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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 03/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 03/10/2025 and 10/31/2025 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, “the selected media content items” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 6, line 3, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 6, line 4, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 11, line 2, “the selected media content items” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 13, line 3, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 13, line 4, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 18, line 3, “the selected media content items” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 20, line 4, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Claim 20, line 5, “the selected subset” should read “the selected subset of media content items”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the determined values" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 9 and 16.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the temperature and location criteria" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 10 and 17.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the media content items” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the media content items” is referring to “a plurality of media content items” in claim 1, line 2, or to “a subset of media content items” in claim 1, line 13, or to different/distinct media content items. Same rejection applies to claims 11 and 18.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the engagement scores" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 11 and 18.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the media content item" in line 3-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 12 and 19.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charania et al. (US 2016/0110355 A1), hereinafter Charania.
Regarding claim 1, Charania discloses
A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a plurality of media content items generated by a computing device ([0024]: receive images from user device 210 as images are captured using user device 210);
accessing sensor data associated with each media content item, the sensor data captured by one or more sensors of the computing device when the respective media content item was generated ([0026]: receiving image attributes, associated with the received images, from image analysis component 220; image analysis component 220 may determine the image attributes after receiving he images from user device 210; image analysis component 220 may determine attributes for an image relating to metadata associated with the image, object recognition information associated with the image, geotags associated with the images, a type of camera used to capture the image (e.g., a model of the camera, a “front-facing” camera, a “rear-facing camera, etc.), and/or some other attribute associated with the images), wherein the sensor data includes at least two of:
temperature data from a temperature sensor;
location data from a geolocation sensor ([0026]: geotags associated with the images);
motion data from a motion sensor; or
camera configuration data ([0026]: a type of camera used to capture the image (e.g., a model of the camera, a “front-facing” camera, a “rear-facing camera, etc.));
analyzing the sensor data to identify environmental conditions present during generation of each media content item ([0028]: identify an event when a group of images are captured by user device 210 and are associated with a geographic location that is different from a home location of the user);
selecting a subset of media content items based on the identified environmental conditions matching predetermined criteria ([0037]: identifying images associated with the event based on the image attribute information and the event attribute information; & [0040]: score the identified images associated with the determined event to identify images that should be included in an album corresponding to the event; & [0045]: album generation component includes those images that exceed a threshold score);
generating a themed media content collection incorporating the selected subset of media content items, wherein the themed media content collection is organized based on the environmental conditions ([0015]: once the album generation component has identified images corresponding to the event, the album generation component may select a subset of these images, and create an album including the subset of the images; & [0040]: score the identified images associated with the determined event to identify images that should be included in an album corresponding to the event; & [0045]: album generation component includes those images that exceed a threshold score; & [0055]: images associated with a particular event may be organized and viewed without requiring a user of user device 210 to manually sort through and select images associated with the event); and
displaying the themed media content collection on a display screen of the computing device ([0046]: output the album to user device; based on receiving the album, user device displays an option to view the album).
Regarding claim 7, Charania discloses the method described in claim 1. Charania further discloses
receiving instructions from a user to share the themed media content collection with a second user ([0071]: the user may send instructions (via the user’s computing device) to the system to share the media collection with one or more other users (e.g., the user’s friends)); and
in response to the instructions, causing the themed media content collection to display on a display screen of a second computing device of the second user ([0071]: in response to the instructions, the system may distribute the media content collection to the respective computing devices of the identified recipients and cause the collection to display on the display screens of the devices).
Regarding claim 8 and 15, the limitations of claims 8 and 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
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) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charania in view of Hiratsuka (US 2010/0277618 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Charania discloses the method as described in claim 1. Charania further discloses
determining a geographic location from the location data ([0028]: determine the geographic location of the images based on geotags associated with the images);
wherein the environmental conditions are identified based on a combination of at least two of the determined values ([0015]: identify images having geotags corresponding to the geographic location of Orlando, Fla., and having metadata identifying that the images were captured on dates from Jun. 1, 2014 to Jun. 8, 2014).
Charania does not explicitly disclose
determining a temperature value from the temperature data;
determining a velocity from the motion data; and
determining camera zoom settings from the camera configuration data.
However, Hiratsuka discloses
determining a temperature value from the temperature data ([0333]: a “temperature” included in an environmental information item is 45.degree. C; it is indicated that the image was capture under environment in which the temperature was 45.degree. C);
determining a velocity from the motion data ([0210]: a velocity of movement of the image capture apparatus 1 or a cameraman, or a velocity of a subject is also considered as an element for recreating an ambience at a time of image capture; for example, whether a case of image capture is a case in which image captured is performed in a car, a case in which an image of a subject having a high velocity is captured, or the like can be determined); and
.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Hiratsuka to Charania, because Charania discloses determine geographic location of the images ([0028]) and Hiratsuka further suggests indicate the image was capture under temperature of 45.degree. C ([0333]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Hiratsuka in the Charania system in order to improve user experience by providing the most relevant images to user.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations of claims 9 and 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charania in view of Rafizadeh et al. (US 2018/0018699 A1), hereinafter Rafizadeh.
Regarding claim 3, Charania discloses the method as described in claim 1. Charania further discloses
identifying media content items captured at predetermined geographic locations ([0035]: geolocation filters specific to a neighborhood or special location may be presented within a user interface by the messaging client application 104, based on geolocation information determined by a GPS unit of the client device 102).
Charania does not explicitly disclose
identifying media content items captured when a temperature value exceeded a predetermined temperature threshold;
selecting media content items satisfying both the temperature and location criteria.
However, Rafizadeh discloses
identifying media content items captured when a temperature value exceeded a predetermined temperature threshold ([0123]: in relation to location #1, processing of the respective ambient attribute information by the system 700 identifies four media content items as having a set of ambient attribute selection conditions including a temperature attribute selection condition 208 which is satisfied by the ambient temperature for location #1);
selecting media content items satisfying both the temperature and location criteria ([0123]: in relation to location #1, processing of the respective ambient attribute information by the system 700 identifies four media content items as having a set of ambient attribute selection conditions including a temperature attribute selection condition 208 which is satisfied by the ambient temperature for location #1).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Rafizadeh to Charania, because Charania discloses group images based on geographic location associated with images ([0047]) and Rafizadeh further suggests identify media content items satisfied by the ambient temperature for location ([0123]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bachman in the Charania system in order to improve user experience by providing the most relevant images to user.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the limitations of claims 10 and 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charania in view of Bachman et al. (US 2012/0050789 A1), hereinafter Bachman.
Regarding claim 4, Charania discloses the method as described in claim 1. Charania further discloses
determining an engagement score for each media content item ([0040]: scoring the identified images based on image attributes; for a particular image, a value is determined for each attribute of the image, and the values are combined to determine a score of the image; & [0043]: another attribute is related to whether an image has been shared by a user, and a quantity of times that the image has been shared, and how the image was shared (e.g., via social media, via an MMS message, etc.)).
Charania does not explicitly disclose
organizing the selected media content items into categories based on the environmental conditions;
ranking the media content items within each category based on the engagement scores; and
selecting a predetermined number of top-ranked media content items from each category.
However, Bachman discloses
organizing the selected media content items into categories based on the environmental conditions ([0041]: photos identified as having been taken in a specific time period; & [0070]: the selected image included in the second digital representation can be grouped together based on location, time, persons in the images, time of year, items in the images, image orientation, image file size, or subject matter);
ranking the media content items within each category based on the engagement scores ([0043]: a collection of photo taken in Jamaica can be identified and ranked based on rating information; Jamaica/location corresponds as category); and
selecting a predetermined number of top-ranked media content items from each category ([0043]: the top thirteen ranked photos can then be selected for inclusion in the calendar).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Bachman to Charania, because Charania discloses generating album with images ([0045]) and Bachman further suggests ranking photos and selecting top ranked photos to be included ([0043]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Bachman in the Charania system in order to improve user experience by providing the most relevant images to user.
Regarding claim 5, Charania and Bachman disclose the method as described in claim 4. Charania further discloses
the engagement score is determined based on at least one of:
a number of times the media content item was viewed;
a number of times the media content item was distributed ([0043]: another attribute is related to whether an image has been shared by a user, and a quantity of times that the image has been shared, and how the image was shared (e.g., via social media, via an MMS message, etc.));
a number of comments associated with the media content item;
a keyword in the media content item;
an image in the media content item;
video in the media content item; or
audio in the media content item.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the limitations of claims 11 and 12 are rejected in the analysis of claims 4-5 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of claims 18 and 19 are rejected in the analysis of claims 4-5 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charania in view of Mitsuhashi et al. (US 2008/0309795 A1), hereinafter Mitsuhashi.
Regarding claim 6, Charania discloses the method as described in claim 1. Charania further discloses
presenting a title for the themed media content collection ([0055]: output an album to user device (e.g., the album entitled “Family Vacation Album”)).
Charania does not explicitly disclose
presenting a first media content item from the selected subset;
presenting one or more additional media content items from the selected subset in sequence after the first media content item; and
presenting transition effects between consecutive media content items.
However, Mitsuhashi discloses
presenting a title for the themed media content collection ([0013]: displaying a title of an album saved in the image storage device, which includes the plurality of sets of image data having been selected for the slideshow display);
presenting a first media content item from the selected subset ([0125]: the images in the album having been selected as described above can be automatically displayed in sequence in a slideshow at the monitor of the television image receiver);
presenting one or more additional media content items from the selected subset in sequence after the first media content item ([0125]: the images in the album having been selected as described above can be automatically displayed in sequence in a slideshow at the monitor of the television image receiver); and
presenting transition effects between consecutive media content items ([0127]: when changing over from an image currently on display to a new image, an attractive image changeover effect can be selected for the slideshow).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate feature of Mitsuhashi in Charania because Charania discloses generating album with images ([0045]) and Mitsuhashi further suggests to automatically displaying images in album in sequence in a slideshow ([0125]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Mitsuhashi in Charania system in order to provide a convenience system to users.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations of claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osten (US 8,584,015 B2). Displaying a media presentation such as photos, video clips, graphics or a series of media content items such as a slideshow; the user can instruct the media management application to start the slideshow, in which case the slideshow framework can change the display (that is, switch to the next slide in the slideshow) based on default and/or user-supplied parameters such as transitions to be used between slides (e.g., wipes, fades or the like).
Hill et al. (US 2002/0070982 A1). Provide the user with slide show control operations, slide show startup operations, and slide show transition operations, in which the user can set the types of transitions (such as visual or sound effects) between photographs displayed in a slide show.
Hill et al. (US 2005/0243381 A1). The changeover of an album accompanied by transition effects between the two appearances that can indicate cross fades, wipes, dissolves, cuts, intermediate fades to white or black, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
08/07/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights