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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/2025 has been entered.
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 10/14/2025 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 10/14/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on page 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims have been amended to add collaborative filtering as a computer-implemented method, and substantially reduces computer search resources in selection of an image, conserving network resources and bandwidth by leveraging group inputs and iterating using those group inputs to identify an image of interest.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Leveraging group inputs and iterating using those group inputs to identify an image of interest do not represent any technical endeavor, and are activities of commercial and sales activities. The claims do note recite any functionalities or changes to any technical element, merely reciting generic computing components with a high level of generality to perform the steps of the abstract idea. Any alleged reduction of computer resources or bandwidth are not from any ability of the computer, but only from a more efficient abstract algorithm, and would not be present in any other application other than the abstract idea. Collaborative filtering does not represent any technical element, and is only a way of processing information. Furthermore, the collaborative filtering is only recited in passing as being applied to the abstract idea to provide a result of the data.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/14/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 being based on preferences of a plurality of users for the first image and each second image of the second set of images;
tracking associations between the first set of tags and the second set of tags;
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;
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;
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17, 65, 71, 74, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bennett (US 20080147611 A1) in view of Hsiao (US 20150220950 A1), in further view of Ahmed (US 9,245,271 B1), and in even further of Grimes (US 20180018729 A1).
Regarding Claim 17: Bennett discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more computer devices, an input by a user, via a user interface of an electronic device, indicating a preference for a first item represented by a first image presented on a display of the electronic device, the first image being associated with a first set of tags; Bennett discloses receiving a selection of a picture of a dish that the user prefers, the picture of the dish including metadata regarding the dish, including various characteristics (Bennett: [0020-0021]; see also: [0015-0016]).
determining, by the one or more computer device, a second set of tags based, at least in part, on the first item, the first set of tags, or a combination thereof; Bennett discloses a set of different types of dishes, such as salad, dessert, and beverage, to recommend specific dishes that are complementary with the previously selected dish (Bennett: [0022]; see also: [0018]).
determining, by the one or more computer devices, a set of second images associated with the second set of tags; Bennett discloses determining the pictures of the complementary items (Bennett: [0022]; see also: [0018-0019]).
tracking, by the one or more computer devices, association between the first set of tags and the second set of tags; Bennet discloses the tracking of categories of items selected by people who also selected the first item (Bennett: [0022]).
transmitting, from the one or more computer devices, the recommended image to the electronic device; Bennett discloses presenting the pictures to the user that is represented by a computing device (Bennett: [0015]; [0025]).
Bennet does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
determining, by the one or more computer devices, a weighted relationship between he first image and each second image of the second set of images, the weighted relationship being based on preferences of a plurality of users for the first image and each second image of the second set of images;
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;
responsive to the collaborative filtering, selecting, by the one or more computer devices, one second image from the set of second images as a recommended 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 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 first image and each remaining 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, by the one or more computing devices, 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, by the one or more computing devices, 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.
Notably, however, Bennett does disclose where the recommended items are items that are complementary to the first dish during a search (Bennett: [0022]; [0003]).
To that accord, Hsiao does teach a method comprising:
determining, by the one or more computer devices, a weighted relationship between he first image and each second image of the second set of images, the weighted relationship being based on preferences of a plurality of users for the first image and each second image of the second set of images; Hsiao teaches determining a highest knowledge gain measure that determines the feature weights and preference scores (Hsiao: [0056]; [0060]).
selecting, by the one or more computer devices, one second image from the set of second images as a recommended 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. Hsiao teaches determining the next items to display to the user based on the highest knowledge gain measure that determines the feature weights and preference scores (Hsiao: [0056]; [0060]).
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 first image and each remaining second image of the set of second images; Hsiao teaches shared features of the items and the weights of the features (Hsiao: [0033]; see also: [0007]; [0024]; [0036]; [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Bennett disclosing a series of images to learn a preference of a user with the determining a weighted relationship of the images with a first image to select the image as recommendation as taught by Hsiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to refine the user’s preference scores (Hsiao: [0057]).
Bennett in view of Hsiao does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
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;
responsive to the collaborative filtering;
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, by the one or more computing devices, 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, by the one or more computing devices, 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.
Notably, however, Bennett does disclose analyzing user input to determine user preferences (Bennett: [0016]).
To that accord, Ahmed does teach a method comprising:
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, by the one or more computing devices, 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; Ahmed increases the score of a tag upon a positive selection (Ahmed: col. 6, ln. 38-43; see also: col. 9, ln. 16-20; col. 11, ln. 55-56).
decrementing, by the one or more computing devices, 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. Ahmed teaches decreasing the tag score upon a negative vote by the customer (Ahmed: col. 6, ln. 43-43; see also: col. 9, ln. 20-26; col. 11, ln. 55-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Bennett disclosing a series of images to learn a preference of a user with the incrementing and decrementing the weight of each tag by a positive or negative value based on the preferences of the users for the images as taught by Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the user with the most desirable items (col. 1, ln. 28-37).
Bennett in view of Hsiao, and in further view of Ahmed does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
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;
responsive to the collaborative filtering;
Notably, however, determining pictures for items complementary to a first item (Bennett: [0022]).
To that accord, Grimes does teach a method comprising:
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; Grimes teaches utilizing collaborative filtering to determine consumer bases and preferences to identify similar subject images (Grimes: [0081]; see also: [0102]).
responsive to the collaborative filtering; Grimes teaches identifying the particular consumer-relevant product images, and using collaborative filtering to identify those images (Grimes: [0081]; [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Bennett disclosing a series of images to learn a preference of a user with the use of collaborative filtering to select one or more images as taught by Grimes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to predict and enhance customer experience with accuracy to consumer demands (Grimes: [0002]).
Regarding Claim 65: Bennett in view of Hsiao discloses the limitations of claim 17 above.
Bennett further discloses wherein the first set of tags are automatically determined for the first image; Bennett discloses retrieving the metadata stored on a server regarding the image (Bennett: [0020]).
Regarding Claims 71 and 80: Claims 71 and 80 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 17. Therefore, claims 71 and 80 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 17 above.
Regarding Claim 74: Claim 74 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 65. Therefore, claim 74 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 65 above.
Claims 67 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Bennett (US 20080147611 A1), Hsiao (US 20150220950 A1), Ahmed (US 9,245,271 B1), and Grimes (US 20180018729 A1), in view of Snyder (US 20190130285 A1).
Regarding Claim 67: The combination of Bennett, Hsiao, Ahmed, and Grimes discloses the limitations of claim 17 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the input by the user comprises a gesture in a virtual or augmented reality setting. Notably, however, Bennett does disclose receiving a user input of a picture of the meal they prefer (Bennett: [0016]).
To that accord, Snyder does teach wherein the input by the user comprises a gesture in a virtual or augmented reality setting. Snyder teaches gestures captured using augmented/virtual reality devices to indicate approval or disapproval of the items being presented (Snyder: [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Bennett, Hsiao, Ahmed, and Grimes disclosing a series of images to learn a preference of a user with the input by a gesture in a virtual or augmented reality setting as taught by Snyder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a variety of modalities (Snyder: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 76: Claim 76 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 67. Therefore, claim 76 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 67 above.
Conclusion
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: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3689