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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 20, 2026 cancelled claims 6 and 12. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 16 and 18 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21.
Double Patenting
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on September 18, 2025 overcame the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 2-9 and 11-15 raised in the Office Action dated March 20, 2025. Thus, the rejections were withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The amendment filed on February 20, 2026 has corrected the issue with Claim 4 that was objected to in the Office Action dated November 25, 2025. Thus, the objection has been overcome and is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on February 20, 2026 has overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 2-9 and 11-21 raised in the Office Action dated November 25, 2025. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21 are directed to methods and a system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim(s) 2, 7, and 16 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
obtaining a first image received from a first user;
determining a first object represented in the first image, the determining comprising:
segmenting the first image into a plurality of segments including a first segment including the first object; and
processing the first segment to determine at least one feature vector representative of the first object in the first image;
comparing first characteristics of the first object represented in the first image to respective second characteristics, the second characteristics being associated with a plurality of item categories, wherein the comparing includes determining an item category from the plurality of item categories that corresponds to the first object;
comparing image characteristics of a plurality of second images associated with the determined item category with the at least one feature vector representative of the first object, the image characteristics of the plurality of second images comprising a plurality of feature vectors associated with respective items of the item category;
determining a similarity, based on the comparing, between the first object and a second image of the plurality of second images; and
adding, in response to determining that the similarity for the second image exceeds a threshold value, a source location identifier of the second image to image information for the first image;
receiving the source location identifier;
determining a plurality of third images that include the source location identifier in the corresponding image information, the plurality of third images including the first image;
determining a plurality of second users that have interacted with one or more third images of the plurality of third images; and
for at least one second user of the plurality of second users that have previously interacted with one or more third images of the plurality of third images:
determining if a pervious interaction with the one or more third images of the plurality of third images exceeds a threshold time duration; and
providing, in response to determining that the interaction exceeds the threshold time duration, a third image of the plurality of third images to the at least one second user of a plurality of second users for presentation.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, for each of the independent claims falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising marketing and sales related activities or behaviors because each of the identified limitation is at least one of gathering data, analyzing the data, determining results based on the analysis, generating tailored content based on the results, and transmitting the tailored content. Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of: one or more computer with one or more processors, one or more memory, and program instructions which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components and a purchase control (e.g., hyperlink).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining a first image received from a first user (receiving data);
receiving the source location identifier (receiving data); and
providing, in response to determining that the interaction exceeds the threshold time duration, a third image of the plurality of third images to the at least one second user of a plurality of second users for presentation (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more computer with one or more processors, one or more memory and program instructions, as well as, a purchase control to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general-purpose computer and generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 70, 114, 116 and 121 and the Affinity v DirecTV and Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One decisions); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
obtaining a first image received from a first user (receiving data);
receiving the source location identifier (receiving data); and
providing, in response to determining that the interaction exceeds the threshold time duration, a third image of the plurality of third images to the at least one second user of a plurality of second users for presentation (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 3-5; 8-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-21 appear to merely further limit the abstract ideas by further limiting the providing of the third image and/or adding the additional steps of transmitting the third image for presentation which are all considered part of the abstract idea, as well as an additional element of a hyperlink (purchase control) which has already been considered in the analysis above (Claims 3-4, 13-14, and 19); adding an additional step of determining a secondary image and transmitting the secondary image and/or a hyperlink (purchase control) for presentation which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5 and 20); further limiting the comparing image characteristics of the second images with the feature vector of the first object which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8); further limiting each of the second images of the plurality of second images which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 9); further limiting the determination of the plurality of second users which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 11 and 18); further limiting the first plurality of first images which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 15 and 21); adding the additional steps of determining an item category for each first object in the first plurality of images, and identifying the plurality of second images as images based on said category which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 17), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art that discloses each and every limitation of the claims: See Hershenson (PGPUB: US 2012/0290447); Jensen et al. (PGPUB: US 2016/0027088); Chittar et al. (PGPUB: 2011/0314031); and Wai (U.S. Patent Number: 10,325,285).
However, it would not been obvious, to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine these four different references to arrive at the applicant’s invention without the use of impermissible hindsight by using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap. As such, claims 2-5, 7-9, 11 and 13-21 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they recite a detailed and specific way for achieving the claimed invention, such that they impose a meaningful limit on any purported judicial exception. The examiner disagrees. The applicant appears to be misconstruing MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The first sentence of this section of the MPEP recites: “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application”. “Additional elements” are defined as the elements of a claim which are not part of the abstract idea itself. Every precedential decision cited in this section of the MPEP (e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp; McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.; Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.; Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.; and SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.) overcame the 101 because the improvement was rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim. Likewise, cited section of the August 4, 2025 Memorandum is preceded with the sentence: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer”. In the instant case, the only “additional elements” are one or more computer with one or more processors, one or more memory, and program instructions which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components and a purchase control (e.g., hyperlink). When considered individually these additional elements are each merely either a general-purpose computer (i.e., the one or more computer), a generic computer component (i.e., the one or more processor, the one or more memory, the program instructions) or a generic computer element (i.e., the purchase control (e.g., hyperlink)). Thus, when considered individually, these additional elements are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. In combination, these additional elements are merely a general-purpose computer with generic computer components and a generic computer element upon which the abstract idea is merely applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. The argued limitation regarding “identifying users that have previously interact with one or more images of a set of images that have the source location identifier, wherein one or more of these users are then sent an image based on whether their previous interaction exceeds a threshold time duration” are part of the abstract idea itself and not “additional elements” of the claim. As such, it is clear that the Office Action does not oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the “apply it” consideration. The claim is merely applying the abstract idea itself, which includes the argued limitations, using the “additional elements” as a tool. The purported improvement in technology is part of the abstract itself which is merely applied using the “additional elements”. The argued solution to a technical problem of “associating a source location identifier with a representation of an object in an image” does not appear to require any type of technology as the claim merely performs the step by “adding a source location identifier…to image information…”. According to the applicant’s specification image information is also known as metadata. Thus, the adding step merely requires adding data to metadata. There is no indication in the applicant’s specification that the applicant invented metadata, nor a new technology for adding data to metadata. The term "metadata" was coined in 1969 by Jack E. Myers, though the concept of using "data about data" for organization has existed for centuries. But to be fair MIT’s Stuart McIntosh and David Griffel did use the term digital “meta language” in 1967 to describe the same concept. Irrespective of who you credit with the invention of the modern day term “metadata”, by 1979 the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) defined metadata standards and attributes that could be inserted into images. Since standards were being created of adding metadata to images at this time, it would not appear that “associating a source location identifier with a representation of an object in an image” posed a technological problem unless the applicant’s disclosure would detail the problems associated with doing so and the technology used to overcome these problems. As such, the limitations of the claim do not appear to inherently require any specific technologies that could be considered “additional elements” of the claim. Thus, it is clear that any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the steps of the abstract idea itself. Improvements of this nature, even purported improvement in technology, are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, it is clear that the claims, as currently written, merely recite an abstract idea which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer and generic computer components as a tool, which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al. (PGPUB: US 2011/0320317) which disclose analyzing a user supplied image to identify at least one object represented in the user supplied image; matching the at least one object to at least one of a plurality of items offered for sale by one or more sellers; and providing promotional material for the matched at least one of a plurality of items to the user, the promotional material capable of initiating a purchase base on the interactions from the user.
Sneyders (PGPUB: US 2011/0276406) which discloses uploading a image of an item, performing image analysis on the image, and identifying a specific item and a product category based on the analysis.
Hsiao et al. (On visual similarity based interactive product recommendation for online shopping, 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pp. 3038-3041) which disclose analyzing an image to extract features based on Intelligent Object Extraction, determine the similarity of the image to other images with similar features, and recommend products to users based on the similarity of features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622