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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action.
Claims [1-11, 13-14, and 16] are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception that is an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Step 1: claims 1-8 recite a method (i.e. a series of steps), claims 9-11 and 13-14 recite a device and, and claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer device-readable storage medium and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claim 1 recites: A method for providing data, the method comprising: accessing a review item associated with a user ID, the review item including an image and a text; detecting at least one target object from the image included in the review item; processing the detected target object to generate first feature data, wherein the first feature data comprises a first feature vector and a first property tag, associated with the target object; processing a reference object included in the shopping mall web page to generate second feature data corresponding to the reference object, wherein the second feature data comprises a second feature vector and a second property tag, associated with the reference object; and generating verification data indicating a result of verification for the review item by comparing the first feature data, generated by processing the target object, with the second feature data, generated by processing the reference object.
Claims 9 and 16: access a review item associated with a user ID; receive the review item, wherein the review item includes an image and a text, and detect at least one target object from the image included in the review item, to process the detected target object to generate first feature data, to verify the review item by comparing the first feature data, generated by processing the target object, with second feature data corresponding to a reference object included, and to generate verification data indicating a result of verification for the review item, wherein the first feature data comprises a first feature vector and a first property tag, associated with the target object, wherein the second feature data comprises a second feature vector and a second property tag, associated with the reference object.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims recite a series of steps for validating a review of a product by processing information and generating verification data. Merely following a series of rules to verifying information such as a user review of a product is a certain method of organizing human activity. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The examiner further finds that the claims are directed to a mental process. The claims recite a method of verifying a review for an item. The claims therefore, recite a mental process as a person is capable of performing a series of steps of receiving information such as image data for a reviewed item and determining a verification for a review by comparing feature data in their mind. Additionally, the claims recite steps and procedures that are similar to concepts the courts have identified as a mental process such as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: A shopping mall web page and wherein the first feature vector and the second feature vector are generated using a first artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, output at least one feature vector associated with a design of an object in the image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, and wherein the first property tag and the second property tag are generated using a second artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model, output property tag representing a property of a product corresponding to an object in the image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model.
Claim 9: A computer device comprising a first interface and a shopping mall web page; a processor configured to receive through the first interface and to detect; and wherein the first feature vector and the second feature vector are generated using a first artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, output at least one feature vector associated with a design of an object in the image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, and wherein the first property tag and the second property tag are generated using a second artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model, output property tag representing a property of a product corresponding to an object in the image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model.
Claim 16: A non-transitory computer-device readable storage medium suitable for storing a computer program and a shopping mall web page; and wherein the first feature vector and the second feature vector are generated using a first artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, output at least one feature vector associated with a design of an object in the image inputted to the first artificial intelligence model, and wherein the first property tag and the second property tag are generated using a second artificial intelligence model learned to, in response to an input of an image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model, output property tag representing a property of a product corresponding to an object in the image inputted to the second artificial intelligence model.
The additional elements of generic computer elements and generic machine learning model elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving information such as a review item including an image and text and analyzing the information to generate “feature” data such as tags to be used in comparing the feature data of a submitted image and a reference image to verify a user review is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely using generic computer elements to receive and process information is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field but merely utilize the generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of verifying the review of an item by comparing feature data of an image of a product from a review and the information from a reference object. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13-14 further narrow the abstract idea of verifying an item review by generating and comparing feature data of an image of a review and a reference object, recited in the independent claims 1, 9, and 16 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not recite any further additional elements than those referenced in the above analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS July 09, 2025, and with respect to the rejections of claims [1-11, 13-14, and 16] under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The representative argues that the independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to a practical application as they recite an improvement to a technology as they recite an improvement in the “result of the verification may have high reliability and accuracy, and faster verification times and smaller resource requirements for executing the verification for the review item (e.g. memory and/or processor requirement) may be provided.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the additional elements of a first and second artificial intelligence model are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer and ai model elements to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to the technology of artificial intelligence models or computer processing but merely apply an artificial intelligence model to process information by performing generic ai model steps of receiving input information and generating data. Applying an artificial intelligence model to generate feature vectors to be used in verifying a review item by comparing feature data from a review item and a reference item is not an improvement to a technology or technical field. Additionally, merely validating review items to help ensure reliability and accuracy of the review items is not a technical solution or improvement to a technical problem. While stating that the usage of generic computer elements improves times and resource requirements for verifying review items is not sufficient in showing an improvement to a technical problem. As the claims recite applying a generic computer to perform the abstract idea of generating verification data indicating a result of verification for the review item by comparing first feature data and second feature data of a reference object. Therefore, the additional elements do not direct the claims to a practical application.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the current 101 rejection.
The applicant argues that the dependent claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 9, and 16 and therefore are rejected under the same 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Morate (US 2022/0405321) Product auditing in point-of-sale images.
Rodriguez (US 2021/0217128) Learning systems and methods.
Sengupta (US 2019/0066119) Method and system for review verification and trustworthiness scoring via blockchain.
Wong (US 2014/0258169) Method and verification for automated verifications of customer reviews.
Robinson (US 8290823) Customers mention.
Wouhaybi (US 2016/0321711) Indicating unreliable reviews on a website.
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 COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629