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
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 03/17/2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/17/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to methods, claim 14 is directed to a manufacture, and claims 15-16 are directed to systems. Independent claims 1, 10, and 15-16 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: providing head data of a person; identifying a head data cluster from a plurality of head data clusters based on the head data of the person, wherein a head data cluster is a group of head data grouped together based on a similarity criterion; providing a plurality of frame data clusters, wherein a frame data cluster is a group of frame data from different frames grouped together based on another similarity criterion; selecting a frame data cluster from the plurality of frame data clusters based on the identified head data cluster and a mapping between the plurality of head data clusters and the plurality of frame data clusters; and providing at least one selected frame based on the selected frame data cluster, wherein providing the plurality of frame data clusters includes ... clustering the compressed frame data based on the other similarity criterion to provide the plurality of frame data clusters ... using a principal component analysis, the other similarity criterion being that frame data is identified as belonging to a same cluster if a deviation for lower order coefficients resulting from the principle component analysis is below a predefined threshold, and wherein the mapping includes assigning one of probabilities or probability distributions to pairs, each pair including a head data cluster of the plurality of head data clusters and a frame data cluster of the plurality of frame data clusters.
These recited limitations recite the abstract idea of “selecting a frame for a person”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors (recommending a product). Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 15-16 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A, Prong Two Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instant claims 1, 10, and 15-16 recite additional elements including: compressing the frame data; a computer; a device; a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium. These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The “compressing” of frame data is considered to be within the ordinary functionality of existing computers. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the combination of these additional elements (i.e. a device having a processor and instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium) does not provide more than the elements considered individually and similarly amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 10, and 15-16 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 10, and 15-16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-8, and 11-13 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2, 4-8, and 11-13 are also ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 9 recite additional elements including: a Bayesian multi-armed bandit algorithm. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the Bayesian multi-armed bandit algorithm is described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the Specification describes this solution algorithm as “known in the art” in ¶ [0050]. Accordingly, claim(s) 3 and 9, when considered both individually and in combination, are ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recite additional elements including: a computer program stored on a non-transitory storage medium. Similar to the additional elements identified in the independent claims, the computer program stored on a non-transitory storage medium is no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B. Accordingly, claim 14 is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant points to the arguments provided in the February 12, 2026 After Final Response, and concurrently submits a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. The Examiner will respond first to the declaration, with response to the arguments of 02/12/2026 to follow.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the Rule 132 Declaration filed concurrently herewith provides evidence that the claimed subject matter not only recites a practical application, but also amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/17/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-16 based upon the ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last Office action because: the showing is not commensurate in scope with the disclosure.
Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. MPEP 2106.05(a). The Specification does not reflect the alleged technical problems/solutions presented in the declaration, such as computational inefficiency in recommending a frame by analyzing a large number of frames and large number of heads of people (Declaration, pg. 2), or reduced runtime complexity (Declaration, pg.3). The Background of the Specification establishes the state of the art by describing 8 prior art references and what they lack. However, neither these descriptions nor the rest of the Specification describe computational inefficiency in analyzing large amounts of data or runtime. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Nevertheless, the features described in the declaration – using PCA, clustering, thresholding of lower-order PCA coefficients, and precomputed probabilistic mapping – are abstract mathematical concepts. Further, the Examiner has demonstrated that PCA is a well-understood technique (Jian Yang, D. Zhang, A. F. Frangi and Jing-yu Yang, “Principal component analysis (PCA) ... is a classical feature extraction and data representation technique widely used in the areas of pattern recognition and computer vision”).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of 101 eligibility fails to outweigh the evidence of ineligibility.
On page 9 of the Remarks filed 02/17/2026, Applicant argues “the Office action condenses the entirety of the recited features down to ‘recommending a product.’ However, ... under such an extreme level of abstraction, it is all but ensured that a claim is found to be subject matter ineligible”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. MPEP 2106.04(II)(a)(1). Claim 1, as well as the other independent claims, sets forth sales activities including “selecting a frame for a person” and “providing at least one selected frame based on the selected frame data cluster”. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping.
On page 9 of the Remarks filed 02/17/2026, Applicant further argues “it is not possible ... to a mapping that includes assigning one of probabilities or probability distributions to pairs, each pair including a head data cluster of the plurality of head data clusters and a frame data cluster of the plurality of frame data clusters”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First the Examiner assumes Applicant meant it is not possible to perform the mapping mentally, however, Applicant provides no support for this assertion. A human can compute a probability distribution with pen and paper for small datasets, and the recited “plurality” of clusters includes there only being 4, for example, clusters. Even still, this limitation is best characterized as an abstract mathematical calculation (“wherein the mapping includes assigning probabilities or probability distributions to pairs”). Accordingly, this limitation cannot render the claims eligible.
On page 10 of the Remarks filed 02/17/2026, Applicant argues “the claims ... recite in detail how the steps interrelate and how a spectacle frame for a person is selected for recommendation based on the selected frame data cluster”, unlike in TLI Communications.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong Two asks, does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04(2). Reciting abstract (i.e. sales activity, mental process, or mathematical calculations/relationships) limitations describing how the spectacle frame is selected for recommendation based on the selected frame data cluster are not additional elements which could provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks filed 02/17/2026, Applicant argues “it is respectfully submitted that the instant claims provide an improvement of computer capabilities or to an existing technology” with regard to Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2105.05(a). Enabling frame recommendation “to be made without the need to provide, predict, or confirm detailed information about the person or the frames” using an abstract mapping of head and frame clusters may improve the recommendation but does not improve the ordinary functioning of existing computers or other technology. With respect to eliminating the need for detailed information, Examiner notes that reducing the amount of data analyzed is doing less work on the same generic computer, and not an improvement to the computer itself. According, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Accordingly, the Examiner is maintaining the § 101 rejections of claims 1-16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
X. Peng, R. Li, J. Wang and H. Shang (NPL Reference U) presents a two-stage user-guided video segmentation framework, including dimension reduction and temporal clustering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688