Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without integration into a practical application or recitation of significantly more.
In the analysis below, the method of independent claim 1 is considered representative of independent claims 8 and 15 since all of the independent claims recite identical steps despite being directed to different statutory matter. Furthermore, each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter; thus, the claims pass Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2A, prong 1: Yes
The independent claims are directed to
PNG
media_image1.png
388
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belong to the group of mental process. Particularly, steps 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be performed mentally.
Specifically a human being can sense an object from an object screening system in their mind and generate a context information of the object (1). Further a human can generate a cultural classification in their mind based on the context of the object (2). A human can generate a moderated context information by determining sensitive information in their mind (3) and finally a human can generate a recommendation based on the moderated context information (4) thus all of the limitations of the claim can reasonably be carried out in the mind of a human.
Reference may be made to the July 2024 PEG and those various limitations drawn to the mental processes grouping(s), to include those of Example 47 claim 2. The claims/limitations in question are recited at a high level of generality and lack any specifics precluding such ‘performing’, ‘determining’, ‘implementing’, ‘executing’, etc., from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping practically performed in the mind. As identified in the most recent PEG, even a form of automating that broadly/generically involves the use of a machine learning model, would fail to preclude the limitations in question from being drawn to the mental processes grouping (see guidance with respect to ‘apply it’ consideration of MPEP 2106.05(f)). Hence, the limitations 1, 2, 3 and 4 are interpreted as mental steps.
Additional elements
The additional elements recited in each of the independent claims is a computer implemented method, program, system.
Step 2A, prong 2: No
The above-identified additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a computer to carry out the method amounts to merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform the claimed mental process. Implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the additional elements of the claims do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the claims do not apply the judicial exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: No
The pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Each of the additional elements are generic computer features which perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional and do not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, and mere implementation on a generic computer does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Regarding claim 2, a reinforced learning algorithm is generic and could also be carried out in the mind of a person with the aid of pen and paper.
Regarding claim 3, a person could generate a ranked set of classifications in their mind as well.
Regarding claim 4, the training by online learning is generic and merely training with online learning does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 5, fine tuning a pre-trained machine learning model with a dataset of an object is mere instructions to apply an exception by implementing an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6, the recommendation with an explanation could be carried out in a person mind.
Regarding claim 7, a person can remove personal information in their mind as well with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 8-14 are similarly analyzed to claims 1-7.
Claims 15-20 are similarly analyzed to claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2,4-9,11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vans et al. US 2021/0165678 (hereinafter “Vans”) in view of Oringer US 11,068,530.
Regarding claim 1, Vans discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: sensing an object from an object screening system (see paragraph 0015, a camera 116 is used to capture a view of an object 102)
PNG
media_image2.png
290
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, responsive to the sensed object, generating a context information based on the sensed object (see paragraph 0018, a cultural awareness service may analyze an image 114 for potentially offensive context based on the context setting)
PNG
media_image3.png
200
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; generating a cultural classification by a Culturally Aware Objects Model based in part on the context information wherein the Culturally Aware Objects Model is trained on a cultural factor of an object (see above paragraph 0018, the cultural awareness service classifies potentially offensive content based on the context); generating a moderated context information by a Sensitive Information Moderation Model based in part on the cultural classification and the context information wherein the Sensitive Information Moderation Model is trained on a privacy parameter (the context shifter may use predetermined censorship policies [interpreted as a privacy parameter] to determine whether or not to censor the offensive content [thus moderating the content]).
Vans does not explicitly disclose computing a recommendation by a Recommendation Component based in part on the moderated context information wherein the object screening system is updated with the recommendation, however it would be obvious to suggest an image that does not have potentially offensive content.
Oringer discloses a context-based image selection for electronic media (col. 1 lines 5-10)
PNG
media_image4.png
88
272
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Specifically Oringer discloses a machine learning engine for selection of a recommended image for a particular instance (see paragraph bridging cols. 6-7)
PNG
media_image5.png
239
358
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Vans and Oringer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of presenting an image.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vans and Oringer to use a recommendation engine to suggest a better image to the user as taught by Oringer. The motivation would be to output a satisfactory image.
Regarding claim 2, it is well known to improve an algorithm using reinforced learning from user feedback to which the Examiner declares official notice. The motivation would be to improve the algorithm by incorporating user feedback.
Regarding claim 4, it is well known to train an algorithm using online learning to which the Examiner declares official notice. The motivation would be to take advantage of the large amount of data offered by online learning.
Regarding claim 5, Vans discloses fine tuning a pre-trained machine learning model with a dataset of an object and an associated cultural factor of the object (see above paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 6, by displaying the image Oringer is providing an explanation of the moderated context information.
Regarding claim 7, Vans discloses removing personal information from the cultural classification and the context information (see paragraph 0018).
Claims 8-9, 11-14 are similarly analyzed to claims 1-2, 4-7.
Claims 15-16, 18-20 are similarly analyzed to claims 1-2 and 5-7.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vans in view of Oringer and further in view of Geiselhart US 2002/0069190.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above Vans and Oringer disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Vans nor Oringer do not explicitly disclose generating a ranked set of the context information and cultural classification.
Geiselhart discloses weighted context feedback where the context information is ranked and displayed to a user to allow them to better choose the desired result (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
494
494
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Vans and Geiselhart are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of displaying results to a user.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vans, Oringer, and Geiselhart to generate a ranked set of the context and classification to allow the user to choose the best result.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571)272-7409. 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 B STREGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669