CTNF 19/103,705 CTNF 83033 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a program does not fall under one of the categories of statutory subject matter. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1, 18. Support is found in specification paragraphs [0138, 567]. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundermeyer (US 2017/0185278) . Regarding claim 1, 18, 19, 20 Sunder discloses An information processing apparatus comprising a control unit that acquires predetermined information from a specific storage that commonly manages the predetermined information used in a plurality of services each of which is capable of browsing information via application software or a website, and executes information presentation using the predetermined information by each of the plurality of services ([0185, 0188, 0189, 0202], fig. 1, fig. 2 Security system portal is shown which can be accessed through a web portal. The system managers a variety of home security and self-monitoring devices. The gateway communicates with servers that are located in a data center and these servers manage the integrations necessary to deliver the integrated system ). Regarding claim 2, Sunder discloses wherein each of the plurality of services includes a service having a function related to an imaging apparatus, and the predetermined information includes information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment registered 20 for each user ([0191, 0222-0224]). Regarding claim 3, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes image information registered in association with a user (fig. 49, fig. 83). Regarding claim 4, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes user information registered in association with an individual user (fig. 49, fig. 83). Regarding claim 5, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of performing initial setting of an imaging apparatus connected for communication, and regarding the service, the control unit presents an initial setting screen, and performs processing of transferring initial setting information to the imaging apparatus connected for communication according to an input ([0265, 0458, 0603]). Regarding claim 6, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of updating a program of an imaging apparatus connected for communication, and regarding the service, the control unit performs any one of update necessity determination processing, download processing of an update program, or transfer processing of an update program to the imaging apparatus connected for communication ([0261, 0433]). Regarding claim 7, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a diagnosis processing function of an imaging apparatus connected for communication, and regarding the service, the control unit performs any one of transmission processing of information on an imaging apparatus to be diagnosed, diagnosis processing based on the information on the imaging apparatus, or reception and presentation processing of a diagnosis result ([0492, 0766, 0767]). Regarding claim 8, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of remotely operating imaging of an imaging apparatus connected for communication, and regarding the service, the control unit performs display processing of an operation image based on registered information about the imaging apparatus connected for communication ([0251, 0252-0259]). Regarding claim 9, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of presenting notifications related to the plurality of services, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of collectively presenting the notifications related to the plurality of services ([0185, 0189, 0213]). Regarding claim 10, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment registered for each user, one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of managing an imaging apparatus or related equipment of an individual user, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of presenting a list of imaging apparatuses or related equipment registered for the individual user ([0353, 0644, 0647]). Regarding claim 11, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment registered for each user, one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of managing an imaging apparatus or related equipment of an individual user, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of additionally registering information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment being connected for communication ([0412]). Regarding claim 12, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes image information registered in association with a user, one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of causing the user to create a project including image content, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of causing the user to select image data included in the image information stored in the specific storage in association with the user, and processing of incorporating the selected image data into the project (fig. 49, fig. 83, [0603-0610]). Regarding claim 13, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of causing a user to create a project including image content, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of associating information on a used imaging apparatus and related equipment with the project (fig. 86, [0603-0610]). Regarding claim 14, Sunder discloses wherein one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of causing a user to create a project including image content, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of displaying a list of projects for each user and processing of displaying details of individual projects (fig. 86, fig. 89, fig. 94, [0644-0648]). Regarding claim 16, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment registered for each user, one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of displaying a user personal page, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of displaying, on the user personal page, information on the imaging apparatus or the related equipment associated with an individual user and stored in the specific storage (fig. 14, 15, [0017, 0020]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15, 17 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundermeyer (US 2017/0185278) in view of Davies (US 2012/0316995) . Regarding claim 15, Sunder does not disclose wherein the control unit performs processing of adding and displaying sales information for the individual projects. However, Davies discloses wherein the control unit performs processing of adding and displaying sales information for the individual projects ([0076]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the photo sales of Davies into the system of Sundermeyer in order to allow specific recordings and photos to be distributed/sold. Regarding claim 17, Sunder discloses wherein the predetermined information includes information on an imaging apparatus or related equipment registered for each user, image information registered in association with a user, or user information registered in association with an individual user([0022-0224] of Sunder), one of the plurality of services includes a service having a function of displaying a sales page for selling goods, and regarding the service, the control unit performs processing of displaying goods selected according to the predetermined information ([0076] of Davies). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30. 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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. /MICHAEL H HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 2 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 3 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 4 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 5 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 6 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 7 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 8 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/103,705 Page 9 Art Unit: 2426
Prosecution Insights