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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-9 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration and in light of Applicant’s amendments new grounds of rejection are made in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20150169634).
35 U.S.C 101
Regarding claims 1, 3-9, applicant argues that in independent claims 1, 8, 9, that that the limitations are not operable in a human mind and sufficiently integrate any of the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of 101 analysis. These limitations being:
“(B) searching for a web page including an image similar to the obtained logo image from the scanned image through the Internet (e.g., S904);
(C) inferring an organization name corresponding to the image included in the searched web page by performing named entity recognition using an organization name inference model (e.g., 222) that receives a logo image and information about the logo image from the search as an input and outputs an organization name of the input logo image (S905);
(D) searching for the inferred organization name to obtain a logo image associated therewith through the Internet (see S906); and (E) determining the inferred organization name as an organization name of the obtained logo image from the scanned image, in a state where the logo image associated with the inferred organization name matches the obtained logo image from the scanned image (S907).” relate to training a machine-learning model to realize an improvement to computer functionality to provide better recipe recommendations to a user.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. First Applicant argues that it is unpractical for a human mind to perform a search through the internet. The examiner maintains that it is indeed practical for a human search to perform a search on the internet. A human mind can very easily search for a web page to identify relevant information. While applicant argues that it is not feasible due to the sheer amount of data available online, the limitations do not require a comprehensive search on the entirety of information available online. Any simple search for a web page would suffice as outlined in the claim language. Second, the applicant argues that a human mind is unable to use an organization name inference model that receives a logo image and information about the logo image to output an organization name of the input image. Here the organization name inference model is simply a black box model where input is given and an output is received. A human mind can similarly take in input of a logo image and identify a name associated with the logo image. Both instances of searching the internet and using an inference model do not cite anything “significantly more” beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thirdly, under Step 2B, the claims do not recite more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. Applicant argues that the invention calls for determining whether the logo image found by the second search based on the inferred organization name matches the obtained logo image from the scanned image. This is to ensure that only the correct organization name associated with the obtained logo image from the scanned image is stored. However examiner recognizes these limitations as simply claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. These limitations do not cover any particular way to achieve the desired outcome. They do not outline the process of how the invention determines whether a match is correct or incorrect. It simply takes in input of an image and outputs a result without describing any particular intermediary steps for how the output is achieved. Given the above, the examiner maintains that claim 1 recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
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, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea “perform a first search, based on the obtained logo image for a web page including an image similar to the obtained logo image from the scanned through the Internet; infer an organization name corresponding to the image included in the searched web page by performing named entity recognition using an organization name inference model that receives a logo image and information about the logo image from the search as an input and outputs an organization name of the input logo image; perform a second search, based on the inferred organization name, for a logo image associated therewith through the Internet in addition to the first search based on the obtained logo image; and determine whether the logo image found by the second search based on the inferred organization name matches the obtained logo image from the scanned image”. These steps describe a mental process that may be performed in the human mind including observing logo image data and evaluating that data.
Furthermore the claim does not recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim 1 recites in addition to the abstract idea, obtain a logo image corresponding to a logo representing a particular organization from a scanned image of a document, store the inferred organization name as a recognition result of the obtained loqo imaqe from the scanned image in a case where the loqo imaqe found by the second search based on the inferred orqanization name is determined to match the obtained loqo imaqe from the scanned imaqe; andsettinq the recognition result of the obtained loqo imaqe from the scanned imaqe as empty in a case where the loqo imaqe found by the second search based on the inferred orqanization name is determined not to match the obtained loqo image from the scanned image. (Step 2B: No). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. With respect to the limitations above identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, as per OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and “storing and retrieving information in memory” that are identified as well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 3-7, which depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1, recite the additional elements of obtains the obtained logo image from the scanned image by cropping the logo image from the scanned image based on a condition including at least one of a position, a size, or the number of colors in the scanned image; wherein the search unit searches for the web page including a predetermined character string in the search using the obtained logo image from the scanned image; wherein a named entity for the image similar to the obtained image from the scanned image includes information of an organization name, a location, a phone number, or a mail address; store a logo image and a respective inferred organization name in association with each other in a storage ; determine whether the obtained logo image from the scanned image matches the stored logo image before the search for the web page through the Internet; in a state where the obtained logo image from the scanned image is determined to match any of logo image stored in the storage, the at least one processor circuitry infers an organization name of the stored logo image matching the obtained logo image from the scanned image, as the organization name of the obtained logo image from the scanned image, and in a state where the obtained logo image from the scanned image is determined to match none of the stored logo images, the at least one processor or circuitry stores the obtained logo image from the scanned image and the inferred organization name in associated with each other in the storage”. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 3-7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8-9 recite similar limitations and are also directed to the abstract idea of a mental process of collecting and analyzing information. These claims are rejected using the same rationale used in claims 1, 3-7 above.
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, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears (U.S Pub # 20160026628) in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20150169634).
With regards to claim 1, Sears discloses an information processing apparatus connectable to the Internet, the information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor or circuitry configured to:
obtain a logo image corresponding to a logo representing a particular organization from a scanned image of a document ([0082] camera application to capture an image of a football helmet to identify a logo on the football helmet);
perform a first search, based on the obtained logo image, for a web page including an image similar to the obtained logo image from the scanned image through the Internet ([0083] cause a search of the internet based on the image of the logo);
infer an organization name corresponding to the image included in the searched web page ([0083] identify the logo as a logo for the Accra Wolves team);
perform a second search, based on the inferred organization name, for a logo image associated therewith through the internet in addition to the first search based on the obtained logo image ([0083] identify content relating to the Accra wolves by causing a search of the internet); and
determine whether the logo image found by the second search based on the inferred organization made matches the obtained logo image from the scanned image ([0084] identify a match with the web site of the Accra Wolves relating to the logo on the football helmet. [0087] In another example, assume that supplemental content application 220 has caused a search to be performed (e.g., a search of the memory associated with user device 210, a search of the Internet, and/or a search of data storage 250) based on the image and that an image representing Chris L Motors has been identified as a match for the brand of the car. Further, assume supplemental content application 220 has identified content relating to Chris L Motors. For example, assume supplemental content application 220 has caused a search to be performed (e.g., a search of information regarding applications of user device 210 stored on the memory associated with user device 210 and/or data storage 250) using information regarding Chris L Motors and that applications relating to Chris L Motors have been identified as part of content relating to Chris L Motors).
Sears does not disclose however Li discloses:
infer an organization name corresponding to the image included in the searched web page by performing named entity recognition using an organization name inference model search as an input and outputs an organization name of the input logo image ([0059] logo recognition model. For example, a user can submit an image query using a computing device that communicates with the computer system 108 of FIG. 1, which stores the logo index, and which processes the image query. One or more logo names can be output if a match is found. For example, the computer system 108 of FIG. 1 can output one or more logo names to the computing device accessed by the querying user);
store the inferred organization name as a recognition result of the obtained logo image from the scanned image in a case where the logo image found by the second search based on the inferred organization name is determined to match the obtained logo image from the scanned image ([0051] the final image search query is used to generate a name corresponding to the representative image. Each representative image and the corresponding name are stored to a logo index. [0056] threshold matching score); and
setting the recognition result of the obtained logo image from the scanned image as empty in a case where the logo image found by the second search based on the inferred organization name is determined not to match the obtained logo image from the scanned image.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sears by the system of Li determine a match between a logo image of a brand with a name and storing the result.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a plurality of representative images and a plurality of names to a logo index (Li [0005]).
Claims 8-9 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
With regards to claim 5, Sears further discloses:
wherein a named entity similar to the obtained logo image from the scanned image includes information of an organization name, a location, a phone number, or a mail address ([0053] identify a team name based on image).
With regards to claim 6, Sears further discloses:
determine whether the obtained logo image from the scanned images matches the stored logo image before the search for the web page through the Internet ([0063] identifying the content relating to the image item. For example, supplemental content application 220 may search the memory associated with user device 210, using the information regarding the image item, to identify the information associated with the entity).
Sears does not disclose however Li discloses:
store logo images and a respective inferred organization name of each logo in association with each other in a storage ([0051] logo index); and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sears by the system of Li determine a match between a logo image of a brand with a name and storing the result.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a plurality of representative images and a plurality of names to a logo index (Li [0005]).
With regards to claim 7, Sears further discloses:
In a state where the obtained logo image from the scanned image is determined to match any of the stored logo images, the at least one processor or circuitry infers an organization name of the stored logo image matching the obtained logo image from the scanned image, as the organization name of the obtained log image from the scanned image ([0083] caused a search to be performed (e.g., a search of the memory associated with user device 210, a search of the Internet, and/or a search of data storage 250) based on the image and that an image of the logo for the Accra Wolves team has been identified as a match for the logo on the helmet), and
In a state where the obtained logo image from the scanned image is determined to match none of the stored logo images, the at least one processor or circuitry stores the obtained logo image from the scanned image and the inferred organization name in association with each other in the storage.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears (U.S Pub # 20160026628) in view of Li (U.S Pub # 20150169634) and in further view of Orciuoli (U.S Pub # 20190102362).
With regards to claim 3, Sears does not disclose however Orciuoli discloses:
wherein the at least one processor or circuitry obtains the obtained logo image from the scanned image by cropping the logo image from the scanned image based on a condition including at least one of a position, a size, or the number of colors in the scanned image ([0070-0071, 0089] determine a logo based on size/position and crop the logo).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sears and Li by Orciuoli to determine attributes of a logo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to extract a logo (Orciuoli [0035]).
With regards to claim 4, Sears does not disclose however Orciuoli discloses:
wherein the at least one processor or circuitry searches for the web page including a predetermined character string in the search using the obtained logo image from the scanned image ([0071] search for candidate logos using the character string “logo”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the date the current invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Sears and Li by Orciuoli to determine attributes of a logo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to extract a logo (Orciuoli [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166