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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 1-16, 18-64, 66, 68-70, 72-73, 75, 77-79, and 81 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/20/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/20/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 1 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claimed recite specific a computer-implemented mechanism for dynamically processing image data, including tracking associations between sets of tags based on user selections during a search session, determining a weighted relationship between images based on shared preferences of a plurality of users and weights of tags associated with the images, and iteratively updating the weighted relationship during the search session in response to successive inputs. Comparison is also drawn to McRO, where rules based automation using specific techniques was held to not be abstract, the Applicant arguing that the present claims recite rules structured rules for updating tag weights, rules for deriving relationships between images based on shared user preferences, and iterative processing steps tied to user interaction. On page 2, the Applicant argues that any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application that improves computer functionality, such as by dynamically refining the search space during a session, reducing the processing of irrelevant candidate images, and improving selection efficiency through structured weighting of tag relationships. Comparison is also drawn to Enfish, where a specific data organization improved computer functionality, and DDR Holdings, where a solution rooted in computer technology addressed a problem specific to network-based systems. On page 3, it is argued that the claims provide significantly more than any judicial exception, requiring an ordered combination of elements that are neither conventional nor routine. The non-conventional combination is compared with the court decision of Bascom and Amdocs.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The various steps of tracking associations between sets of tags based on user selections during a search session, determining a weighted relationship between images based on shared preferences of a plurality of users and weights of tags associated with the images, and iteratively updating the weighted relationship during the search session in response to successive inputs do not represent a computer-implemented mechanism. Use selections during a search session does not represent any technical activity, but merely represents a user selecting items as they search for an item of interest, a weighted relationship between images based on shared preferences of a plurality of users and weights of tags associated with the images represents a mathematical calculation to score abstract concepts of shared preferences and tags describing an image, and iteratively updating the weighted relationship in response to successive inputs is merely updating the calculations performed for the abstract idea based on activity of a user. Neither of these concepts are inherent to any technology, and are merely algorithms to provide some measurement to select an image to recommend to a user.
The comparisons to McRO are also inapposite. In McRO, there was clearly an improvement to computer-related technology of allowing a computer to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animate characters”. The claims did not merely apply specific rules, but the improvement was to the computer’s ability in generating animate characters. As discussed above, the present claims are not directed to such undertakings that change how a computer functions, but merely recites al algorithm to weight relationships between images to determine an image to recommend. Dynamically refining the search space during a session, reducing the processing of irrelevant candidate images, and improving selection efficiency through structured weighting of tag relationships also do not represent any technical functionality. The refining of the search space is merely determining more accurate results for a search query, which is not any inherent technical functionality, but an answer to a question regarding a user interest. The reducing of the processing of irrelevant candidate images, and improving selection efficiency through structured weighting of tag relationships are also not any changes in how a computer functions, but merely a more accurate algorithm of the abstract idea. As such, the comparisons to Enfish and DDR Holdings are also inapposite. In Enfish, the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data from memory, and functioned differently than conventional databases. In the present claims, the various elements of weighted relationships, image-to-image similarity values, and other aspects of the claims do not change how a computer retrieves and stores data or any other computer functionality, but merely defines abstract relationships between data, and organizing information. As discussed above, the limitations of the claim are not rooted in any computer technology, they are directed only to the algorithm of the abstract idea, which are merely implemented on a computing device. In DDR Holdings, the claims specified how interactions with the computer and internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine functionality of a link. As discussed above, the present claims do not affect ay computer ability or computer-specific element.
The comparisons to Bascom and Amdocs are also inapposite. In Bascom, the combination of elements did not merely apply generic components to an abstract idea, but applied the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond providing a general link to a particular technological environment by taking advantage of the ability of the ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server to associate a request for internet content with a specific individual account. In Amdocs, the court emphasized the specific in defining a particular manner of how the data was enhanced, linking the claims to an improvement in a technical field, as opposed to an improvement in a commercial endeavor, and specifically defined the manner in which the data was enhanced. The present claims do not result in such technical improvements and non-conventional utilization of computing elements as they merely define calculations between data of the abstract idea to quantize abstract relationships, and merely implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The generic computing elements are not leveraged to produce a technical effect, and are directed to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the specification discloses the problem of recommendation systems not accounting for a group of users looking for recommendations or leveraging the preferences of communities of users with similar interests, which describe a commercial problem of providing accurate recommendations for a group of users.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/20/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments require substantial reconstruction of the claim with a large number of references that require many modifications. As such, the combination of references required to disclose all features of the present claims would require improper hindsight bias.
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 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 17, 65, and 67 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 71, 74, and 76 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is an article of manufacture. Claim 80 is directed to an electronic device, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong1):
Taking claim 17 as representative, claim 17 sets forth the following limitation reciting the abstract idea of recommending images to a user based on features of the images and user preferences:
receiving an input by a user indicating a preference for a first item represented by a first image, the first image being associated with a first set of tags;
determining a second set of tags based, at least in part, on the first item, the first set of rags, or a combination thereof;
determining a set of second images associated with the second set of tags;
determining a weighted relationship between the first image and each second image of the second set of images, the weighted relationship including a value representing similarity between the first image the each second image based on (i) shared preferences of the plurality of users across the first image and each second image and (ii) weights of tags associated with the first set of tags and the second set of tags;
tracking associations between the first set of tags and the second set of tags based on selections made during the search session by a plurality of users;
collaboratively filtering the second set of images based on the preferences of the plurality of users to determine selection of one or more images from the second set of images, wherein the collaborative filtering includes iteratively updating the weighted relationship during the search session responsive to successive inputs received during the search session;
responsive to the collaborative filtering, selecting one second image from the set of second images as a recommend image during the search session based on the weighted relationship between the first image and the one second image relative to the weighted relationships between the first image and each remaining second image of the set of second images, wherein selecting the one second image includes prioritizing images associated with higher weighted tags relative to images associated with lower weighted tags;
transmitting the recommended image;
wherein the weighted relationship includes a shared number of preferences between the first image and the one second image relative to the weighted relationships between the fist image and the second image of the set of second images;
wherein the weighted relationship is determined by weighting each tag of the first set of tags or the second set of tags, the method further comprising the steps of:
incrementing as weight of each tag by a positive value based on the preferences of the plurality of users for the first image and each second image of the second set of images being positive;
decrementing a weight of each tag by a negative value based on the preferences of the plurality of users for the first image and each second image of the second set of images being negative.
The recited limitations above set forth the abstract idea of recommending images to a user based on features of the images and user preferences. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. business relations, etc.). The claims recite steps for receiving preferences, determining a set attributes to determine second images, and analyzing a relationship between the images to select an image to recommend, which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 17 recites additional limitations in the claims, such as:
one or more computer devices;
via a user interface of an electronic device;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 17 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Secondly, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of computer devices and electronic devices, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. As disclosed in paragraph [0034] of the Applicant’s specification, the computer devices are any tablet, laptop, desktop, server, smartphone, etc. Furthermore, the specification paragraph also discloses a very generic computing devices, merely disclosing that it contains a CPU. Paragraph [0036] also discloses that the display of the electronic display may be any electronic video display, stereoscopic display, or any electronic display configured to visually portray information. As such, it can be seen that any additional element in the present claims are merely generic computing components that merely provide the abstract idea a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 17 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 17, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 17 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 17 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 17 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 17 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claims 71 non-transitory computer-readable storage media): Claim 71 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 17 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 71 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 17.
Regarding Claims 80 (electronic device): Claim 80 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 17 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 80 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 17.
Dependent claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 17, such as by further defining the algorithm for recommending images to a user based on features of the images and user preferences. Thus, each of claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 17. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (i.e. a virtual or augmented reality setting (claim 67)); however, the additional elements of claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 17. Thus, dependent claims 65, 67, 74, and 76 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a statement of the reasons for indicating subject matter free of the prior art.
Claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as set forth above.
Claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons as set forth below.
The claims recite features that would require significant modification of the number of references and piecemeal analysis, that such reconstruction of the claims would only be possible with improper hindsight.
The closest prior art of record was found to be as follows:
Bennet (US 20080147611 A1) discloses [0022] – “assuming the user has selected Dish n in FIG. 3, the method shows the user one or more items (422) that may be used to complement Dish n. A "People Who Selected Dish n Also Like The Following items" sign (420) is displayed. For example, a salad (422), a dessert (423), a beverage (425), or other recommended items may go well with Dish n. An "Add to Selection" button (424) is associated with each of the pictures to allow the user to add the item to her selection. In addition, a "Previous" button (426) allows the user to view the previously presented pictures of the complementary items, a "Next" button (430) allows the user to view the next set of pictures of the complementary items”.
While Bennett discloses determining a second set of tags and images, and transmitting the recommended image to the user, Bennett does not disclose a weighted relationship, or incrementing/decrementing a weight of each tag to determine the recommended image.
Ahmed (US 9,245,271 B1) discloses col. 6, ln. 38-43 – “For instance, one or more of customers 102 may vote to voice their opinion as to the tag's relevance. When a customer votes that a tag aptly describes the item that the item record represents, then a corresponding tag score may increase. Conversely, if a customer votes that a tag correlates poorly, then the corresponding tag score may decrease”.
While Ahmed discloses tag scores, they are not used in determining a selection of second images and relationships between images/items.
Grimes (US 20180018729 A1) discloses [0081] – “recommendation algorithms and/or systems may be utilized to identify a relevant subset of images accessed from the stored images. For example, consumers identified as having purchased similar products or recommended similar products to those also purchased by the subject consumer may be identified as being a part of a similar consumer base. In this regard, image characteristics of product images purchased by similar users may be used to infer preferences of the subject consumer. Collaborative filtering may be utilized in example embodiments to make automated and intelligent predictions regarding similar consumer bases, subject images, product images, and/or the like. Look-alike modeling, and/or cluster analysis may be similarly utilized to identify similar subject images, and predict similarities in consumer bases and preferences”.
While Grimes does disclose identifying a subset of images using collaborative filtering using predictions based on similar consumer bases, Grimes does not disclose tags of an image, and weighting a relationship between the images, or iteratively updating the weighted relationship based on successive inputs.
Badr (US 10,565,256 B2) discloses claim 1 – “performing image recognition on the selected image, determining one or more first labels that indicate a context of the selected image; based on performing text recognition on an area of the graphical interface that does not include the selected image, determining one or more second labels that indicate the context of the selected image; comparing the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels to past queries received from the user; based on comparing the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels to past queries received from the user, determining, for each of the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels, a label confidence score that reflects a likelihood that the respective label is associated with portion of the selected image that is of primary interest to the user; based on the label confidence scores of the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels, selecting, from among the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels, a subset of the one or more first labels and the one or more second labels”.
While Badr discloses determining first and second labels, the labels are not tags of the image, but labels of context of the images. Furthermore, Badr is disclosed to generating a search query and not to identify second images to recommend.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. To disclose all of the feature of claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80, and any intervening claims, would require piecemeal analysis and such reconstruction would only be possible in improper hindsight reasoning.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 17, 65, 67, 71, 74, 76, and 80 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights