DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 7/6/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
As noted in the Office Action mailed 4/6/2026, claims 1-20 are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “an interactive UI” in the “causing presentation” limitation and should recite “an interactive user interface (UI)”. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit the objections of claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-7, are directed to a process, the non-transitory computer readable medium storage, as claimed in claims 8-14, are directed to an article of manufacture, and the computer program product, as claimed in claims 15-20, are directed to a machine, (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving an image for item information analysis, the image including image regions corresponding to unknown items in the image;
identifying a context of the image;
providing the context to an image-item analysis module;
generating, based on the context of the image, an item search space including a set of possible items in the image, wherein generating the item search space comprises limiting the item search space based on the context to reduce the set of possible items to apply the item information analysis;
identifying a set of detected items as a subset of the set of possible items in the image based on the image regions;
segmenting the set of detected items to obtain segmented detected items from the image;
obtaining positional relationships of the segmented detected items in the image regions, wherein the positional relationships include relative position information related to:
the set of detected items,
centers of mass for the set of detected items, and
corresponding positional vectors,
wherein the corresponding positional vectors are associated with the image regions and the centers of mass for the set of detected items;
identifying, for a detected item in the set of detected items, item information for the detected item, wherein the item information describes characteristics of the detected item including at least a portion of the positional relationships;
generating, by a model, a prompt for a language model of a content presentation module, wherein the model is to generate the prompt according to information obtained associated with the set of detected items, wherein the prompt comprises a predefined format associated with the set of detected items, wherein the predefined format comprises a text-based question and the item information;
providing a query to the language model, wherein the query comprises the prompt wherein the language model is to present an output including a size to improve visual assistance; and
causing presentation of the set of detected items according to the size and the positional relationship as images.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because identifying items in an image and providing output (i.e., a recommendation) is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 8 and 15 as described above for independent claim 1.
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):
A method performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, the method comprising:
receiving an image for item information analysis, the image including image regions corresponding to unknown items in the image;
identifying a context of the image;
providing the context to an image-item analysis module;
generating, based on the context of the image, an item search space including a set of possible items in the image, wherein generating the item search space comprises limiting the item search space based on the context to reduce the set of possible items to apply the item information analysis;
identifying a set of detected items as a subset of the set of possible items in the image based on the image regions;
segmenting the set of detected items to obtain segmented detected items from the image;
obtaining positional relationships of the segmented detected items in the image regions, wherein the positional relationships include relative position information related to:
the set of detected items,
centers of mass for the set of detected items, and
corresponding positional vectors,
wherein the corresponding positional vectors are associated with the image regions and the centers of mass for the set of detected items;
identifying, for a detected item in the set of detected items, item information from an item database for the detected item, wherein the item information describes characteristics of the detected item including at least a portion of the positional relationships;
generating, by a neural network model, a prompt for a language model of a content presentation module, wherein the neural network model is trained to generate the prompt according to information obtained associated with the set of detected items, wherein the prompt comprises a predefined format associated with the set of detected items, wherein the predefined format comprises a text-based question and the item information;
providing a query to the language model, wherein the query comprises the prompt wherein the language model is trained to present an output including a size to improve visual assistance; and
causing presentation of the set of detected items according to the size and the positional relationship as rendered images in an interactive user interface (UI).
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps,” a “computer program product, comprising: a processor that executes instructions; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions executable by the processor” in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 1.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“performed at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium”, “from an item database”, by trained “a neural network model”, “to a user device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving/obtaining information, providing/sending information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Fig. 1; paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0026], [0048]-[0052], [0055], [0058]-[0062] and [0052]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/obtaining information, providing/sending information steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
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, 8, and 15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Additionally, the Specification recites machine learning models, neural networks, and training machine learning models are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see paragraphs [0048]-[0051]).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 8, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, 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. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 set forth:
wherein identifying the context of the image comprises receiving a request from a user for delivered items, wherein the context includes the request and the set of possible items include a set of items from an order delivered to the user.
wherein identifying the context of the image comprises determining a replacement item for an unavailable item in an order, wherein the set of possible items include a set of stocked items in a warehouse at which the image was captured.
wherein querying comprises prompting the language model with structured item information about the detected item and a request to analyze the structured item information.
wherein prompting the language model comprises requesting identification of a question a user may have about the detected item.
wherein the output of the language model describes a question, and the method further comprises: determining an answer to the question from the language model based on the question and the item information; and providing the answer to the user device for display to the user responsive to the user selecting the question.
wherein identifying the set of detected items comprises performing a nearest-neighbor search.
wherein the output of the language model describes a question, and wherein the instructions are further executable for: determining an answer to the question from the language model based on the question and the item information; and providing the answer to the interactive UI for display to the user responsive to the user selecting the question.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of identifying items in an image and providing output (i.e., a recommendation). The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15.
Thus, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 12-13 of the Remarks filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims provide a practical application as a technical solution for a resource constrained device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the amended claims recite the argued limitation of “segmenting the set of detected items to obtain segmented detected items from the image”, Examiner notes this limitation is directed to the abstract idea. Further, “causing presentation of the set of detected items according to the size and positional relationship as images” is additionally encompassed within the abstract idea of identifying items in an image and providing output (i.e., a recommendation). The images being “rendered” images in an “interactive user interface (UI)” are limitations that are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Applicant contends that the invention as now claimed, in light of the above limitation, helps a “resource constrained device” and provides a more focused processing by an LLM in order to avoid a full image to be processed and targets information with respect to the image regions. While the Examiner appreciates these arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The Specification describes the invention as providing an improvement to “determining items in an image (e.g., as candidate replacements for an ordered item) and aiding in surfacing relevant information about the items readily” by “using the image regions may be confined to searching for matching items from the items available at the warehouse, reducing the search space and improving the likelihood of successful item identification with corresponding item information”, which is not a technical improvement but an improvement to the abstract idea (see Specification paragraphs [0001] and [0003]). Further, the Specification describes identifying the items within an image by applying “computer-vision techniques” ([0043]), using any machine learning model ([0048]), determining a relevant item search space based on the image such as applying a filter to an item database to only include a subset of possible items ([0068]), applying any image segmentation algorithm to the image to identify separate items in the image ([0071]), and displaying information on a generic interactive interface ([0080]). The specification does not provide a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to conclude that the claimed invention has provided an improvement to the conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process. Merely concluding that identifying items within an image may “be useful for a user with visual difficulties who may not be able to personally differentiate similarly-packaged items” is only a bare assertion of an improvement and one directed towards the abstract idea. Moreover, as noted from Applicant’s specification above, the invention utilizes image analysis, machine learning, filters, and image segmentation algorithms known in the art in facilitation of the abstract idea.
While Applicant cites to paragraphs [0071]-[0074] of the Specification, Examiner notes these cited paragraphs do not describe a technological improvement. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" (see MPEP 2111). As currently described in the Specification and as currently claimed, analyzing an image to detect items in the image that match the possible items in the item search space, applying image segmentation algorithms to identify separate items, determining the possible items in the image, and information about relative relationships and positions of the items in the image in order to alter the image search space with context narrowing and structuring prompts with precise item information and spatial context are directed to the abstract idea and are not describing a technological improvement. The specification does not disclose sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement to the technology and the claim itself does not reflect an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process.
The Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, the 35 USC §101 rejections of the claims are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights