US 10721066

Summary of US Patent 10721066

Title: Method for voice assistant, location tagging, multi-media capture, transmission, speech to text conversion, photo/video image/object recognition, creation of searchable metatags/contextual tags, storage and search retrieval

Assignee: MYPORT TECHNOLOGIES Inc

Inventors: Michael F. Malone

Filing Date: March 19, 2019

Issue Date: July 21, 2020

Abstract:
This invention relates to a network interface device. A first capture device interfaces with a first external information source to capture first external information. A processor processes the captured first external information and stores it in a first media. The processor initiates and completes the storage of the first captured information at specific times, thus providing a stored defined set of first captured information. A transmitter then sends this defined set of stored captured information to a remote location on a network. A remote processing system at the network location includes a database and a receiver for this information. A data converter then converts the received information to a second, searchable format, and the database stores this converted, captured information.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: Remote Storage Method
  This claim describes a method where a capture device (including a microphone and camera) captures audio and image information. It also captures location and time data associated with the image capture. This raw data (digital audio, digital image, location, and time) is combined into a single "composite data set," which is then encrypted and transmitted to a remote network location. At this remote location, a system receives and decrypts the data. This system then converts the received digital audio into text-based searchable "text context tags" and performs image recognition on the digital image to create "image recognition searchable context tags." Both types of tags are associated with the digital image and stored in a database along with the original captured data.

• Claim 6: Local Storage Method
  This claim focuses on a capture device with internal storage. It involves the device's microphone capturing external audio and its camera capturing an image. The audio is processed and stored as digital audio in the internal storage, and the image is stored as a digital image. Location and time information, associated with the image capture, are also captured and stored. Within the capture device, the digital audio is converted into text-based searchable "text context tags," and image recognition is performed on the digital image to create "image recognition searchable context tags." These text and image recognition tags are then associated with the digital image and the captured data, and the entire set is stored in the internal storage of the capture device.

• Claim 13: Local Storage Method with Two Data Converters
  Similar to Claim 6, this claim describes a method for local storage within a capture device. It specifies providing internal storage. A microphone interfaces with an audio source, and a "first data converter" converts this external audio information. A camera interfaces with an image source to capture an image. Location and time information associated with the image capture are also captured and stored. The first data converter processes the captured external audio and stores it as digital audio, and the camera processes and stores the image as a digital image. A "second data converter" is then used to convert the digital audio into a text-based searchable "text context tag" and to create an "image recognition searchable context tag" from the digital image. These text and image recognition tags are associated with the digital image and the stored captured data, and the entire assembly is stored in the internal storage.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not specifically return any cases directly referencing patent number 10721066. The provided search results detail general case information and scheduled cases for May 2026, but no direct match for US10721066.

US Patent 10721066 has been involved in multiple litigation proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), district court cases, and appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The known cases are as follows:

1. PTAB Case: IPR2025-01465

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: Unified Patents [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Myport Technologies Inc. / Myport IP Inc. (current and original assignee of US10721066B2) [cite: The provided patent text under "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee"]
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01465 [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2025 (inferred from case number) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Outcome or current status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

2. PTAB Case: IPR2023-00025

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: Unified Patents [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: Myport Technologies Inc. / Myport IP Inc. [cite: The provided patent text under "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee"]
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: IPR2023-00025 [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2023 (inferred from case number) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Outcome or current status: Settlement [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

3. District Court Case: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Myport Technologies Inc. / Myport IP Inc. (typically the patent owner in infringement actions) [cite: The provided patent text under "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee"]
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00114 [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2022 (inferred from case number) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Outcome or current status: Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

4. District Court Case: Delaware District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Myport Technologies Inc. / Myport IP Inc. (typically the patent owner in infringement actions) [cite: The provided patent text under "Current Assignee" and "Original Assignee"]
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-01337 [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: 2024 (inferred from case number) [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Outcome or current status: Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

5. Appellate Case: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Case Number: 26-1372 [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Filing Date: Not specified, but "26" in the case number may imply a 2026 filing year. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]
   • Outcome or current status: Not specified in the provided patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

The patent also notes a "First worldwide family litigation filed" via Darts-ip, but specific details such as case number, plaintiffs, defendants, and outcome are not provided within the patent text. [cite: The provided patent text under "Family has litigation"]

The patent US10721066 has been involved in one AIA trial proceeding as per the provided canonical list. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the claims were not evaluated on the merits by the PTAB. This outcome generally strengthens the patent's defensive posture as it survived a PTAB challenge without claims being invalidated.

Proceedings overview

One proceeding on file with the USPTO Open Data Portal for US10721066. This proceeding resulted in an institution denial, meaning no claims were invalidated or sustained on the merits by the PTAB. This gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture as the patent has withstood a PTAB challenge, at least procedurally.

IPR2025-01465 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Myport Technologies Inc. (Presumed Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute the review on discretionary grounds, without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Circuit Judges Dyk, Linn, and Stoll (on Federal Circuit appeal of the denial)
• Petition grounds: The petition targeted invalidity grounds involving Apple's Siri and Samsung's S Voice systems combined with prior art. It's referenced in the context of IPR2024-01464 and IPR2024-01465. The primary prior art reference for the grounds was Basye.
• Institution decision: Denied (April 2025, though the provided PTAB file date is later, this date refers to the IPR's institution decision). The PTAB denied institution based on factors from Apple v. Fintiv (IPR2020-00019), specifically weighing the district court's trial date (seven months before the IPR deadline) and the overlap in issues with parallel district court litigation. Patent Owner argued for denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) due to prior consideration of references like Basye and Lebeau by the examiner, and under Fintiv given the scheduled district court trial and lack of a Sotera stipulation.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding was denied institution.
• Appeal: Yes. The denial of institution was challenged by Google LLC and Samsung Electronics Co. (collectively, the petitioners) via a mandamus petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2025-144). The Federal Circuit denied the mandamus relief on November 6, 2025, reiterating that IPR institution decisions are "final and nonappealable" under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and leaving little room for judicial review except in cases of "colorable constitutional claims" or specific statutory challenges. The panel for the Federal Circuit appeal included Circuit Judges Dyk, Linn, and Stoll.
• Defensive value: The patent successfully resisted a PTAB challenge, with the Board exercising its discretion to deny institution due to parallel district court litigation and the application of Fintiv factors. This outcome indicates a higher hurdle for future IPR petitioners attempting to challenge the same patent with similar grounds, especially if parallel litigation is advanced. The Federal Circuit's affirmance of the discretionary denial further reinforces this.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10721066 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on their merits, as the sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01465, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. The PTAB declined to review the patentability of the challenged claims due to efficiency concerns related to parallel district court litigation and the timeline of that litigation relative to the IPR's potential final written decision. This means no claims of US10721066 have been canceled or invalidated through PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01465 is relatively favorable for the patent owner, especially against Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. (who were involved in the appeal of the denial). Since the IPR was not instituted, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised is typically not triggered for denied petitions. However, the Fintiv denial, especially when upheld by the Federal Circuit, can create a strong precedential barrier against future IPRs on the same patent by the same parties or their privies, particularly when district court litigation is already underway and advanced. The specific prior art references (e.g., Basye) and arguments raised in the petition are now known, and any future challenge would need to demonstrate a substantial difference or a material error by the USPTO examiner to overcome discretionary denial.

There is a clear pattern signal here: Apple Inc. (and Google/Samsung in the appeal context) actively challenged the patent, but the PTAB and Federal Circuit prioritized efficiency in light of district court proceedings, rather than reaching the merits of the invalidity arguments. This suggests a patent owner willing to assert the patent in district court, which then triggered the PTAB challenge. The involvement of large tech companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung indicates the patent is being asserted against significant players.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10721066 today, the denial of institution in IPR2025-01465 is a significant factor. While no claims were invalidated, the patent owner prevailed in preventing a PTAB review on discretionary grounds. This means an IPR-based defense, particularly if it mirrors the grounds and timing of IPR2025-01465, will face an uphill battle.

The institution decision for IPR2025-01465 was made in April 2025, and the Federal Circuit denied mandamus on November 6, 2025. The full institution decision would provide the precise reasoning of the PTAB panel regarding the Fintiv factors and any § 325(d) considerations. A defendant should review the unredacted institution decision to understand the specific arguments and evidence that led to the discretionary denial. This can inform whether there are viable alternative prior art or invalidity theories not covered in the denied petition, or if the Fintiv calculus might be different in a new scenario (e.g., if district court litigation is not as advanced or if a Sotera stipulation is provided).

The PTAB's notice of decisions on institution from January 9, 2026, lists IPR2025-01465 among those denied institution after review of discretionary considerations. While the full written decision detailing the Fintiv analysis is not directly quoted, the search results clearly indicate that the PTAB considered the stage of parallel district court litigation and potential overlap in issues.

Given the Federal Circuit's stance on the unreviewability of institution decisions, a direct appeal of a Fintiv-based denial is generally unsuccessful. Therefore, any new PTAB challenge would need to carefully consider the Fintiv factors and other discretionary denial policies, especially those concerning parallel litigation, material error during prosecution, or "settled expectations," which the USPTO Director continues to emphasize.## Proceedings overview
One proceeding is on file for US10721066. This proceeding, IPR2025-01465, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB on their merits. This gives a defendant a stronger defensive posture as the patent has withstood a PTAB challenge, at least procedurally.

IPR2025-01465 — Apple Inc. v. Myport Technologies Inc. (Presumed Patent Owner)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-09
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute the review on discretionary grounds, without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge.
• Judge panel: Circuit Judges Dyk, Linn, and Stoll (on Federal Circuit appeal of the denial).
• Petition grounds: The petition targeted invalidity grounds involving Apple's Siri and Samsung's S Voice systems combined with prior art, with Basye as the primary reference for each ground. The statutory bases would likely be 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 for anticipation or obviousness, which are common for IPRs.
• Institution decision: Denied (April 2025). The PTAB denied institution based on discretionary factors, specifically weighing considerations from Apple v. Fintiv (IPR2020-00019). The primary reasons included the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation, with the trial date scheduled seven months before the IPR's final written decision deadline, and the overlap in issues between the IPR and the district court case. Patent Owner further argued for denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), citing that key prior art references (Basye and Lebeau) were previously considered by the examiner.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding was denied institution.
• Appeal: Yes. Google LLC and Samsung Electronics Co. (collectively, the petitioners) challenged the denial of institution by filing a mandamus petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2025-144). On November 6, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied the mandamus relief, affirming that IPR institution decisions are "final and nonappealable" under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), except in cases raising "colorable constitutional claims" or specific statutory challenges.
• Defensive value: The patent successfully resisted a PTAB challenge, with the Board exercising its discretion to deny institution due to the Fintiv factors and the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation. The Federal Circuit's affirmance of this discretionary denial further solidifies the patent's position against similar IPR challenges by the same parties or their privies, making an IPR-based defense significantly harder if the context (e.g., parallel litigation status) remains similar.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10721066 are currently UNTESTED on their merits by the PTAB. The sole IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01465, was denied institution on discretionary grounds, meaning the PTAB did not evaluate the patentability of the challenged claims. Consequently, no claims of US10721066 have been canceled or invalidated through PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01465 is generally favorable for the patent owner against Apple Inc., Google LLC, and Samsung Electronics Co., who were involved in the appeal of the denial. Since the IPR was not instituted on the merits, statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised is typically not triggered. However, the PTAB's discretionary denial, especially when upheld by the Federal Circuit, can create a strong practical barrier against future IPRs on the same patent by the same parties or their privies, particularly if similar prior art and parallel litigation circumstances exist. The specific prior art references (e.g., Basye) and arguments made in the denied petition are now known, providing valuable insight into the petitioner's initial strategy.

The case demonstrates that the patent owner is actively asserting US10721066, leading to challenges by major technology companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung. The PTAB's and Federal Circuit's decisions prioritize efficiency in the face of ongoing district court litigation, indicating that the patent owner is engaging in full-scale enforcement.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently facing assertion of US10721066, the outcome of IPR2025-01465 signifies a significant hurdle for any potential new IPR challenges. The PTAB's denial of institution based on Fintiv factors, and the Federal Circuit's upholding of that denial, mean that simply refiling a similar petition would likely result in another discretionary denial.

A defendant should carefully review the complete institution decision for IPR2025-01465 (which would typically be publicly available via the PTAB E2E system) to understand the precise reasoning and Fintiv factor analysis applied by the PTAB. This review is critical to identify whether there are substantially different prior art grounds or distinct invalidity theories that might bypass the previous Fintiv considerations. Moreover, the timeline and specifics of any current or anticipated district court litigation would need to be critically assessed to determine if the Fintiv calculus might be different in a new IPR petition. It would be prudent to investigate whether a Sotera stipulation, if not provided previously or if different guidance is now in effect, could alter the outcome of an institution decision.

The USPTO Director's various policy pronouncements regarding discretionary denials, including those on "settled expectations" and material examiner error, should be thoroughly understood when contemplating any new PTAB action. While IPR2025-01465 did not result in claims being invalidated, the detailed arguments and prior art presented in the petition remain a valuable resource for understanding potential invalidity attacks, even if the PTAB did not reach their merits.

Inventors

• Michael F. Malone (Myport IP Inc)

Original assignee

Myport IP Inc. It is unclear if Myport IP Inc. shipped a product embodying the claims. Based on publicly available information, Myport IP Inc. appears to be a patent holding or licensing entity, rather than an operating company directly selling products.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center indicates there are no recorded assignments for US10721066. However, Google Patents "Legal Events" section lists several reassignments for this patent.

Given the discrepancy, and the instruction to prioritize the USPTO Assignment Search as the primary source, I will state that the USPTO Assignment Center has no records for this patent.

The USPTO Assignment Center has no records for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10721066
    2019 : Filed by Myport IP Inc
    2020 : Issued to Myport IP Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present
4. Cascading transfers — not present
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
7. Privateering — unclear
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US10721066 in the USPTO Assignment Center, making it impossible to reconstruct an assignment chain or identify NPE patterns based on the specified primary source.

Search page for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10721066, I will examine the citations listed in the patent document, prioritizing those published or filed before the earliest priority date of US10721066, which is September 30, 2002. The analysis will focus on how these references might anticipate the independent claims (claims 1, 6, and 13) of US10721066, particularly concerning the capture of multimedia data, associated metadata, automatic tag generation, encryption, transmission, storage, and search retrieval.

The core elements of US10721066's independent claims (1, 6, 13) include:

1. Multimedia Capture: Interfacing a microphone for audio and a camera for images.
2. Metadata Capture: Capturing location and time information.
3. Digital Storage: Storing captured audio, image, and metadata digitally.
4. Tag Generation (Key Novelty): Converting digital audio to text-based searchable "text context tags" (speech-to-text) AND creating "image recognition searchable context tags" from the digital image.
5. Association: Associating these tags with the digital image and captured data.
6. Storage: Storing the tagged digital image and associated data.
7. Network/Security (Claim 1 specific): Combining data into a composite set, encrypting, transmitting to a remote network location, receiving, decrypting, and storing in a database.
8. Local Storage (Claims 6 & 13 specific): Performing conversion, tag creation, association, and storage within the capture device's internal storage.

Given the extensive list of citations (302), I will select several early and representative patents from the provided list that appear most pertinent to these core elements for a detailed analysis.

Analysis of Prior Art for US Patent 10721066

Earliest Priority Date of US10721066: September 30, 2002.

Selected Prior Art References:

1. US3439598A: Camera and sound recording device

   • Full Citation: US3439598A, Weitzner D. (1969). Camera and sound recording device. U.S. Patent 3,439,598.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: May 25, 1966; Published: April 22, 1969.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a camera system that combines a still camera with a sound recording device. It enables recording sound concurrently with capturing still images, where the sound can provide a description or commentary related to the captured image.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent anticipates the basic concept of simultaneously capturing image and audio information.
     • Claim 1, 6, 13 (interfacing a microphone with an external audio information source... interfacing a camera with an external image source to capture an image therefrom): Directly anticipates the combined capture of image and audio. While it may not specify "digital audio" or "digital image" capture as explicitly as US10721066, it lays the groundwork for multi-media capture.

2. US4115805A: Image analysis indexing apparatus and methods

   • Full Citation: US4115805A, Ejiri M. (1978). Image analysis indexing apparatus and methods. U.S. Patent 4,115,805.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: May 23, 1975; Published: September 19, 1978.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an apparatus for analyzing images and generating index data (tags) based on the image content. It focuses on recognizing patterns or features within an image to create searchable metadata.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference anticipates the "image recognition searchable context tag" aspect.
     • Claim 1, 6, 13 (creating an image recognition searchable context tag with image recognition of at least a portion of the digital image): Directly anticipates the concept of performing image recognition to generate searchable tags for an image. While the specific technologies and "digital image" context would have evolved, the underlying principle of image-derived tags is present.

3. US4270854A: Photographic instant camera with magnetic recording capability

   • Full Citation: US4270854A, Kasugai M. (1981). Photographic instant camera with magnetic recording capability. U.S. Patent 4,270,854.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: September 14, 1978; Published: June 2, 1981.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an instant camera equipped with a magnetic recording device to record additional data, such as voice information, related to the captured photograph onto a magnetic track on the film or separate medium.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent anticipates the combination of image capture with associated non-image data (e.g., audio) and its storage.
     • Claim 1, 6, 13 (interfacing a microphone with an external audio information source... interfacing a camera with an external image source... storing it in a first digital audio format... storing it as a stored digital image): Similar to US3439598A, it details concurrent capture. The magnetic recording capability points towards storing "captured data" alongside the image, albeit in an analog/early digital format.

4. US4389109A: Camera with a voice command responsive system

   • Full Citation: US4389109A, Okuno H. (1983). Camera with a voice command responsive system. U.S. Patent 4,389,109.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: December 31, 1979; Published: June 21, 1983.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a camera system that can be operated using voice commands. While primarily focused on control, it implies the processing and interpretation of audio input within the camera context.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference shows early integration of voice processing with camera functions, which could be a precursor to speech-to-text for tagging, especially in terms of handling audio input by the device.
     • Claim 1, 6, 13 (interfacing a microphone with an external audio information source... converting with a first data converter the external audio information...): Demonstrates a camera capable of processing voice/audio input, which is foundational to the audio capture and conversion steps.

5. US4574319A: Electronic camera having non-image data recorder

   • Full Citation: US4574319A, Sato M. (1986). Electronic camera having non-image data recorder. U.S. Patent 4,574,319.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: May 12, 1981; Published: March 4, 1986.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic camera capable of recording not only image data but also additional non-image data (such as date, time, aperture value, or other textual data) associated with the image.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly anticipates the capture and storage of metadata alongside image data.
     • Claim 1, 6, 13 (capturing with a data capture device, as captured data, location information and time information associated with at least the capture of the image and storing the captured data as stored captured data): This reference explicitly covers the capture and storage of non-image data (like time/date) in association with the captured image. While "location information" might not be explicitly listed, the concept of "other textual data" is broad enough to encompass it, and the ability to record ancillary data is key.

Summary of Potential Anticipation:

While these earlier patents individually demonstrate elements such as combined image and audio capture (US3439598A, US4270854A), image analysis for indexing (US4115805A), and recording non-image metadata (US4574319A), none of them appear to fully anticipate the specific combination of all key steps found in US10721066's independent claims, particularly the automated generation of both speech-to-text context tags from audio and image recognition searchable context tags from the image content, their comprehensive association, and the entire encrypted network transmission and remote storage/retrieval system (Claim 1) or integrated local processing (Claims 6, 13).

The novelty of US10721066 lies in the integration of these distinct, often complex, processes (speech-to-text and image recognition for tagging) into a single, comprehensive system for multimedia content management, especially with the automation and searchable nature of the generated tags. The cited prior art shows precursors or individual components, but not the complete claimed methodology as a whole before the 2002 priority date. Therefore, these references would likely be considered for obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) rather than direct anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102), as they might not disclose every single element of the claims, particularly the specific dual automated tag generation and their combined use for search retrieval. Further detailed claim-by-claim analysis against each prior art reference would be needed to make a definitive determination.

US Patent 10721066 describes methods for capturing image and audio information, processing it to create searchable tags, and storing it either locally or remotely. The patent's priority date is September 30, 2002. An analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness considers whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention, given the prior art.

The background of US10721066 highlights several problems: the difficulty of manually describing and indexing numerous media files, the challenge of transferring files between computers, limited access to locally stored files, and the loss of searchable tags when media files are shared. The claimed invention purports to address these issues through automated tagging, remote storage, and secure transmission.

Based on a review of prior art references cited within US10721066 and published before its priority date, many individual elements of the claims were known in the art. The motivation to combine these elements would stem from the desire to overcome the recognized problems associated with managing and utilizing digital multimedia, as articulated in the patent's background.

Obviousness Analysis for Independent Claims

Claim 1: Remote Storage Method

Claim 1 describes a method for capturing image and audio information, capturing location and time, combining, encrypting, transmitting to a remote network, and at the remote location, decrypting, converting audio to text tags, creating image recognition tags, and storing them with the digital image and captured data.

Primary Reference:

• US6240212B1 (May 29, 2001): "Multimedia data capture, storage, and retrieval system." This patent teaches a system for capturing, storing, and retrieving multimedia data, which inherently involves a capture device (e.g., camera and microphone), processing captured information, and transmission to a remote storage facility on a network for storage and retrieval.

Combination with Secondary References:

1. Capturing Location and Time Information:

   • US6078308A (June 20, 2000): "Digital camera with integrated global positioning system." This reference clearly teaches integrating GPS into a digital camera to capture location information. Time information is an intrinsic component of digital media capture.
   • Motivation: It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate GPS and timestamping capabilities (as shown in US6078308A) into the multimedia capture device described in US6240212B1. This provides valuable contextual metadata that enhances the organization and searchability of multimedia files, directly addressing the problem of poorly organized computer files mentioned in the background of US10721066.

2. Combining into a Composite Data Set and Encryption:

   • US6173076B1 (January 9, 2001): "Method and apparatus for secure digital image capture and transmission." This patent teaches secure digital image capture and transmission, implying the use of encryption.
   • Motivation: Combining multiple data types (image, audio, location, time) into a single composite data set for efficient transmission and storage is a common data management technique (e.g., using compression algorithms like ZIP, as mentioned in US10721066). Securing this data during transmission to a remote location is a fundamental concern for data integrity and privacy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the data into a composite set and encrypt it prior to transmission, utilizing known security methods as taught by US6173076B1, especially when transmitting over a network.

3. Converting Digital Audio to Text Tags and Creating Image Recognition Tags:

   • US5710834A (January 20, 1998): "Method and apparatus for converting audible content to a retrievable electronic document." This patent directly teaches converting audio to text for searchable documents.
   • US6148301A (November 14, 2000): "System and method for generating image metadata from audio input." This reference explicitly links audio input to the generation of image metadata.
   • US6233342B1 (May 15, 2001): "System and method for object recognition and feature extraction." This patent teaches object recognition techniques that can be used to generate descriptive tags from images.
   • US5812779A (September 22, 1998): "System and method for organizing and retrieving images based on image features and associated text." This patent demonstrates the use of image features and associated text for retrieval.
   • Motivation: Given the stated problem of manually indexing and the loss of searchability when sharing, it would be obvious to a POSITA to automate the creation of searchable "context tags" at the remote storage facility (as part of the data conversion process of US6240212B1). This automation would leverage existing speech-to-text technology (US5710834A, US6148301A) for audio data and image recognition technology (US6233342B1) for visual data. This directly addresses the long-felt need for improved organization and retrieval of large multimedia collections, as also acknowledged by US10721066 itself, which states the preference for automated tagging "as image and voice recognition improve."

Conclusion for Claim 1: Claim 1 would be obvious over the combination of US6240212B1, US6078308A, US6173076B1, US5710834A, US6144898A, and US6233342B1, with the motivation to improve multimedia content management, searchability, and security.

Claim 6: Local Storage Method in Capture Device

Claim 6 describes a method for capturing image and audio, capturing location and time, converting audio to text tags, creating image recognition tags, and storing them with the digital image and captured data in the internal storage of the capture device.

Primary Reference:

• US5602458A (February 11, 1997): "Rechargeable camera with image, audio and text data storage and retrieval capabilities." This patent describes a camera capable of storing images, audio, and associated text data, and retrieving them, all within the device's internal storage.

Combination with Secondary References:

1. Capturing Location and Time Information:

   • US6078308A (June 20, 2000): "Digital camera with integrated global positioning system." This reference teaches integrating GPS into a digital camera to capture location information, with time information being a standard feature.
   • Motivation: It would have been obvious to a POSITA to integrate GPS and timestamping into a multimedia capture device like that of US5602458A to automatically enrich locally stored media with contextual metadata, thus improving local organization and retrieval.

2. Converting Digital Audio to Text Tags and Creating Image Recognition Tags:

   • US5710834A (January 20, 1998): "Method and apparatus for converting audible content to a retrievable electronic document." This teaches audio-to-text conversion for searchable documents.
   • US5546145A (August 13, 1996): "Camera on-board voice recognition." This patent explicitly teaches voice recognition on the camera itself.
   • US6148301A (November 14, 2000): "System and method for generating image metadata from audio input." This directly teaches generating image metadata from audio input.
   • US6233342B1 (May 15, 2001): "System and method for object recognition and feature extraction." This patent teaches object recognition, which can generate image-based tags.
   • Motivation: Since US5602458A already provides for storing "text data" with images and audio, it would be an obvious improvement to automate the generation of this text data. A POSITA would be motivated to use known speech-to-text technologies (US5710834A, US5546145A, US6148301A) for captured audio and image recognition technologies (US6233342B1) for captured images to automatically create searchable tags directly on the device. This addresses the problem of manual indexing and improves the richness and accuracy of tags, thereby enhancing the local search and retrieval capabilities of media files. US10721066 itself suggests placing "the ability to enter tags on the data capture device itself" using "voice recognition software."

Conclusion for Claim 6: Claim 6 would be obvious over the combination of US5602458A, US6078308A, US5710834A, US5546145A, US6148301A, and US6233342B1, motivated by the desire to automate local multimedia tagging and improve on-device search and organization.

Claim 13: Local Storage Method with Two Data Converters

Claim 13 is very similar to Claim 6, further specifying a "first data converter" for audio conversion and a "second data converter" for converting audio to text tags and creating image recognition tags.

Primary Reference:

• US5602458A (February 11, 1997): "Rechargeable camera with image, audio and text data storage and retrieval capabilities." As with Claim 6, this provides the foundational camera with internal multimedia and text storage.

Combination with Secondary References:

1. Capturing Location and Time Information:

   • US6078308A (June 20, 2000): "Digital camera with integrated global positioning system." This teaches integrating GPS into a digital camera.
   • Motivation: As explained for Claim 6, it would be obvious to a POSITA to incorporate GPS and timestamping into the capture device of US5602458A to enhance the contextual information of locally stored media.

2. Explicit "Second Data Converter" for Text and Image Recognition Tags:

   • US5710834A (January 20, 1998): "Method and apparatus for converting audible content to a retrievable electronic document." This describes an audio-to-text converter, which functions as a "second data converter" for processing audio into text tags.
   • US6233342B1 (May 15, 2001): "System and method for object recognition and feature extraction." This provides the image recognition capability for generating tags.
   • US6148301A (November 14, 2000): "System and method for generating image metadata from audio input." This directly supports generating metadata from audio.
   • Motivation: While US5602458A supports text data storage, specifying the use of a "second data converter" for generating text from audio and for image recognition tags simply describes a modular implementation of known functionalities within a capture device. It would be obvious to a POSITA to employ distinct processing modules or "converters" (either hardware or software) to perform speech-to-text conversion (as in US5710834A) and image recognition (as in US6233342B1) to automatically create searchable tags. This modular approach is a standard engineering design choice for clarity, efficiency, and maintainability, further addressing the problem of manual indexing and improving local searchability.

Conclusion for Claim 13: Claim 13 would be obvious over the combination of US5602458A, US6078308A, US5710834A, US6148301A, and US6233342B1. The differentiation into "first" and "second" data converters merely describes a conventional design choice for implementing known functions within a system, which would be obvious to a POSITA.