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 5, 20, and 21).
Regarding claim 10,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to identify the photographing date and time information of the third image file from the second table of the DB, based on a request for displaying the third image file (See Badaskar: at least Fig. 1-3 and para 12, 25, 31, 33, 35, and 86 and Mo: at least Fig. 4-5 and para 5, 20, and 21).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 20,
the scope of the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, and is rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badaskar, US 2014/0081633 in view of Mo, US 2016/0062845 further in view of Sheild et al., US 2009/0164427 and further in view of Ichimasa et al., US 8,306,277 (Ichimasa, hereafter).
Regarding claim 3,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses the limitations as stated above including a display for images. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to identify a first state of the electronic device.
On the other hand, Ichimasa discloses identifying the state of a device (See Ichimasa: at least Fig. 2-3 and 8:37-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild with Ichimasa’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the device by determining the position and mode of the image display of the device for displaying image data.
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, Sheild, and Ichimasa and discloses wherein the first state of the electronic device comprises at least one of a charging state of the electronic device or a state in which a display screen of the electronic device is turned off (See Ichimasa: at least Fig. 2-3 and 8:37-43, state of image display).
Regarding claims 13 and 14,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 3 and 4,
respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 3 and 4, respectively.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badaskar, US 2014/0081633 in view of Mo, US 2016/0062845 further in view of Sheild et al., US 2009/0164427 and further in view of Azeyanagi et al., US 2019/0130531 (Azeyanagi, hereafter).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild discloses the limitations as stated above including generating date and time information for a first or second image file. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, upon identifying generation date and time information or modification date and time information of the first image file or the second image file as the date and time information related to the first image file or the second image file, select the generation date and time information or the modification date and time information of the first image file or the second image file as the photographing date and time information of the first image file or the second image file, based on priority information.
On the other hand, Azeyanagi discloses selecting a timestamp for an image from creation time stamp and last modified timestamp which could be based on latest action (See Azeyanagi: at least para 68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Badaskar, Mo, and Sheild with Azeyanagi’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency of the device and select a date and time information based on the latest action.
Regarding claim 17,
the scope of the claim is substantially the same as claim 7, and is rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
04/23/2025
Prosecution Insights