DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/8/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because all fields of the IDS are EMPTY. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12328527. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, the claims of the instant application are obvious variant of the corresponding ones of the US Patent No. 12328527. Furthermore, the scopes of the claims on the instant application are also met and encompassed by the corresponding ones of the Patent No. 12328527.
The apparent difference between the conflicting claims mainly arises from the style of limitation recitation and relative placement of conflicting elements within the claims’ body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
[Examiner’s note – Terminal Disclaimer is required to obviate the pending Double Patenting rejection before a notice of Allowance is issued]
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
References used for discussion of reasons of Allowance –
LIWERANT et al. (US 20080155631 A1, hereinafter LIWERANT)
Williams (WO 2013034065 filed on Aug 31, 2012 and published in English).
[Examiner’s Note – Examiner gives citation from equivalent national stage Publication US 2014/0333719 of the WIPO application, for Publication WO 2013/034065 filed on Aug 31, 2012 and published in English]
Regarding claim 11, LIWERANT discloses an image management system (streaming server D 40 and/or 50, fig. 1a), comprising:
circuitry configured to receive
circuitry configured to receive link information from a first terminal which is different from the second terminal, the link information corresponding to the
The streaming server D 40 also creates one or more identifiers for the video file. The identifiers, which are discussed in more detail below, can include, for example, one or more of an image identifier (for example, a "thumbnail" or iconic image), an identification tag, a file handle, a storage location, an address such as a Universal Resource Locator (URL), a file name, or an interactive control, or a control object operating according to the Component Object Model (COM), for example an Active X control. The streaming server D 40 transmits the video in streaming video format to the machine-readable storage 50, which, at the direction of the streaming server D 40, can store the video in streaming video format and also can store an identification tag for the video on itself or on the databases 60, 61. The identification tag, or another identifier of the video, such as the thumbnail and/or the URL, is communicated back to the sender A's computer 10 by way of one or more of the streaming server D 40 – ¶0048. Here we see that computer 10, or consuming user at client side 81-85 are different from input device 12 and/or 14. Also, link information management system that 60, 61 is different from the image management system 40, 50.
Also see ¶0053, ¶0055 for related information and display thereof); and
circuitry configured to transmit the The identification tag, or another identifier of the video, such as the thumbnail and/or the URL, is communicated back to the sender A's computer 10 by way of one or more of the streaming server D 40 – ¶0048. Also see abstract, and figs. 1a-d. Also see ¶0053, ¶0055 for related information display).
LIWERANT is not found disclosing expressly that the image is panoramic image. However, Williams discloses request and transmission of a selected specific window of a spherical panoramic image, (abstract, ¶0016, ¶0029, ¶0054, ¶0114-0117, figs. 8, 10, 11 etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of LIWERANT with the teaching of Williams of requesting of a specific selected portion of a spherical panoramic image from a user input device 106 is transmitted by the server 104, because, supporting a spherical panoramic image for request and transfer is understood as combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, such combination would enhance the versatility of the overall system.
However, in combination LIWERANT in view of Williams fail to disclose the limitation of, “the link information being transmitted from and managed in a link information management system”.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowable.
Independent claims 14, and 18 are substantively similar to claim 1, and recite similar allowable feature within claim scope, making them allowable for same reason(s) stated above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior and/or pertinent art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are – Numata (US 11184547 B2), Stefanovic et al. (US 20080195698 A1), Uyttendaele et al. (US 6859557 B1) – who disclose different image transfer, and processing thereof of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 pm.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. 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.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights