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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to PCT Patent Application No. JP2022-132892, filed on 08/24/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 6/10/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1-6 and 10-13 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims instead recite a particular machine-implemented workflow, and not merely a sales practice or other commercial interaction. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner 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. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth below. As currently amended, the claims have been determined as reciting limitations falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, further supported by Applicant’s specification (see at least [0032][0055-0056]). Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims are directed to a specific technical improvement in computer-implemented image processing and image-based retrieval of arrangement-related information. Applicant argues that the claims provide improvements such as requiring separate processing of a first user-provided image and a second user-provided image, using the identified article and the identified location for use as search keys in an arrangement-information database, and filtering the search results based on whether the identified location is appropriate for placement of the storage good. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function 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. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to processing a first user-provided image and a second user-provided image and searching in an arrangement information database, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea (see at least [0046-0047][0051-0056]). Nor does the specification provide technical detail regarding these additional elements, or how they operate differently than from generic image processing or searching processes. The claims of the instant application merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. Furthermore, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant has provided an improvement to the claimed additional elements, as noted above, and the claims similarly do not reflect . It is further noted that the cited limitation including filtering the search results has been determined as falling within the recited abstract idea, and accordingly does not reflect a technical improvement. Rather, improvements such as determining whether an identified location is appropriate for placement of the storage good are directed towards the abstract idea, rather than providing an improvement to the claimed additional elements, or a computer or other technical area. The specification further discusses providing a user with information useful for arranging items for sale (see at least [0001-0006]), further indicating that the claims are directed towards improving the abstract idea, rather than providing a technical improvement.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are rendered moot under new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that the previously cited combination of Besecker and Zia does not teach the newly cited limitations in the amended independent claims, and previously cited Lee, Lim and Kunikyo do not cure such deficiencies. This argument has been considered but is rendered moot under new grounds of rejection. Independent claims 1, 12 and 13 currently stand rejected under newly cited Masters (2016/0180193 A1) in view of Zia (US 2019/0197599 A1), in view of the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “search, in an arrangement-information database, for arrangement-related information…”, and subsequently, “filter the search results…”. The claimed “the search results” lack proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “filter search results…”.
Claims 12 and 13 recite substantially similar limitations to that recited above, and accordingly Claims 12 and 13 have been interpreted similarly. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “specify, as a target of display of the information useful for arrangement…”. The clamed “the information useful for arrangement” lacks proper antecedent basis in claim 7, as well as claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “specify, as a target of display of information useful for arrangement…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-11 are directed towards a machine. Claims 12 is directed towards a manufacture. Claim 13 is directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-13).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
obtain a first image provided from a user in which an article is shown;
extract an object region corresponding to the article from the obtained first image;
extract features of the object region and identify the article by comparing the extracted features with article-image data stored;
obtain a second image provided from a user showing a location for use of a storage good for arranging the article;
extract an image portion corresponding to an object included in the second image;
identify the location for use by checking image data of the extracted image portion against image data in storage-location image information;
search for arrangement-related information by using the identified article and the identified location for use the as search keys, the arrangement-related information including a storage good for arranging the article and a method for arranging the article;
filter the search results to storage goods for which item-for-sale information indicates that the identified location for use is an appropriate location for placement of the storage good; and
exert control to display, on a display of the user, a search result including the filtered arrangement-related information obtained by the search.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the same abstract limitations as recited in claim 1. Claim 13 additionally recites an information processing method.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because obtaining a first image from a user in which an article is shown, extracting an object region corresponding to the article from the obtained first image, extract features of the object region and identify the article by comparing the extracted features with article-image data, obtaining a second image provided from a user showing a location for use of a storage good for arranging the article, extracting an image portion corresponding to an object included in the second image; identify the location for use by checking image data of the extracted image portion against image data in storage-location image information, search for arrangement-related information by using the identified article and the identified location for use as search keys, the arrangement-related information including a storage good for arranging the article and a method for arranging the article, and filtering the search results to storage goods for which item-for-sale information indicates that the identified location for use is an appropriate location for placement of the storage good is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. For example, Applicant’s specification describes storage goods as “items for sale”, further defined as an item for sale which is sold (see at least Specification [0032]), where items for sale are obtained as a search result for a user to scroll (see Specification [0055-0056]), further indicating that the claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claims 12 and 13 recite the same abstract limitations.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a network interface; and
a processor configured to:
obtain, via the network interface, a first image provided from a user terminal in which an article is shown;
extract an object region corresponding to the article from the obtained first image;
extract features of the object region and identify the article by comparing the extracted features with article-image data stored in a database;
obtain, via the network interface, a second image provided from a user terminal showing a location for use of a storage good for arranging the article;
process the second image to extract an image portion corresponding to an object included in the second image;
identify the location for use by checking image data of the extracted image portion against image data in storage-location image information;
search, in an arrangement-information database, for arrangement-related information by using the identified article and the identified location for use the as search keys, the arrangement-related information including a storage good for arranging the article and a method for arranging the article;
filter the search results to storage goods for which item-for-sale information indicates that the identified location for use is an appropriate location for placement of the storage good; and
exert control to display, on a display of the user terminal, a search result including the filtered arrangement-related information obtained by the search.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 12 and 13 specifying that the abstract idea is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 12 and 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 12 and 13 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 12 and 13 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claims 1, 12 and 13, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 12 and 13 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-11, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-9, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Therefore, claims 2-9 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 10 and 11, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
provide, to the user, a result from a Web search… the Web search being performed on a basis of a word…
The additional elements of a Web search is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-13 are ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly cited U.S Patent No. 2016/0180193 A1 to Masters et al., hereinafter Masters, in view of previously cited Zia (US 2019/0197599 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Masters discloses An information processing apparatus comprising ([Fig. 3][0025-0028] interactive computing system 310):
a network interface ([Fig. 3][0025-0028]); and
a processor configured to ([Fig. 3][0025-0028][0116-0118]):
obtain, via the network interface, a first image provided from a user terminal in which an article is shown ([Figs. 4-5]; [0059] the image acquisition system 322 receives an image that depicts a set of items; see [0036] the image acquisition system… receives an image from a user computing device 302);
extract an object region corresponding to the article from the obtained first image ([Figs. 4-5]; [0068] the item identification module 360 determines a boundary for each item in a set of items depicted in an image received);
extract features of the object region and identify the article by comparing the extracted features with article-image data stored in a database ([Fig. 5]; [0073] a portion of the image under test may be processed using one or more image comparison algorithms to determine whether a portion of the image under test matches an image of a known item… including images of items in an electronic catalog);
obtain, via the network interface, a second image provided from a user terminal showing a location for use of a storage good for arranging the article ([Figs. 4-5]; [0059] receiving an image depicting a set of items within an at least partially bounded physical area… including an area designated by a user for storing the set of items; [0061] if the spatial characteristics of the at least partially bounded physical area cannot be determined, a message may be presented to a user to reposition the user computing device 302 to obtain a modified version of the image received at the block 402);
process the second image to extract an image portion corresponding to an object included in the second image ([Figs. 4-5]; [0061] the spatial determination engine 354, using as a reference a portion of the image that includes the reference marker, determines spatial characteristics of the at least partially bounded physical area; [0062] comparing elements of the image with unknown proportions to the portion of the image that includes the reference marker, which has known proportions, to determine the unknown proportions);
identify the location for use by checking image data of the extracted image portion against image data in storage-location image information ([Fig. 4]; [0062] determining spatial characteristics of the at least partially bounded physical area by using one or more computer vision algorithms, such as template matching… comparing elements of the image with unknown proportions to the portion of the image that includes the reference marker, which has known proportions, to determine the unknown proportions… comparing a straight-on previously-stored image of the reference marker to a depiction of the reference marker as placed in the physical environment captured in the photograph);
search for arrangement-related information by using the identified article and the identified location for use as search keys, the arrangement-related information including a storage good for arranging the article and a method for arranging the article ([Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area illustrated in the image under analysis; [0085] filtering the set of organizers based at least in part on one or more of the size, the type, and/or the number of items in the set of items to obtain a reduced set of organizers; [0087][0089] preview images of multiple organizers may be presented to the user; see [0065] advantageously, the user may preview the use of a particular shoe rack with respect to the user's shoes without purchasing or obtaining an instance of the shoe rack… previewing the shoe rack using shoes of the user in a location that the user intends to use the shoe rack may be more likely to result in a sale);
filter search results to storage goods for which item-for-sale information indicates that the identified location for use is an appropriate location for placement of the storage good ([Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area illustrated in the image under analysis… including organizers that are smaller than the at least partially bounded physical area; [0085] the recommendation engine 352 filters the set of organizers… to obtain a reduced set of organizers… equal [to] the set of organizers identified at the block 602; see [0086] ranking the reduced set of organizers based on characteristics including price, rate of sales conversion, sales ranking; [0088] presenting one or more organizers to a user that satisfy the filtering criteria of the block 610); and
exert control to display, on a display of the user terminal, a search result including the filtered arrangement-related information ([Fig. 6][Fig. 9]; [0087] the recommendation engine 352 outputs a representation of at least one of the ranked reduced set of organizers to a user… including a list of the reduced set of organizers; [0088] presenting one or more organizers to a user that satisfy the filtering criteria of the block 610; [0092] The representation of the set of organizers may be presented to the user on a display of a user computing device 302; [0111] the preview image illustrates an example of how the selected organizer may be used with respect to items included in an image obtained by the user computing device 302).
Masters teaches searching for arrangement-related information by using the identified article and the identified location for use as search keys, the arrangement-related information including a storage good for arranging the article and a method for arranging the article (see at least Masters [Fig. 6][0065][0082][0085][0087][0089]), filtering to storage goods for which item-for-sale information indicates that the identified location for use is an appropriate location for placement of the storage good (see at least [Fig. 6][0082][0085-0086][0088]), and displaying, on a display of the user terminal, a search result including the filtered arrangement-related information (see at least [Fig. 6][Fig. 9][0087-0088][0092][0111]). However, Masters does not explicitly teach search, in an arrangement-information database.
However, in the field of aiding a user with the selection and placement of objects in an augmented reality scene, including recommended products (see at least Zia [abstract][0014][0021]), Zia, on the other hand, teaches search, in an arrangement-information database ([Fig. 4]; [0040-0042] the server receives and stores an image… as captured with a camera… images received at the server may be analyzed by a computer vision and object recognition module to yield output in the form of attributes of objects identified in the images… a query is generated using, in part, attributes of the objects present in the images… the query is executed against a database of products to identify a set of candidate products; see [0028] the AR application-based room design service operates in connection with an integrated online marketplace, having a variety of information about products, including but not limited to, furniture, home furnishings, landscaping and home renovation products).
The step of Zia is applicable to the system of Masters, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing recommendations according to analysis of user-provided images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters, to include searching an arrangement-information database, as taught by Zia. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the image-based object analysis/recommendation system of Masters in order to quickly and efficiently identify products that may be both complementary to those products identified in the image, and suiting the preferences and tastes of the end-user (Zia, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 2, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Masters further discloses wherein the arrangement-related information includes information about a storage good used to arrange the article ([Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area illustrated in the image under analysis; [0085] filtering the set of organizers based at least in part on one or more of the size, the type, and/or the number of items in the set of items to obtain a reduced set of organizers).
Regarding Claim 7, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Masters further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when a plurality of articles are identified from the image, present the identified articles to the user ([Fig. 4][Fig. 9]; [0065] The image generator 358, at block 410, generates a preview image for display to a user that depicts the set of items positioned with respect to the selected organizer and the selected organizer positioned with respect to the at least partially bounded physical area; [0111] preview a visual representation of items owned or otherwise possessed by the user organized using the selected organizer item); and
specify, as a target of display of information useful for arrangement, an article selected by the user from the presented articles ([Fig. 9]; [0112] a user may drag, or otherwise interact with, images of items depicted in the panel 908 to another portion of the depicted organizer. Thus, in some such cases, the user may reorganize the items within the preview image illustrated in panel 908 to get a sense of how the user may use the selected organizer).
Regarding Claim 8, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Masters further discloses wherein the arrangement-related information includes information about a method of arranging the article ([0065] advantageously, the user may preview the use of a particular shoe rack with respect to the user's shoes without purchasing or obtaining an instance of the shoe rack… previewing the shoe rack using shoes of the user in a location that the user intends to use the shoe rack may be more likely to result in a sale).
Claim 9 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Masters further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: provide, to the user, a result from a search as the arrangement-related information, the search being performed for specifying either one or both of the identified article and a storage good used to arrange the article ([Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area illustrated in the image under analysis; [0085] filtering the set of organizers based at least in part on one or more of the size, the type, and/or the number of items in the set of items to obtain a reduced set of organizers; [0087][0089] preview images of multiple organizers may be presented to the user). However, Masters does not explicitly teach a Web search, the Web search performed on a basis of a word.
Zia, on the other hand, teaches a Web search, the Web search performed on a basis of a word ([0026] interactions that an end-user has with an application or service may be monitored and tracked… to infer preferences… if an end-user performs various product searches via the marketplace, the end-user's query (e.g., search string) and the end-user's selections from the provided search results may be used to infer end-user preferences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters, to include searching an arrangement-information database, as taught by Zia, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 10. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale over the prior art cited in claim 10.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 12 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. The system of Masters/Zia teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Masters further discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process (Masters: [0056][0116]). Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 13 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. The system of Masters /Zia teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Masters further discloses An information processing method (Masters: [0057]). Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masters in view of Zia, and further in view of previously cited Lee (US 2024/0221049 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Masters further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: specify a condition related to the location for use of the storage good ([Fig. 4][Fig. 6]; [0061] using as a reference a portion of the image that includes the reference marker, determining spatial characteristics of the at least partially bounded physical area; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area); and
in accordance with the specified condition, further filter the search results to storage goods associated with the location for use ([Fig. 4][Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area… The set of organizers may include organizers that are smaller than the at least partially bounded physical area; [0086] the recommendation engine 352 may rank the reduced set of organizers).
Masters discloses specifying a condition related to the location for use of the storage good, and further filtering the search results to storage goods associated with the location for user in accordance with the specified condition (see at least Masters [Fig. 4][Fig. 6][0061][0082][0086]). However, Masters in view of Zia does not explicitly teach ask the user to specify a condition.
Additionally, in the field of providing an interior decoration recommendation service based on photographs of a space (see at least Lee [abstract][0016-0018]), Lee, on the other hand, teaches ask the user to specify a condition ([0037] during registration, the user can execute a service by measuring the space using the user terminal camera to… detect the objects essential to the previously arranged interior decoration… interior decoration styles can be matched using GAN-based recommendation models, and a questionnaire to design the target space and arrange furniture can be carried out in the user's desired style).
The step of Lee is applicable to the system of Masters in view of Zia, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing recommendations according to analysis of user-provided images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters in view of Zia, to include asking the user to specify a condition, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the image-based object analysis/recommendation system of Masters in view of Zia in order to design a target space and arrange furniture according to a user’s desired style (Lee, [0037]).
