DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/29/26, wherein:
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are currently pending; and
Claim 3 is cancelled.
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 .
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, 2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claim 16 recites a method and therefore, also falls into a statutory category. Claim 1 is used as the exemplary claim.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
selling personal content using value evaluation, comprising:
a user terminal configured to:
perform an internal image quality improvement process for selected personal content to generate a local image quality improvement result, receive an external image quality improvement result for the selected personal content, compare the local image quality improvement result with the external image quality improvement result for the selected personal content, and output the comparison result; and
a cloud server comprising a processor and a memory, the cloud server configured to receive the selected personal content, perform, using a predetermined image quality improvement algorithm, an external image quality improvement process for the selected personal content to generate an external image quality improvement result, the predetermined image quality improvement algorithm including performing learning for each different resolution to generate a plurality of independent restoration models and applying a restoration model corresponding to a resolution of the selected personal content to restore the selected personal content to an improved image, transmit the external image quality improvement result to the user terminal, propose a business right together with a value evaluation result obtained by valuating the selected personal content for which the external image quality improvement has been performed,
distribute the improved image in a case where consent to the business right is received from the user terminal, and
share a profit for the improved image
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As is stated in the Specification, the invention is directed to “selling personal content using value evaluation,” which is a commercial activity. Specification 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 16 recite the additional elements of a user terminal and a cloud server. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation reciting “the predetermined image quality improvement algorithm including performing learning for each different resolution to generate a plurality of independent restoration models and applying a restoration model corresponding to a resolution of the selected personal content to restore the selected personal content to an improved image” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“the predetermined image quality improvement algorithm including performing learning for each different resolution to generate a plurality of independent restoration models and applying a restoration model corresponding to a resolution of the selected personal content to restore the selected personal content to an improved image”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further defines the additional element of a local CPU or GPU. The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 4 further defines the additional element of a screen. The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 7 & 8 further include the additional element of a value evaluation engine. The additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 11 & 12 further include the additional elements of a Blockchain generating engine and the external image quality improvement engine. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. The limitation reciting “the Blockchain generating engine receives, after receiving the Blockchain information generating control signal for the improved image for which the external image quality improvement has been performed from the business management server, all or part of the improved image from the external image quality improvement engine to generate the business tracking key as the block, and transmits the result to the business management server” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“the Blockchain generating engine receives, after receiving the Blockchain information generating control signal for the improved image for which the external image quality improvement has been performed from the business management server, all or part of the improved image from the external image quality improvement engine to generate the business tracking key as the block, and transmits the result to the business management server”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 5-15 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 refers to "perform an internal image quality improvement process for selected personal content to generate a local image quality improvement result" and “perform, using a predetermined image quality improvement algorithm, an external image quality improvement process for the selected personal content to generate an external image quality improvement result, the predetermined image quality improvement algorithm including performing learning for each different resolution to generate a plurality of independent restoration models and applying a restoration model corresponding to a resolution of the selected personal content to restore the selected personal content to an improved image,” but it is unclear how this is accomplished. This appears to be an end result without an explanation of how to accomplish this step. The specification does not describe how this is done, but provides only that this is done “using a predetermined image quality improvement algorithm.” Specification 24. It is not enough to state merely that an algorithm is used without including the algorithm itself, i.e., the specific steps and/or flowcharts used to perform the function. It is not enough to simply reference a generic algorithm. Claim 16 includes similar limitations and is rejected on a similar basis.
When examining computer implemented, functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. Specifically, if one skilled in the art would know how to program the disclosed computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification to achieve the claimed function and the inventor was in possession of that knowledge, the written description requirement would be satisfied. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of written description must be made. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01–2163.07(b). In this case, applicant’s specification does not disclose an algorithm for performing the function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-16 refer to using a computer to accomplish the claimed steps (claim 16) or as part of the system claimed (claims 1, 2, and 4-15). At most, the specification discloses generic computers and processors. However, for a specific function, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. It is not sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software/program to achieve the claimed function. There must be an explanation of how the computer or component performs the claimed function. Here, the claimed functions appear to be specific functions that require a special purpose computer to perform, and the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure and algorithm required to perform the claimed functions. As such, applicant has not met the requirements of 35 USC §112, first paragraph.
