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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jung does not disclose, teach or suggest “"the shopping mall server comprises a first database configured to store held goods images for respective goods held by the shopping mall server and feature vectors corresponding to the held goods images, and a second database configured to store information on the input goods images transmitted from the at least one of the user terminals". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Jung discloses a database configured to store held goods images for respective goods held by the shopping mall server and feature vectors corresponding to the held goods images, and the database configured to store information on the input goods images transmitted from the at least one of the user terminals [ [0056], [0071], [0083], [[0107], [0081], [0110], [0111].
For the “first database” and “second database”, Kim et al. was applied for this feature.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20210390607) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180276473).
Claim 1. Jung teaches a system for recommending a coordination fashion item, the system comprising:
a shopping mall server communicationally connected to a plurality of user terminals, the shopping mall server configured to provide at least one of the user terminals with similar goods images matching a plurality of input goods images transmitted from the at least one of the user terminals as a search result for recommended goods [0056], [0071], [0083]; and
an apparatus communicationally connected with the shopping mall server, the apparatus having a processor configured to receive information on the input goods images from the shopping mall server, calculate feature vectors corresponding to the input goods images, and transmit the calculated feature vectors to the shopping mall server [0074], [0107],
wherein the shopping mall server comprises a database configured to store held goods images for respective goods held by the shopping mall server and feature vectors corresponding to the held goods images, and the database configured to store information on the input goods images transmitted from the at least one of the user terminals [0107], [0081].
Jung does not teach that said database includes a first database and a second database.
Kim et al. (Kim) discloses a first database and a second database and an externa server that is an internet shopping mall server. The databases storing product information and images (see, at least, [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said database includes a first database and a second database in the system of Jung, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim 2. Jung teaches said system wherein the shopping mall server is configured to compare and analyze feature vectors each corresponding to a first input goods image and a second input goods image transmitted from the shopping mall server and feature vectors of similar goods images previously stored in the first database to search for a plurality of similar goods images corresponding to combined information of the first and second input goods images [0129].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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 A. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688