Regarding Claim 4, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Masters further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: specify a condition related to a size of the storage good and a size of an area which serves as the location for use of the storage good ([Fig. 4][Fig. 6]; [0061] using as a reference a portion of the image that includes the reference marker, determines spatial characteristics of the at least partially bounded physical area; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area); and
in accordance with the specified condition, further filter the search results to storage goods having a size corresponding to the size of the area ([Fig. 4][Fig. 6]; [0082] the recommendation engine 352 identifies a set of organizers that fit within the at least partially bounded physical area… The set of organizers may include organizers that are smaller than the at least partially bounded physical area; [0086] the recommendation engine 352 may rank the reduced set of organizers).
However, Masters in view of Zia does not explicitly teach ask the user to specify a condition.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches ask the user to specify a condition ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters in view of Zia, to include asking the user to specify a condition, as taught by Lee, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Masters further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: specify a condition related to the storage good and a location for use of the storage good; and
in accordance with the specified condition, further filter the search results to storage goods. Masters further discloses wherein the storage good is a good. However, Masters does not explicitly disclose ask the user to specify a condition related to a difference in hue between a good and a location for use of the good; and goods having the difference in hue from the location for use.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches ask the user to specify a condition related to a difference in hue between a good and a location for use of the good ([0037] during registration, the user can execute a service by measuring the space using the user terminal camera to… detect the objects essential to the previously arranged interior decoration… interior decoration styles can be matched using GAN-based recommendation models, and a questionnaire to design the target space and arrange furniture can be carried out in the user's desired style; [0058] there are special features peculiar for each interior decoration style (e.g., color) and detailed arrangement of furniture (e.g., position of the ceiling and the floor)… differences in colors, atmosphere, etc. can be detected based on image generation models according to each style, and features peculiar to a location (e.g., desk or bed) can emerge from image generation models according to each location); and
goods having the difference in hue from the location for use ([0058] there are special features peculiar for each interior decoration style (e.g., color) and detailed arrangement of furniture (e.g., position of the ceiling and the floor)… differences in colors, atmosphere, etc. can be detected based on image generation models according to each style, and features peculiar to a location (e.g., desk or bed) can emerge from image generation models according to each location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters in view of Zia, to include specify a condition related to a difference in hue between a good and a location for use of the good; and goods having the difference in hue from the location for us, as taught by Lee, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masters in view of Zia, and further in view of newly cited U.S Patent Application No. 2024/0013277 A1 to Pehrson, hereinafter Pehrson.
Regarding Claim 6, Masters in view of Zia teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Masters further discloses wherein the information about the storage good used to arrange the article is information useful for goods-for-arrangement used to arrange the identified article ([0087][0089] preview images of multiple organizers may be presented to the user; see [0065] advantageously, the user may preview the use of a particular shoe rack with respect to the user's shoes without purchasing or obtaining an instance of the shoe rack… previewing the shoe rack using shoes of the user in a location that the user intends to use the shoe rack may be more likely to result in a sale). However, Masters does not explicitly teach information useful for making, by the user themselves, goods-for-arrangement.
However, in the field of providing virtual recommendations for objects based on contextual information of a scene image (see at least Pehrson [abstract][0023-0027]), Pehrson, on the other hand, teaches information useful for making, by the user themselves, goods-for-arrangement ([0057] if the contextual information indicates the user is installing the object the operation 218 can select an installation instruction; [0108] determines the object is being installed and, in response, the operation 388 selects and displays object installation and/or object safety information… the recommendation is updated as a user completes installation steps).
The step of Pehrson is applicable to the system of Masters in view of Zia, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing recommendations according to analysis of user-provided images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the image-based object analysis/recommendation system as taught by Masters in view of Zia, to include information useful for making, by the user themselves, goods-for-arrangement, as taught by Pehrson. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the image-based object analysis/recommendation system of Masters in view of Zia in order to provide improved recommendations based on identified objects and extracted contextual information from a stream of images (Pehrson, [0003-0006][0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights