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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,202,124, US 11,671,64 and US 12,289,495 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. (therefore, the non-statutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn).
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0350351 A1 to Tung in view US 2017/0039528 A1 to Becker et al.
As to claims 1 and 9, Tung discloses a method [A system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and a computer-readable medium coupled with the one or more hardware processors, the computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that are executable by the one or more hardware processors to cause the computing device to perform operations] (see fig.1 and 11; see page.11, ¶0019, ¶0093-¶0094) comprising: causing display of a map interface at a first client device (see fig.1, el.130; page.5,¶0040; discloses a mobile-client system 130 may also have additional functionalities incorporating geographic-location data of the device,…displaying a map of a current location); receiving, from the first client device, an input that selects a location from the map interface; allocating a media item to a media collection associated with the location responsive to the input that selects the location (see page.8,¶0050,¶0062); receiving a request to access the media collection from a second client device, the request comprising location data that identifies a location of the second client device, the presentation of the media collection comprising at least the media item (see fig. 5 and 6A-6D; page.5,¶0063, ¶0065).
Tung fails explicitly discloses determining, based on the location data, that the location of the second client device satisfies a geographic access criterion associated with the location selected from the map interface; causing display of a presentation of the media collection at the second client device responsive to the determining that the location of the second client device satisfies the geographic access criterion.
Becker discloses determining, based on the location data, that the location of the second client device satisfies a geographic access criterion associated with the location selected from the map interface; and causing display of a presentation of the media collection at the second client device responsive to the determining that the location of the second client device satisfies the geographic access criterion (see fig.1;page.2,¶0016,¶0020,¶0022,¶0028; in[0022] discloses any one or more clients 12 may initiate an event via an appropriate graphical interface of client 12, such as an appropriate client application software. The event may be associated with a particular date, time, and/or place such as a specific venue and/or geographic location, the location of the event may be specified by name and/or selected from appropriate mapping software, in [0020] discloses Digital content server 200 may, upon activating a particular event, may allow access to client 12 based on a determination that client 12 is located at a particular location associated with a particular event ,and additionally, in [0028]-discloses Digital content server 200 may selectively authenticate various client 12 based for example, on determining that client 12 are invited guests and/or are located at the geographic locale associated with the event, Clients 12 located at the event may be configured to view, via the graphical user interface of the client application software, a plurality of digital content shared by other clients 12 that are also located at the event ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tung) with the teaching as taught by Becker in order to provide restricting access to sharing content associated with those events to users authorized to attend the events.
As to claims 2 and 10, Tung further discloses wherein the media item comprises one or more of: video data; a media overlay; audio data; and image data (see page.1, ¶0005).
As to claims 3 and 11, Tung further discloses wherein the media item comprises an ephemeral media item (see page.1, ¶0005, ¶0030).
As to claims 4 and 12, Tung further discloses wherein the input that selects the location further includes an identification of one or more access criteria (see page.7, ¶0045).
As to claims 5 and 13, Tung further discloses wherein the access criteria comprises one or more of: a geo-location criterion; and user profile information (see page.1, ¶0005-¶00006).
As to claims 6 and 14, Tung further discloses receiving an input that allocates the media item to the media collection, the input including an identification of one or more access criteria (see page.8, ¶0050, ¶0062).
As to claims 8 and 16, Tung further discloses wherein the media collection is associated with an event at the location (see fig.4; page.7, ¶0047).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Tung in view of Becker discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; thereby the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is directed toward embody the method of claim 2 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Tung in view of Becker discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; thereby the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is directed toward embody the method of claim 3 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Tung in view of Becker discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; thereby the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is directed toward embody the method of claim 4 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Tung in view of Becker discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; thereby the same rejection is applicable.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0350351 A1 to Tung in view US 2017/0039528 A1 to Becker et al, and further view US 2015/0013016 A1 to Kanter et al.
As to claims 7 and 15, Tung and Becker fail explicitly discloses wherein the media collection comprises a collection of media content items curated by one or more users.
Kanter discloses wherein the media collection comprises a collection of media content items curated by one or more users (see fig.4B; page.6, ¶0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tung and Becker with the teaching as taught by Kanter in order to provide users to share their interests and experiences with each other by uploading content for sharing with other social networking system users.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights