DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 12/22/2025.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant submits that the amended claims fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-10, the independent claims (claims 1, 9 and 10) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium for providing a recommendation. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-18 are directed to a system, which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claim 9 is directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to analyzing still images obtained by a user within a period set in advance, by use of a model for content analysis that includes a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a recurrent neural network (RNN), to output a plurality of words or a short sentence related to a content of each of the still images as content analysis information, determining first still images, among the still images, that are bases for estimating a future event that the user is expected to experience after the period, referring to the content analysis information and a keyword associated with the future event, counting a number of the first still images, comparing… the number of the first still images with are equal to or larger than a first threshold value set in advance, advance; estimating… that the user experiences the future event after the period in a case where the number of the first still images is equal to or larger than the first threshold value; generating…recommendation information according to the estimated future event; and transmitting, by the second processor, the recommendation information to the user terminal, and wherein the method further comprises: generating… thumbnail images of the still images; generating and displaying… an image list display screen in which the thumbnail images are arranged, and in which a display button for displaying the received recommendation information is provided…; and displaying…the recommendation information on the image list display screen upon selecting the display button. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “image processing system”; “user terminal”; “processor”; “recommendation information presentation device”; “memory”; “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. These additional elements in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0128-0131] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “In each of the above embodiments, for example, the following various processors can be used as a hardware structure of the processing units that execute various pieces of processing, such as the request reception unit 60, the image acquisition unit 61, the RW control unit 62, the analysis unit 63, the estimation unit 64, the information acquisition unit 65, the distribution control unit 66, and the browser control unit 90. The various processors include a programmable logic device (PLD) which is a processor whose circuit configuration is changeable after manufacturing such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) and/or a dedicated electric circuit which is a processor having a circuit configuration exclusively designed to execute specific processing such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and the like, in addition to the CPUs 42A and 42B which are general-purpose processors that execute software (operation program 50 and image browsing AP 85) to function as the various processing units. One processing unit may be configured by one of the various types of processors or may be configured by a combination of two or more processors of the same type or different types (for example, a combination of a plurality of FPGAs and/or a combination of a CPU and an FPGA). The plurality of processing units may be configured of one processor. As an example of configuring the plurality of processing units with one processor, first, there is a form in which one processor is configured by a combination of one or more CPUs and software and the processor functions as the plurality of processing units, as represented by computers such as a client and a server. Second, there is a form in which a processor that realizes the functions of the entire system including the plurality of processing units with one integrated circuit (IC) chip is used, as represented by a system-on-chip (SoC) or the like. As described above, the various processing units are configured using one or more of the various processors as the hardware structure. More specifically, a circuitry combining circuit elements such as semiconductor elements may be used as the hardware structure of the various processors.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In addition, the use of neural networks is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Dailey et al., US Patent No. 6,917,952 (col. 10, lines 10-12), noting that “The preferred embodiment uses neural networks, and conventional methods of training them as are known in the art.” See also, Hao et al., US 2014/0086495 (par. 73), noting “Methods for defining and training artificial neural network models are well-known to those skilled in the art, and any such method can be used in accordance with the present invention.” Accordingly, the additional element directed to a neural network fails to add significantly more to the claims.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0367484 (hereinafter; Rodriguez) in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0142885 (hereinafter; Ricci).
Regarding claims 1/9/10, Rodriguez discloses:
An image processing system; an operation method of an image processing system; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising: a user terminal including a first processor; and a recommendation information presentation device including: a second processor; and a memory connected to or built into the second processor, (Rodriguez [0004-0006] disclose an application related to embedded programs and interfaces for chat conversations and a computer-implemented method to provide suggested items; [0028-0029] disclose using embedded applications with embedded media items (images) as part of the suggested response items generated by the application.)
wherein the second processor analyzes still images obtained by a user within a period set in advance, by use of a model for content analysis that includes a convolutional neural network (CNN) (Rodriguez 0470-0472] disclose the use of neural networks and a convolutional neural network.)
determines first still images, among the still images, that are bases for estimating a future event that the user is expected to experience after the period, referring to the content analysis information and a keyword associated with the future event, counts a number of first still images, (Rodriguez [0124] discloses In some implementations, the prompt can be displayed for particular types of output data to the chat conversation (e.g., particular types of messages, having predefined keywords, indicating events of particular types, output data that is a response to a particular type of action or command provided by a member user to the embedded application, etc.) and not displayed for other types.)
compares the number of the first still images with a first threshold value set in advance, estimates that the user experiences the future event after the period in a case where the number of the first still images is equal to or larger than the first threshold value, (Rodriguez [0055] discloses comparing images and image features.)
generates recommendation information according to the estimated future event, and transmits the recommendation information to the user terminal, (Rodriguez [0055] discloses Some implementations can also detect image features in images or videos and determine suggested items (e.g., message responses) based on the image features; [0130] discloses media items including images and a reservation application for future events.) and wherein the first processor is configured to: generate thumbnail images of the still images, (Rodriguez [0296] discloses representation of media items. See also Figs. 8C-8D.) generate and display an image list display screen in which the thumbnail images are arranged, and in which a display button for displaying the received recommendation information is provided, on a display of the user terminal, and display the recommendation information on the image list display screen upon selecting the display button. (Rodriguez [0296] discloses For example, a number of images (e.g., representations of media items, items to purchase, etc.) can be displayed in an embedded application, and a suggested command can be to select one or more of the images, where the suggested command is determined based on previous images selected by the user. In another example, a suggested command can be to select a particular color of a clothing item from a list of multiple colors of that clothing item, where the suggestion is based on previous user selections (e.g., where the user previously selected a particular color more frequently than other colors).)
Although Rodriguez discloses a system for image processing that provides recommendations, Rodriguez does not specifically disclose using a recurrent neural network. However, Ricci discloses the following limitations:
and a recurrent neural network (RNN), to output a plurality of words or a short sentence related to a content of each of the still images as content analysis information, (Ricci [0113] discloses processing images to provide a recommendation using a recurrent neural network.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for suggested items for use with embedded applications of Rodriguez with the system for image processing with deep learning of Ricci in order to track individuals (Ricci abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second processor determines whether or not the image is the basis for estimating the future event based on at least any one of an analysis result of the image or information attached to the image. (Rodriguez [0296] discloses suggested commands determined based on one or more images.)
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 1 wherein the second processor estimates, in a case where all images related to specific related events, which are at least two of related events which are events related to the future event, are equal to or larger than a second threshold value set in advance, that the user experiences the future event after the period. (Rodriguez [0145] discloses initiating and stopping embedded application output or processing.)
Regarding claim 4, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second processor stops, in a case where a frequency of adoption of the recommendation information by the user satisfies a condition set in advance, the presentation of the recommendation information. (Rodriguez [0145] discloses initiating and stopping embedded application output or processing.)
Regarding claim 5, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second processor preferentially presents the recommendation information that is relatively frequently adopted by another user. (Rodriguez discloses a frequency of suggested items.)
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 5, wherein the other user is a user whose attribute is similar to or matches an attribute of the user to which the recommendation information is presented. (Rodriguez discloses user preferences. See at least [0071]; [0087].)
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 5, wherein the other user is a user whose event experience order is similar to or matches an event experience order of the user to which the recommendation information is presented. (Rodriguez [0031] discloses multiple users with share functions. See also [0257])
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez discloses:
The image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second processor selects the recommendation information according to the estimated future event from a plurality of pieces of the recommendation information registered in advance. (Rodriguez [0257] discloses providing a suggestion to a player to advance a game state.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625