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 1, 2, and 4-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims refer to using a computer to accomplish the claimed steps (claim 16) or as part of the system claimed (claims 1, 2, and 4-15). However, the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function. Without describing the computer and the algorithm, potential infringers cannot be sure whether they are infringing the claims or not.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the external image quality improvement engine." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Notice
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.
Examiner Note
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-16, for the reasons identified in the prior Office Action mailed 6/24/25.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejection – 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific technological solution, that of an AI-based image quality enhancement technique with restoration model selection. Remarks 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. MPEP 2106.05(a).
In this case, the Specification does not provide a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention. There are no technical details regarding how the algorithm performs the image quality improvement. Rather, the Specification merely sets forth the alleged improvement in a conclusory manner. As such, the claim does not improve technology.
Applicant further alleges that the amended claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity, but recite a distributed computing process, such that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer technology, “not to an abstract business scheme or human interpersonal interaction.” Remarks 10-11. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is explained above, according to the Specification, the invention is directed to “selling personal content using value evaluation,” which is a commercial activity. Specification 1. This is a method of organizing human activity.
Applicant then argues that claim 1 provides parallel processing architecture which allows for efficient use of network resources and that, as such, the invention provides a “practical application of image processing technology to solve the real-world problem of optimizing bandwidth and computing load.” Remarks 11. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this provides a practical application. Parallel processing is a known use of technology. The invention does not provide any improvement to this technology. Rather, the additional elements are, as is stated above, recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Applicant then argues that the generation of the “business tracking key” as a blockchain block is a “non-conventional, computer centric solution to ensure security, traceability, and integrity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using a blockchain to generate a block is known and regularly performed by conventional blockchains. Ensuring security, traceability, and integrity is the purpose of blockchain technology. As is stated above, the limitation reciting “the Blockchain generating engine receives, after receiving the Blockchain information generating control signal for the improved image for which the external image quality improvement has been performed from the business management server, all or part of the improved image from the external image quality improvement engine to generate the business tracking key as the block, and transmits the result to the business management server” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“the Blockchain generating engine receives, after receiving the Blockchain information generating control signal for the improved image for which the external image quality improvement has been performed from the business management server, all or part of the improved image from the external image quality improvement engine to generate the business tracking key as the block, and transmits the result to the business management server”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that when considering the claims as a whole, they recite an “integrated sequence of technological operations that amount to ‘significantly more’ than any abstract idea” and emphasizes the use of “specific, non-conventional image processing and content management techniques.” Remarks 13. Examiner respectfully disagrees that, when considered as a whole, the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. When considering the claims as whole, the way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate it into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d). Applicant has not identified any ways in which the additional elements use the exception, such as by improving computer functionality, which may integrate it into a practical application. At most, Applicant re-iterates the alleged improvements above, which have already been addressed.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph
The Applicant argues that the Specification provides an algorithm in the amended claim limitations of claims 1 and 16. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this provides an algorithm as required by 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph. For a specific function, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. It is not sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software/program to achieve the claimed function. There must be an explanation of how the computer or component performs the claimed function. Here, the claimed functions appear to be specific functions that require a special purpose computer to perform, and the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure and algorithm required to perform the claimed functions. The alleged algorithm does is not even clear as to what is or is not included, using open-ended phrases “such as” and “and the like.” There are no clear steps or flowcharts to follow and no explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function. Applicant argues that the claimed algorithm is fully supported by the Specification. While Examiner does not disagree that the amended claim limitations are present in the Specification, that is not enough to show possession.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph
Applicant points out the amendments to the claims. Examiner has adjusted the rejection accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626