Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application 19/359,376 filed on 10/26/2018 (or after March 16, 2013), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (First Inventor to File).
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 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.
This application is a CON of 17/499,680 filed 10/12/2021 is now US PAT 12475158 17/499,680 is a CON of 16/370,373 filed 03/29/2019 is now US PAT 11170035
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/15/2025 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Specification
At para 0001 (as filed 10/15/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application #, applicant is hereby required to update the status of the US application(s) in response to this office action.
in the specification, at para 001 (as filed 10/15/2025), applicant incorporated US Patent Application & provisional application # Examiner notes that incorporation by reference of an application in a printed United States patent constitutes a special circumstance under 35 U.S.C. § 122 warranting that access of the original disclosure of the application be granted. The incorporation by reference will be interpreted as a waiver of confidentiality of only the original disclosure as filed, and not the entire application file, In re Gallo, 231 USPQ 496 (Comm'r Pat. 1986). If Applicant objects to access to the entire application file, two copies of the information incorporated by reference must be submitted along with the objection. Failure to provide the material within the period provided will result in the entire application (including prosecution) being made available to petitioner. The Office will not attempt to separate the noted materials from the remainder of the application. Compare In re Marsh Engineering Co., 1913 C.D. 183 (Comm'r Pat. 1913).
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 6,13,19 is/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.
As to Claim 6,13,19, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the custom contextual filter comprises augmented reality content configured to be presented as an overlay on the image”, this appears indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
Appropriate correction required
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/359,376 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,035. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application.
Instant US application: 19/359,376
US Patent No. 11,170,035
Claim 1,9,15 A method comprising:
receiving an input at a client device, the input comprising an image that includes a plurality of image features and an input context;
identifying one or more objects depicted in the image based on the plurality of image features;
selecting a media template from a template repository based on the plurality of image features of the image and the input context, the media template defining a display configuration for presenting media content within the image;
curating a collection of media content based on the one or more objects and the input context;
generating a custom contextual filter by populating the selected media template with a portion of the curated collection of media content; and
causing display of the custom contextual filter at the client device as an overlay on the image.
Claim 1, A method comprising:
receiving an input at the client device, the input including an input context and an image that comprises a plurality of image features, the input context comprising at least temporal data;
identifying an object based on the plurality of image features of the image in response to the receiving the input;
selecting a category based on the object identified based on the plurality of image features of the image, the category corresponding with one or more media tags;
generating a query that comprises a set of query terms based on at least the category;
accessing a media repository that comprises a plurality of media items based on the query, each media item among the plurality of media items associated with a media tag;
filtering a set of media items from the plurality of media items of the media repository based on the one or more media tags that corresponds with the category and the temporal data of the input context;
generating a collection of media content that comprises the set of media items, the collection of media content comprising a ranking of the set of media items based on the plurality of image features and the input context; and
causing display of a presentation of the collection of media content at the client device based on the ranking, the presentation of the collection of media content including an indicator that displays the number of media items among the collection of media content.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,035 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/359,376 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference claim 1,9,15 instant application 19/359,376 absent the limitations from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,170,035, filtering a set of media items from the plurality of media items of the media repository based on the one or more media tags that corresponds with the category and the temporal data of the input context; generating a collection of media content that comprises the set of media items, the collection of media content comprising a ranking of the set of media items based on the plurality of image features and the input context. Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1 is broader.
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/359,376 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,475,158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims perform the same steps as the claims in the instant application
Instant US application: 19/359,376
US Patent No. 12,475,158
Claim 1,9,15 A method comprising:
receiving an input at a client device, the input comprising an image that includes a plurality of image features and an input context;
identifying one or more objects depicted in the image based on the plurality of image features;
selecting a media template from a template repository based on the plurality of image features of the image and the input context, the media template defining a display configuration for presenting media content within the image;
curating a collection of media content based on the one or more objects and the input context;
generating a custom contextual filter by populating the selected media template with a portion of the curated collection of media content; and
causing display of the custom contextual filter at the client device as an overlay on the image.
Claim 1,8,13 A method comprising:
causing display of an image that comprises a plurality of image features within a graphical user interface (GUI) at a client device, the GUI including a menu element that includes a graphical icon;
receiving, at the client device, an input that selects the graphical icon from within the menu element;
accessing user profile data associated with a user of the client device, the user profile data including user affinities;
determining an input context of the client device based on the user profile data responsive to the input that selects the graphical icon;
identifying a first object and a second object depicted by the image based on the plurality of image features of the image responsive to the input that selects the graphical icon from within the menu element, the first object corresponding with a first media tag, and the second object corresponding with a second media tag;
causing display of an indicator corresponding with one or more of the first object, the second object, or the input context;
generating a query to a media repository based on at least the input context that includes the user affinities from the user profile data, the first media tag and the second media tag;
accessing a set of media items from within the media repository based on the query, the set of media items comprising tags that correspond with object categories and input contexts;
determining a ranking the set of media items based on the tags, the query, and the input context; and
causing display of a presentation of the set of media items from the media repository at the client device based on the ranking, the presentation of the set of media items comprising a navigable arrangement of a set of icons displayed horizontally within the GUI of the client device.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill was made to modify and/or to omit the additional elements of claim 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,475,158 to arrive at the claims 1-20 of the instant application 19/359,376 because the ordinary skilled person would have realized that the remaining element(s) would perform the same function as before and the only difference claim 1,9,15 instant application 19/359,376 absent the limitations from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,475,158 determining an input context of the client device based on the user profile data responsive to the input that selects the graphical icon; identifying a first object and a second object depicted by the image based on the plurality of image features of the image responsive to the input that selects the graphical icon from within the menu element, the first object corresponding with a first media tag, and the second object corresponding with a second media tag. Omission and/or addition of elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before, as such instant application claim 1 is broader.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 hereinafter 2019 PEG
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method of claim 1,9,15, directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A prong one of the 2019 PEG, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted, and the limitations directed to additional elements are highlighted, as set forth in exemplary claim 1
Claim 1,9,15. A method comprising:
receiving an input at a client device, the input comprising an image that includes a plurality of image features and an input context;
identifying one or more objects depicted in the image based on the plurality of image features;
selecting a media template from a template repository based on the plurality of image features of the image and the input context, the media template defining a display configuration for presenting media content within the image;
curating a collection of media content based on the one or more objects and the input context;
generating a custom contextual filter by populating the selected media template with a portion of the curated collection of media content; and
causing display of the custom contextual filter at the client device as an overlay on the image.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example receiving, identifying media collection, media template, curating collection of media, generating, populating media, displaying, this limitation encompasses the user thinking of collection of images, organizing display(ing) is mere data collection
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to method steps, however, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular data structure of gallery images collect(ion) that identify particular match, to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, although these elements have been fully considered, they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (fig 11-12, 0091-0101, of the instant specification make it clear that the disclosed functionality is implemented on well-known computing systems and general purpose computing devices) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the 2019 PEG) and is amount to simply saying "apply it" using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Since the analysis of Step 2A prong one and prong two results in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional method limitations are directed to a generic computer, at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition para: 18, 26-31 of the instant specification describe generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
Claim 2,10,16, further elaborates “wherein the input context comprises one or more of location data, temporal data, user profile data, or device data of the client device”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3,11,17, further elaborates “wherein identifying the one or more objects comprises:
detecting the plurality of image features using computer vision techniques; and
applying a machine learning model trained to identify object categories based on the plurality of image features”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4,12,18, further elaborates “wherein curating the collection of media content comprises:
determining object categories corresponding to the one or more objects;
generating a query based on tags associated with the object categories and the input context; and
accessing a media repository to retrieve media content matching the query”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5, further elaborates “wherein the media content comprises one or more of images, videos, audio content, animated graphics, or augmented reality content”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6,13,19, further elaborates “wherein the custom contextual filter comprises augmented reality content configured to be presented as an overlay on the image”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7,14,20, further elaborates
“presenting an indicator at a position within the image responsive to detecting the plurality of image features; and
wherein the indicator comprises a graphical property based on a category of the one or more objects”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8, further elaborates “wherein selecting the media template comprises accessing the template repository based on at least a portion of the plurality of image features and determining positions within the image for presenting the media content based on locations of the one or more objects”, which have been determined to be extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). Even in combination, the additional details recited in these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4,7-12,14-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freishtat et al., (hereafter Freishtat), US Pub. No. 2013/0060858 published Mar, 2013.
As to Claim 1,9,15. Freishtat teaches a system which including “a method comprising:
“receiving an input at a client device, (fig 1, 0048 – Freishtat teaches multiple client devices element 104A-104N) the input comprising an image that includes a plurality of image features and an input context” (Freishtat: 0040, 0103, 0136, fig 1, fig 15, fig 24 – Freishtat teaches user interface allows to receive multiple images particularly ,content may be videos, files, graphics, images including web pages and like as detailed in 0040, further Freishtat teaches selectable content features for example thumbail images associated title, link or location information);
PNG
media_image1.png
221
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
220
204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
212
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“identifying one or more objects depicted in the image based on the plurality of image features” (Freishtat: 0080,0105, 0179, fig 30-33 – Freishtat teaches automating the curation of content, and content of interest may be identified based on characteristics viewing and/or selecting content and/or object, as such content may be video, image, web pages and like, fig 30-33 describes user interface interacts with web pages and curation of content on the web pages)
PNG
media_image4.png
220
293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
279
234
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
223
313
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“selecting a media template from a template repository based on the plurality of image features of the image and the input context, the media template defining a display configuration for presenting media content within the image” (Freishtat: 0020,0027, 0177– Freishtat teaches webpages include generating template for user to view portions of aggregated content, the prior art of Freishtat teaches user interface for curating and presenting content particularly generating, selecting template for the user to view content as detailed in fig 30-33 particularly webpage configured to define media content, text content displayed)
“curating a collection of media content based on the one or more objects and the input context” (Freishtat: 0050,0082, 0087, fig 1-2 – Freishtat teaches curating application program used in selecting, media content such as video, text, images, webpages, further supports automatically curate content for user in a webpage by identifying certain content);
PNG
media_image7.png
217
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
“generating a custom contextual filter by populating the selected media template with a portion of the curated collection of media content” (Freishtat: 0052, 0134, 0166, fig 2, 0179, fig 30-33 – Freishtat teaches generating customized or preferred view of content based on user profile (element 3012) by the curating application program element 120, and supports contextual filtering function in selecting the content; and
PNG
media_image8.png
150
314
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“causing display of the custom contextual filter at the client device as an overlay on the image” (Freishtat: fig 2, 0088, 0105, fig 15 – Freishtat teaches overlay on image displayed)
PNG
media_image9.png
219
272
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2,10,16, Freishtat disclosed “wherein the input context comprises one or more of location data, temporal data, user profile data, or device data of the client device” (Freishtat: 0059, 0068,0071,01080, fig 1, 104A-104N)
As to Claim 3,11,17, Freishtat disclosed
“detecting the plurality of image features using computer vision techniques” (Freishtat : 0050,0088,01034)and
“applying a machine learning model trained to identify object categories based on the plurality of image features” (Freishtat: 0050,0080, 0104)
As to Claim 4,12,18, Freishtat disclosed:
“determining object categories corresponding to the one or more objects” (Freishtat: 0010,0101-0102);
“generating a query based on tags associated with the object categories and the input context” (Freishtat: 0010, 0066, 0105) ; and
“accessing a media repository to retrieve media content matching the query” (Freishtat: 0175-0179).
Claim 7,14,20. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting an indicator at a position within the image responsive to detecting the plurality of image features; and
wherein the indicator comprises a graphical property based on a category of the one or more objects.
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the media template comprises accessing the template repository based on at least a portion of the plurality of image features and determining positions within the image for presenting the media content based on locations of the one or more objects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5-6,13,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freishtat et al., (hereafter Freishtat), US Pub. No. 2013/0060858 published Mar, 2013 in view of Leung et al., (hereafter Leung), US Pub. No. 2020/0051334 filed Aug, 2018
As to Claim 5, Freishtat teaches “wherein the media content comprises one or more of images, videos, audio content, animated graphics” (Freishtat: 0040,0051,0088). It is however, noted that Freishtat does not disclose “augmented reality content”. On the other hand, Leung disclosed “augmented reality content” (Leung: Abstract, fig 7, element 710, 0039, fig 8, element 810,0046)
PNG
media_image10.png
207
167
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
74
176
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention image/video embedded with metadata generating augmented reality objects of Leung et al., into curating content particularly webpages, images, videos of Freishtat because that would have allowed users of Freishtat to interact webpage images and embedded video as virtually rendered augmented reality as part of the web page(s) thereby media interactive and engaging users, allows real time integration of digital content into users experience (Leung: 0017) and provides contextual data associated with media or image(s) (Leung: 0040)
Claim 6,13,19, the combination of Freishtat, Leung disclosed “wherein the custom contextual filter comprises augmented reality content configured to be presented as an overlay on the image” (Leung: Abstract, fig 5-6, 0030-0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Pub. No. 2013/0060858 - is directed to images and curating content
b. US Pub. No. 2020/0051334 – is directed to embedding metadata into imaes and videos for augmented reality experience
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner's Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Srirama Channavajjala whose telephone number is 571-272-4108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gorney, Boris, can be reached on (571) 270- 5626. The fax phone numbers for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 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://pair-direct.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)
/Srirama Channavajjala/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights