DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to the communication filed on 07/01/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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) 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US Pub. No. 20170192651 herein after “Yang”).
As per claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 19, Yang discloses a method comprising:
receiving a first media object at a client device associated with a user account (Yang, para[0050] receive content from third-party systems or other entities);
determining that the first media object includes a reference to the user account (Yang, para[0080] tagging or being tagged in images);
receiving an input that selects the first media object (Yang, para[0005,0035] clicking or tapping on the original photo; a right-click, double tap, or any type of gesture may also suffice);
determining a permission associated with the user account based on the reference to the user account within the first media object (Yang, para[0014-0017,0086] check to determine whether edits are permitted; privacy settings which prevent the photo from being edited by third parties; privacy settings may specify how the object can be accessed…may specify any suitable granularity of permitted access or denial of access);
presenting a set of options based on the permission (Yang, para[0005,0018] “Unified Editing Modal” access for editing may depend upon the originals poster’s privacy settings; the user may not be presented with a user interface that enables the user to edit the photo);
receiving a selection of an option from among the set of options to generate a second media object (Yang, para[0019-0027,0040] user may select the filter icon from the control buttons (see FIG. 2); user may select a text icon; user selects the crop icon);
accessing image data at the client device; and generating the second media object based on the first media object and the image data (Yang, para[0035] create an edited version of the original photo).
As per claim 2, and similarly claims 11 and 20, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the permission associated with the user account includes: determining the permission associated with the user account based on attributes associated with the first media object (Yang, para[0017]).
As per claim 3, and similarly claim 12, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting the second media object among a collection of media content associated with at least the client device (Yang, para[0033]).
As per claim 4, and similarly claim 13, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of options include an action to share the first media object to one or more user accounts (Yang, para[0035,0086]).
As per claim 5, and similarly claim 14, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reference to the user account comprises a display of a user identifier associated with the user account (Yang, para[0080]).
As per claim 6, and similarly claim 15, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a notification that indicates that the first media object includes the reference to the user account at the client device responsive to receiving the first media object that includes the reference to the user account (Yang, para[0054] while not explicitly disclosed a notification indicating tagging is well within the scope of the prior invention and further well known within the art, thus cannot be considered an inventive concept).
As per claim 8, and similarly claim 17, Yang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing display of a menu element that includes a display of the set of options at the client device based on the first media object including the reference to the user account; and receiving a selection of the menu element (Yang, para[0019-0023] see FIG. 2).
As per claim 9, and similarly claim 18, Yang discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: presenting a collection of collaborative content associated with the first media object responsive to the selection of the menu element (Yang, para[0039]).
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) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Yang and further in view of Jesse Ozog (US Pub. No. 10,027,727 herein after “Ozog”).
As per claim 7, and similarly claim 16, Yang does not disclose, however, Ozog discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the receiving an input that selects the first media object comprises receiving an input that selects the notification from the client device (Ozog, col. 32 lines 44-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ozog’s teaching of a notification action into Yang’s teaching of editing shared content because one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aleart a user that has been associated with shared media content.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natisha Cox whose telephone number is (571)270-7167. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10:00 am - 6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571)270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8000.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATISHA D COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights