DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 16 December 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 19, 20 have been amended.
Claim 24 has been cancelled.
The art rejections from the previous office action have been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-23, and 25-26 are pending. Claims 1, and 19-20 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/25 has been entered.
Specification
After reevaluation of the accepted Abstract filed on 4/25/17, the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract involves language that is not in narrative form since it repeats the language/wording/phrasing(s) of the independent claims and/or written like a claim. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention that allows the Office and the public to quickly determine, from a cursory inspection, the nature and gist of the technical disclosure. The abstract should be a summary of the claim invention; not a repeat of the exact/similar wording that is written/used in the independent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2, 9, 21-23, and 25-26 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the categorized content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 2 as “generating the webpage based on categorized content and the user type…”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a webpage” in the “…the plurality of webpages” limitation. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a webpage” in the “generating a webpage” step. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s) “webpage” should depend on “webpage” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “the plurality of webpages comprises a homepage and the webpage”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the entity" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 9 as “wherein an entity is one or more…”
Claim 21 recites the limitation "…the request to change the set of user content…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 21 as “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise a request to change the set of user content …”
Claim 22 recites the limitation "… the one or more classifications…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 22 as “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise one or more classifications…”
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a neural network” in line 2. However, Claim 1 already introduced the elements/term(s) “a neural network” in the “processing” step. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “neural network” should depend on “neural network” of Claim 1 or viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view this portion of limitation as “wherein the one or more generated interest clusters are generated using one or more of a learning algorithm or the neural network”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the categorized content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 25 as “generating the webpage is further based on categorized content…”
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the one or more text analytic algorithms" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the limitation of Claim 25 as “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise one or more text analytic algorithms…”
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 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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershom et al (US PGPub 20160179769, pub. 6/23/2016, filed 5/6/2015) in further view of Bourdev et al (US20130121584, 2013) in further view of Weinberger et al (US Publication No. US 8433993 A1, 2013) in further view of Smith et al (US 20140143331, 2014) in further view of Schonfeld et al (US20130086081, 2013)
As per independent Claim 1, Gershom teaches a system comprising (Abstract, discloses a website-generating system):
one or more processors (0045: discloses the system executed on a computer device); and
one or more computer-readable media, wherein the one or more computer-readable media contain instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (0006-0007, 0045: discloses the system executed on the computer device)
obtaining a set of user content associated with a user, wherein the set of user content comprises one or more of textual information, images, or videos; processing the set of user content (0052, 0084 discloses content is imported from a social media account. This is obtaining user content. 0052 discloses the content import can be photos, videos, text. 0084 discloses determining which posts and photos are the most recent after they have been obtained. Thus, the obtained posts and photos are categorized (e.g. date/time). Thus, the obtained content is categorized based on one or more classifications. This is a form of processing the set of user content.
generating a webpage (based on the processed set of user content) (0043-0054, 0083-0085: discloses automatically creating website based on the obtained and filter/categorized user content/data and information (0044, 0054, 0083-0085)).
generating a plurality of domain name suggestions (based on the processed set of user content) (0053-0064: discloses automatically generating a series of domain name suggestions based on user content/data and information (0054)),
transmitting a domain name lookup request for the plurality of domain name suggestions to determine a plurality of available domain name suggestions (0067: discloses checking the domain name suggestions for availability against a conventional WhoIs query site, and unavailable domains are filtered out from the domain name suggestions list, leaving only available domains to be displayed to the user. Note: According to Applicant’s Specification, paragraph 0081, “Once the domain name suggestions have been generated, in some embodiments, a domain name lookup request based on the domain name suggestions can be transmitted to one or more domain name registrars, registries, and/or resellers to determine availability (e.g., to the registrar 140). Once a response is received to the domain name lookup request, in some implementations, domain name suggestions that are not available can be removed from a list of domain name suggestions”. Therefore, Examiner interprets “a domain name lookup request” as “checking domain name suggestions for availability” as Gershom suggested in paragraph 0067)
providing the webpage and the plurality of available domain name suggestions (0052-0054, 0067, 0076, 0080, discloses providing the created the website (0052-0053, 0080) and the available domain name suggestions to the user (0067),
initiating hosting of a website by storing the webpage; facilitating a domain name registration request comprising a selection of an available domain name suggestion of the plurality of available domain name suggestions( 0019-0020, 0041, 0067-0076: discloses uploading the saved content/webpages to the hosting server and requesting a domain name for the website which the user selects the domain name from a presented list of domain name suggestions)
As explained, Gershom et al discloses processing the user content; however, fails to specifically discloses processing the set of user content with a neural network to determine a user type. However, Bourdev et al discloses using a neural network to identify people within photos and tagging/labeling the identified person within each photo. Provided images are analyzed to detect faces wherein faces with similar features are matched/grouped together identifying a single person/user. (FIG 2, 4-5, 0020, 0027-0028, 0030, 0081, 0084, 0079, 0096) Bourdev et al discloses using a neural network-based face detecton algorithm. (0028, 0073, 0082) This is a form of processing the set of user content with a neural network to determine a user type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Gershom with the cited features of Bourdev et al since it would have provided the benefit of improve face recognition in digital images. (0005)
Thus, in conjunction with Gershom et al, the combination of the cited art teaches processing the (obtained) set of user content with a neural network to determine a user type
Furthermore, 0085 of Gershom discloses display the most `liked` and most viewed on the webpage of the imported content. As stated in 0084, the most recent posts and photos were obtained and being the system determined which posts and photos were determined/categorized. 0085 discloses determining which posts/photos obtain had the most liked and most viewed. This can be viewed as a form of generating interest clusters based on the categorized user content. However, Gershom fails to specifically disclose one or more generated interest clusters; generating a webpage based on the user type. However, Weinberger discloses receiving uploaded content (photos and video) (col 4, ll 22-25) that are grouped together based on contextual information wherein each group represents a distinct category (photos grouped together based on a classification). (Col 1, ll 55-65; 2, ll. 14-25, 30-48) Next, the one or more photo groups are then integrated (combined) into one or more photo stories which share a common theme among the selected groups of photos by identifying contextual information. (Col 4, ll 12-16; Col 5, ll. 29 – 6, ll. 3 ;9, ll 19-29; Claim 1) Thus, Weinberger discloses generating interest clusters (photo stories) based on the categorized content. Furthermore, FIG 3 shows an example of different photo stories. One of them is titled “Baby Josh” that comprises different groups of photos (Josh trip to Disneyland, Josh’s first day of school) involving the person named Josh. Another story titled “Tokyo Trip” that comprises different groups of photos involving a user’s trip to Tokyo which each group discloses different events or activities that happened while in Tokyo (Car show, business dinner). Thus, the photo stories are grouped together based on a person/individual like Josh, or based on an event/series of events of an overall event like a trip to Tokyo. In other words, the photo stories are created based on a determined person/entity. If Weinberger was unable to determine a person/entity from the group of photos, then Weinberger would not have been able to create a photo story involving a person such as Baby Josh as shown in FIG 3. Thus, Weinberger taught a common entity/person was determined among the categorized groups and the categorized groups are then combined together (forming a story) based on the determined type. Therefore, Weinberger et al disclose determining a user type (person, event) based on the one or more interest clusters (photo stories). Furthermore, the creation of each photo stories involves the creation of content rich documents (webpages) since the photo stories are generated as content rich documents. Thus, when the groups are integrated into a photo story, a webpage is generated for rendering/present the photo story. (Col 3, ll. 40-42) Thus, Weinberger discloses generating a webpage based on the user type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Gershom with the cited features of Weinberger et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide a more entertaining way of viewing and sharing multimedia content and capturing the interest and engaging the attention of other users. (Col 2, ll 65- Col 3, ll. 2)
Thus, in conjunction with Gershom et al and Bourdev et al, the combination of the cited art teaches processing the (obtained) set of user content with a neural network to determine a user type and generating a webpage based on the user type.
Furthermore, as explained, Gershom discloses disclose automatically generating the series of domain name suggestions ( [0054]) based on keywords within the user content/data and information corresponding to data pertained from the user’s interests and activities retrieved from the social network (0055-0067) 0054, 0058, 0063 discloses keywords based on user content being used in the generation of domain name suggestions. Thus, Gershom discloses generating a plurality of domain name suggestions (based on the set of user content). Furthermore, Weinberger discloses metadata information is displayed to the user wherein the metadata displayed include the title of the photo story name. (Col 8, ll. 22-40) FIG 3 discloses the metadata of a photo story includes an event keyword/term and person’s name. (e.g. May 7- Amy’s Graduation) Claim 6 discloses Weinberger examining the metadata associated with the multimedia content to determine a type of event and category associated with the multimedia content and create a photo story based on the metadata. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that the title of each photo story, e.g. shown in FIG 3, comprises metadata wherein the metadata includes keywords/terms that may include an event, a name, a date/time, etc. since metadata was used to create the photo story. This provides the display of detailed information regarding the theme of the photo story. Furthermore, as explained above, each photo story is generated as a webpage. Thus, Weinberger discloses wherein the keywords are associated with the one or more generated interest clusters or determined during generation of the one or more generated interest clusters
However, the cited art fails to explicitly disclose generating a plurality of domain name suggestions based on one or more generated interest clusters, wherein generating the plurality of domain name suggestions based on the one or more generated interest clusters comprises generating the plurality of domain name suggestions based on keywords wherein the keywords are associated with the one or more generated interest clusters or determined during generation of the one or more generated interest clusters. However, Smith discloses being provided an information source such as personalize source/webpage. (0034, 0052) The webpage is scrapped for various kinds of data, wherein terms/keywords from the metadata are identified and extracted. (0037) These identified terms/keywords are associated with category or topic identifiers, which are form of metadata. (0038) Thus, Smith discloses extracting forms of metadata for keyword/terms. The extracted keywords from the metadata are then used to generating domain name suggestions. (0041)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Smith et al since it would have provided the benefit of an improved approach to identifying and suggesting available and desirable domain names is needed. (0008)
Thus, in conjunction with Weinberger, the combination of the cited art would allow one or more of Weinberger’s photo story(ies) document (webpage), which comprises metadata, to be scanned/scrapped by Smith et al’s invention to identify keywords/terms and provide domain name suggestions, based on the keywords/terms, for the provided photo story document. In this combination, the providing photo story document would be scrapped and parsed for keywords/terms and have those keywords/terms be extracted from the document. The extracted keywords/terms would be then provided to a domain name generator which would provide domain name suggestions for the extracted keywords/terms. Since Weinberger’s photo story(ies) are considered one or more interest clusters, the combination of Weinberger and Smith et al would teach the generating of domain name suggestions based on one or more generated interest clusters. This combined process would allow those unfamiliar with publishing content online with a simple and quicker method to upload their photo story since the user be given a suggested domain name, related to their story, which would save the user’s time from guessing which names are available, and enable an easier method for the user to share their photo story with others since the photo story would be at one location via the suggest domain name. Thus, the combination of Gershom, Weinberger and Smith would teach generating a plurality of domain name suggestions based on the one or more generated interest clusters, wherein generating the plurality of domain name suggestions based on the one or more generated interest clusters comprises generating the plurality of domain name suggestions based on keywords, wherein the keywords are associated with the one or more generated interest clusters or determined during generation of the one or more generated interest clusters.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose facilitating, after storing the webpage, a domain name registration request comprising a selection of an available domain name suggestion of the plurality of available domain name suggestions. However, Schonfeld et al discloses a webpage being navigated to via browser using a URL. (0029; FIG 3: discloses a displayed webpage within a browser accessed via URL) In order for the user to initially access the webpage by the browser, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the webpage being accessed was previously and currently stored on a server on the Internet. In other words, the webpage is currently hosted by a server when accessed by the browser/user. With the webpage, the user is presented with a list of domain name suggestions for the webpage. (0031-0033; FIG. 6) From the list, the user can select one of the domain name suggestions and register the selected domain name for that webpage. (0034)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Smith et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing users with an alternative way to find and register suitable domain names, instead of requiring a user to visit a registrar's web site. (0006)
As per dependent Claim 2, Claim 2 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Gershom discloses:
generating the webpage based on the categorized content and the user type comprises automatically generating a plurality of webpages (0043-0054, 0083-[0085: discloses automatically creating website based on the obtained and filtered/categorized user content/data and information (0044, 0054, 0083-0085) comprises automatically creating webpages (0076), and
the plurality of webpages comprises a homepage and a webpage (0043-0054, 0076, 0083-[0084: discloses the content of the website comprises webpages (0076) which means including a homepage corresponding to the user content/data and information).
As per dependent Claim 3, Gershom teaches:
receiving the selection of the available domain name suggestion of the plurality of available domain name suggestions (0067: discloses receiving a user selection of an available suggested domain from the available domain name suggestions)and
transmitting the domain name registration request comprising the available domain name suggestion that was selected (0067: discloses if an available suggested domain is selected by the user, the domain progresses to an ICANN accredited registrar for registration).
As per dependent Claim 4, Gershom teaches: requesting an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the website, wherein the domain name registration request further comprises the IP address for the website (0067-0076: discloses uploading the saved content/webpages to the hosting server and requesting a domain name for the website, where the domain name registration request further comprises the appropriate Name Servers for the website ( 0070),.
As per dependent Claim 5, Gershom teaches:
receiving, a request to change the set of user content, wherein the request indicates modifications to the set of user content (0014, 0040, 0077, 0085, discloses receiving a user request to edit content of the website,; and
updating the generated webpage based on the modifications to the set of user content (0014, 0040, 0077, 0085: discloses editing the generated website based on the request).
As per dependent Claim 7, Gershom teaches wherein the website server corresponds to a social networking website ( 0043, 0047, 0051-[0052: discloses the social network corresponds to a social network site (0043)).
As per dependent Claim 8, Gershom teaches extracting the keywords from metadata of the set of user content (0067, 0079, 0081: discloses pulling/extracting keywords/key characteristics within the content of the website (0067, 0079) from the meta tags employed in the script of the created website (0081))
As per dependent Claim 10, Gershom teaches wherein the entity is one or more of an educational entity, a business, a company, a group, an institute, a community, a brand, a website, a blog, a product, an area of interest, a hobby, an occupation, or a public figure (0011, 0044, 0054, 0057, 0083: discloses the entity is a business entity (0011, 0057), an affiliate, partner corporation/group or other organization (0044, 0083). Furthermore, Weinberger discloses an area of interest (FIG 3: Tokyo)
As per dependent Claim 11, Gershom teaches determining a website template based on the user type (0040-0041, 0044-0052, discloses determining a website template based on the user identity (0044)).
As per dependent Claim 12, Gershom teaches determining a website template based on the set of user content (0040-0044, discloses automatically creating the website comprises determining a website template based on the user content/data and information (0044).
As per dependent Claim 14, Gershom teaches wherein generating the webpage comprises generating one or more of a mockup webpage or a homepage (0043-0054, 0076, 0083-0084: discloses the content of the generated website comprises webpages (0076) which means including a homepage).
As per dependent Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Gershom teaches wherein the generated webpage comprises one of the plurality of available domain name suggestions (0054, 0065, 0067: discloses the created website comprises the available domain name suggestions).
As per dependent Claim 16, Gershom teaches and wherein the one or more generated interest clusters comprise pointers to the corresponding set of user content associated with the one or more generated interest clusters (0043-0054, 0066, 0083-0084: discloses data pertaining to the user’s interests and activities retrieved from the social network (0066).Furthermore, see also, Weinberger, discloses using the contextual information from the metadata to weave a story line for each group using plurality of content rich documents and recognize the contextual information and suggest appropriate theme for rendering the multimedia content wherein the contextual information can encompass one or more of W4 attributes defining the who, what, where and when of the captured multimedia content that defines the social, spatial, temporal and geographical aspect that describe the context under which a multimedia content was captured (Col 4,ll 27-34; Col 5, ll. 29 – 6, ll 3)
As per dependent Claim 18, Gershom teaches the operations further comprising receiving a selection of an available domain name suggestion of the plurality of available domain name suggestions, wherein generating the webpage based on the set of user content comprises generating the webpage based on the selection of the available domain name suggestion and generating the webpage using content that corresponds to an interest cluster used to generate the available domain name suggestion that was selected (0044, 0053-[0067: disclose receiving a user selection of an available suggested domain from the available domain name suggestions (0067), where automatically creating the website (0044) based on the user selection of the available suggested domain and the website is created using content that corresponds to data pertained from the user’s interests and activities retrieved from the social network (0066]-0067) used to generate the available suggested domain that was selected (0067)).
As per independent Claim 19 and 20, Claims 19 and 20 recites similar limitations and rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Gershom discloses a medium. (0007 discloses a computer wherein a computer has a medium)
As per dependent claim 25, Gershom discloses generating the webpage is further based on the categorized user content (0043-0054, 0083-0085: discloses automatically creating website based on the obtained and filter/categorized user content/data and information) and a template (0044: determining a website template based on the user content/data/identity and information). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Weinberger discloses generating the webpage is further based on the categorized user content and a template associated with the user type (Col 5, ll. 29 – 6, ll. 3: Discloses combining a template associated with a user and categorized user content to create a webpage)
As per dependent claim 26, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Bhadury et al discloses wherein the one or more text analytic algorithms comprise at least one of K-means, statistical word probability analytics, Bayesian analysis, or classifications based on neural network processing. (0036: K-means)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershom in further view of Bourdev et al in further view of Weinberger et al in further view of Smith et al in further view of Schonfeld et al in further view of Blinn (US Publication No. 20160057100).
As per dependent Claim 21, Gershom does not specifically teach one or more of: an instruction to change a hosting server, change to a security setting of the generated webpage, or a change to a read or a write permission of the webpage. However, Blinn teaches: a change to a security setting of the generated webpage or a change to a read or a write permission of the webpage (Abstract; 0025-0026, 0035-0037, 0040, 0067, Table 3: disclose a system for creating custom domain name links creating and posting content or edit content to a blog comprising receiving receive a request to edit content (0036) and modify custom domain name map records (security setting) (0067, Table 3) of the generated website, which is similar or equivalent to one or more of: an instruction to change a hosting server, change to a security setting of the generated webpage, or a change to a read or a write permission of the webpage).
It would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the concept of having a change to a security setting of the generated webpage or a change to a read or a write permission of the webpage as suggested by Blinn into Gershom and Ansel’s systems because all these systems relate to creating a domain name for a website. The combination would modify Gershom and Ansel’s systems to reduce a number of domains that must be remembered and recalled by the user and also enables the user's domain name to operate as a vanity or custom domain name, and allow the domain name to be used to reference services hosted by many different companies for many different purposes as Blinn suggested in paragraph 0029.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershom in further view of Bourdev et al in further view of Weinberger et al in further view of Smith et al in further view of Schonfeld et al in further view of Wexler (US Publication No. US 20160140146 A1)
As per dependent claim 22, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more classifications are determined by one or more neural networks. However, Wexler et al discloses categorization of content using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to analyze each image to produce a set of keywords describing the semantic content. The image is tagged with these keywords. This is a form of classification using a neural network. (0107, 0113)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified Gershom with the cited features of Wexler et al since it would have provided the benefit of improving the system's ability to search images with natural language.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gershom in further view of Bourdev et al in further view of Weinberger et al in further view of Smith et al in further view of Schonfeld et al in further view of Brandt et al (US Publication No. US 20170140213A1, EFD 2015)
As per dependent claim 23, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the one or more generated interest clusters are generated using one or more of a learning algorithm or a neural network. However, Brandt et al discloses one or more interest clusters are generated using one or more of a learning algorithm or a neural network (0039-0041; 0044, 0046: discloses clustering using a machine learning/neural network)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to have modified the cited art with the cited features of Wexler et al since it would have provided the benefit of recognizes people with increased accuracy and speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references on page 12 (Applicant’s remark of a six-way combination), reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights