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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on January 5, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 15 and 33-36 have been amended.
Claims 22-24 remain cancelled.
Claims 15-21 and 25-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
Claims 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 35, 36 of this application are patentably indistinct from patent claims :
12,008,600
1, 4-6, 11, 17, 21, 22
11,538,068
1, 2, 8, 12, 13
11,430,014
1, 3, 9, 22, 23
10,846,753
1, 4, 12, 25, 26
10,453,097
1 2, 4, 12, 17, 18
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 35, 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Numbers and claims:
12,008,600
1, 4-6, 11, 17, 21, 22
11,538,068
1, 2, 8, 12, 13
11,430,014
1, 3, 9, 22, 23
10,846,753
1, 4, 12, 25, 26
10,453,097
1 2, 4, 12, 17, 18
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
App: 18658935
Patent #
12,008,600
Patent #
11,538,068
Patent #
11,430,014
Patent #
10,846,753
Patent #
10,453,097
15, 34, 35
11, 17, 21, 22
1, 2
1, 22, 23
1, 25, 26
1, 2, 17, 18
18. wherein the digital representation comprises
Biometric digital data from the patient.
4
19. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the digital representation comprises
at least one of the following digital data modalities from the patient: temperature
data, audio data, tactile data, time data, location data, heart rate data, blood
pressure data, fingerprint data, eye data, or mouth data.
6
8, 12, 13
12
12,
20. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the digital representation comprises
image data.
5
3
4
4
21. The apparatus of claim 20, wherein the at least one implementation of
the recognition algorithm includes an implementation of at least one of the
following image recognition algorithms: a SIFT, FREAK, DAISY, VLAD, or FAST
algorithm.
1
27. The apparatus of claim 26, the characteristics of the environment of the user comprise attribute-value pairs.
9
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 15-21 and 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 35 is drawn to methods while claim(s) 15-21, 25-34, and 36 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 15-21 and 25-36 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 35 (representative of independent claim(s) 15 and 36) recites the following steps:
A method for capturing data, the method comprising:
obtaining a representation of an environment of a patient,
generating a set of quantified features by executing at least one implementation of at least one recognition algorithm on the representation
wherein individual quantified features comprise a data structure having values derived by executing the at least one implementation of the at least one recognition algorithm
instantiating a set of relevant sentiment states from the set of quantified features, wherein the instantiating comprises determining the set of relevant sentiment states based on a threshold number or percentage of items associated with characteristics of the environment of the patient and generating one or more models of the set of relevant sentiment states
mapping the set of relevant sentiment states to at least one commercial offering having commercial offerings indexed by sentiment states; and
facilitating a transaction related to the patient's healthcare based on the at least one commercial offering relevant to the patient.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth providing a commercial offering to a user based on sentiment analysis, which amounts to a “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and/ or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. These limitations therefore fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships [recognition algorithm]. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) identifying a user state in an environment and issuing a commercial offering in response to determining the state (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 35 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 15 and 36 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
digital representation (Claims 15, 35, 36)
biometric digital data; (Claims 15, 35, 36)
in the at least one memory (Claims 15, 35, 36)
a commerce database (Claims 15, 35, 36)
a mobile device (Claims 15, 35, 36)
one or more digital models (Claims 15, 35, 36)
A data capturing apparatus comprising: at least one sensor; at least one computer-readable non-transitory memory storing software instructions; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and that performs the following operations upon execution of the software instructions (Claim 15):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having software instructions for capturing data stored thereon which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Claim 36)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims (2A/ 2B):
Dependent claims, 17, 26-28, 31, 32 and 34 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 16, 18-21, 25, 29, 30 and 33 and include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
Digital representation
biometric digital data
image data
wherein the at least one memory further stores the commerce database.
implementation of the recognition algorithm includes an implementation of at least one of the following image recognition algorithms: a SIFT, FREAK, DAISY, VLAD, or FAST algorithm
wherein the at least one memory further stores the commerce database.
wherein the at least one implementation of the recognition algorithm includes an implementation of at least one of the following image recognition algorithms: a SIFT, FREAK, DAISY, VLAD, or FAST algorithm.
Digital identifier
a hash value, a GUID, or a UUID
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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 15-20, 25, 27-28 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (2008/0004950) in view of Kim (2014/0192229).
Claims 15, 35 and 36
Huang discloses a data capturing apparatus comprising:
at least one sensor (Huang [0011][0032]); See “Accordingly, the invention disclosed and claimed herein, in one aspect thereof, comprises a sensor component that includes sensors for collecting information about a customer or group of customers as they move through the store.”
obtaining a digital representation of an environment See at least “recognition systems for face recognition, transaction recognition, audio/speech recognition, pattern recognition, and pose recognition provide imaging and analysis related to the desired features to be recognized. A face recognition subsystem 314 [recognition algorithm] can capture facial features [biometric digital data] related to eye color, hair color and hair style, skin color and features (e.g., cuts and blemishes), general shape of face, eyes, lips, cheek bones, etc., by taking a digital image of a customer and comparing that image to a facial image database.”
EXAMINER NOTE: Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e. “patient” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is obtaining a digital representation of an environment of a user. The reference below teaches this. Appropriate correction is required.
wherein individual quantified features comprise a data structure stored in the at least one memory having values derived by executing the at least one implementation of the at least one recognition algorithm on the biometric digital data; (Huang [0087][0092]); See at least [0092] “sensed and/or recognized customer characteristics [individual features executed by the recognition algorithm] are received and added to the model… the model is updated and stored for later access.”
and generating one or more digital models of the set of relevant sentiment states (Huang [Figure 11, 1100, 1102][0092]); See at least “sensed and/or recognized customer characteristics [sentiment states] are received and added to the model.”
mapping the one or more digital models of the set of relevant sentiment states to at least one commercial offering via a commerce database having commercial offerings indexed by sentiment states(Huang [0092]); See at least “one or more advertisements are selected for presentation based on the model….advertisements are presented via the nearest presentation system based on the customer model.”
Huang does not teach explicitly disclose providing the commercial offering to a user of the system. Kim teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having software instructions for capturing data stored thereon which, when executed by at least one processor(Kim [0292]):
at least one computer-readable non-transitory memory storing software instructions; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and that performs the following operations upon execution of the software instructions (Kim [0292]):
instantiating a set of relevant sentiment states in the at least one memory from the set of quantified features, (Kim [0100]); See “The memory 110 may map the user's emotional information to relevant content and store the same.”
wherein the instantiating comprises determining the set of relevant sentiment states based on a threshold number or percentage of items associated with characteristics of the environment of the See at least “After extracting the user's emotional information from the user image, the electronic device extracts the user's emotion with consideration of the movement information of the facial muscles. If an emotion estimation value calculated with consideration of the movement information of the facial muscles exceeds a reference emotional value [threshold], the electronic device may recognize that the electronic device has extracted the user's emotion for the relevant shot image.”
(Kim [0100]); See “The memory 110 may map the user's emotional information to relevant content and store the same.”
facilitating a mobile device to execute a transaction related to the 0217]). Where the instant specification teaches at paragraph [0042] “Upon determining a commercial offering that is related to the digital data, commerce analysis engine 150 can provide the commercial offering to a user of the system, for example, on a display of device 110.” See at least [0216] “the electronic device may use the users' emotional information for marketing of the relevant goods.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of determining a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang, a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Kim, as a way for meeting the user's various needs (Kim [0003]).
Claim 16
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Kim further teaches:
wherein the digital representation comprises data associated with a watch (Kim [0046]). See “According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, the electronic device includes…an electronic tattoo, or a smart watch), and/or the like.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of determining a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang, a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Kim, as a way for meeting the user's various needs (Kim [0003]).
Claim 17
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the user comprises a
Although the limitation has been addressed in view of prior art, the Examiner notes that the particular type of user (i.e., “patient” as claimed) is considered non-functional descriptive material, of which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method in such a way as to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the method as claimed. As such, the non-functional descriptive material limitation can be given little to no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. The functional limitation is a user whose digital representation can be captured by the system. The reference cited teaches this. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the digital representation comprises biometric digital data from the See “A biometric sensing subsystem 330 can be utilized to monitor biometric parameters of a customer.” See also (Huang [0049) “recognition systems for face recognition, transaction recognition, audio/speech recognition, pattern recognition, and pose recognition provide imaging and analysis related to the desired features to be recognized. A face recognition subsystem 314 [recognition algorithm] can capture facial features [biometric digital data] related to eye color, hair color and hair style, skin color and features (e.g., cuts and blemishes), general shape of face, eyes, lips, cheek bones, etc., by taking a digital image of a customer and comparing that image to a facial image database.”
Claim 19
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the digital representation comprises at least one of the following digital data modalities from the See “recognition systems for face recognition, transaction recognition, audio/speech recognition, pattern recognition, and pose recognition provide imaging and analysis related to the desired features to be recognized. A face recognition subsystem 314 can capture facial features related to eye color, hair color and hair style, skin color and features (e.g., cuts and blemishes), general shape of face, eyes, lips, cheek bones, etc., by taking a digital image of a customer and comparing that image to a facial image database.”
Claim 20
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Kim further teaches:
wherein the digital representation comprises image data (Kim [0015]). See at least “The electronic device includes at least one camera, a display unit, and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor operatively displays at least one content on the display unit, extracts emotional information from an image obtained via at least one of the at least one camera…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of determining a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang, a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Kim, as a way for meeting the user's various needs (Kim [0003]).
Claim 25
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Kim further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory further stores the commerce database (Kim [0100]); See “The memory 110 may map the user's emotional information to relevant content [commerce information] and store the same.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of determining a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang, a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Kim, as a way for meeting the user's various needs (Kim [0003]).
Claim 27
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the characteristics of the environment of the user comprise attribute-value pairs. (Huang [0054]). Where the specification describes the attribute value pair as representing specific features or measurable values derived from the scene's digital data [environment]. See at least “Velocity sensing can be facilitated by a velocity sensing subsystem 324 of the system 302…if it is determined that the customer is moving quickly toward the presentation system, it can be inferred that the customer is in a hurry, and that they are unlikely to pause to perceive an ad. Accordingly, a very short ad can be retrieved and presented that can be perceived (e.g., viewed or heard) in passing.”
Claim 28
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the operation of instantiating the set of relevant sentiment states includes instantiating the set of relevant sentiment states from a sentiment state object class based on the characteristics of the environment of the user.. (Huang [0054][0059][0060][0067]). Where Applicant’s instantiating relevant sentiment states based on the environment is referred to and described in the reference as “inferring”. See [0059] “a nuclear family could be inferred through visual analysis of the sizes and shapes of people within a cluster of people, and also via the “consideration of temporospatial patterns of behavior and interaction (e.g., parents showing "herding" behaviors).” See also [0060] “By examining the size and shape of Gerry, as well as the interactions they are having, including their proximity, gestures, and communication, a social connection of a good friend, with likely shared sporting interests might be inferred.”
Claim 31
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the at least one commercial offering comprises multiple commercial offerings (Huang [0093]). See at least “the filtered aspects are utilized for selecting one or more advertisements. At 1208, the one or more selected advertisements are presented to the customer…”
Claim 32
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the multiple commercial offerings are from multiple vendors (Huang [0009]). Where the reference teaches that remote advertisers can dynamically update and convey advertisements.
Claim 33
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the multiple commercial offerings comprise ranked commercial offerings (Huang [0081]). See at least “methodology of presenting advertisements based on ranked products and/or services preferred by a customer…At 906, the selected products and/or services are ranked. Ranking can be based on any number of different criteria. For example, ranking can be based seasonal information, the day the customer is shopping, holiday information, weather information, and so on.”
Claim 34
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above. Modified Huang further teaches:
wherein the commercial offerings ranked according to their relevancy to the set of relevant sentiment states are ranked according to a fitness measure indicating a degree to which the multiple commercial offerings satisfy a query based on the set of relevant sentiment states. (Huang [0081]). See at least “Ranking can be based on any number of different criteria….At 908, one or more advertisements are selected for presentation based on the customer profile. At 910, the selected advertisements are prioritized based on rank and presented to the customer via the nearest presentation system.”
Claims 21, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (2008/0004950) in view of Kim (2014/0192229) and White (2012/0314959).
Claim 21
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above but do not teach the limitations below. White further teaches:
wherein the at least one implementation of the recognition algorithm includes an implementation of at least one of the following image recognition algorithms: a SIFT, FREAK, DAISY, VLAD, or FAST algorithm (White [0021]). See [0021] “Certain techniques directed toward image scene recognition may use a sift algorithm…Implementations of the embodiments use a sift algorithm in combination with a fast algorithm for more efficient processing with improved results with less false positives than just using the sift or fast algorithm alone.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang and Kim, image recognition methods, as taught by White, to reduce amounts of bandwidth and assist manual users to search a high volume of material (White [0003]).
Claim 26
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above but do not teach the limitations below. White further teaches:
wherein the operations further include obtaining environment characteristics from the set of quantified features (White [0004]). See at least “From an image, features may be identified at different locations within a sample image.” See also [0007] “The present disclosure is also directed to identifying objects from digitally captured images thereof that use image characteristics to identify the object from a plurality of objects in a database.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang and Kim, image recognition methods, as taught by White, to reduce amounts of bandwidth and assist manual users to search a high volume of material (White [0003]).
Claim 29
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above but do not teach the limitations below. White further teaches:
wherein the environment characteristics of the environment of the user comprise at least one digital identifier (White [0017][0019]). Where digital identifiers are interpreted to be computerized data. Reference [0019] teaches “The disclosure uses the Fast algorithm to extract key points of the image… Then the sift descriptors of the resulting Fast key points are computed. These descriptors make up the hash of the image. ”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang and Kim, image recognition methods, as taught by White, to reduce amounts of bandwidth and assist manual users to search a high volume of material (White [0003]).
Claim 30
Modified Huang and Kim disclose the limitations above but do not teach the limitations below. White further teaches:
wherein the at least one digital identifier includes at least one of the following: a hash value, a GUID, or a UUID (White [0004]). See at least “Each descriptor vector may be described as an n-dimensional array. A hash function can be applied to each descriptor. The hash function can include at least one of the descriptors.” See also [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of a targeted or customized commercial offering can be provided based at least in part on a sentiment derived from a digital representation of a scene, as taught by Huang and Kim, image recognition methods, as taught by White, to reduce amounts of bandwidth and assist manual users to search a high volume of material (White [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks regarding the Double Patenting Rejection. For clarity of the record, the rejection remains with the understanding that should allowability be met, the terminal disclaimer will be filed.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Amended claims 15, 35, and 36 recite additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and amount to significantly more than the exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims refer to a digital model, however at this level of breadth the model is consider to be abstract and the digital model is considered to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or alternatively a generally linking to a field of use. The claim does not recite the innerworkings of this digital model nor how it would transform a model in any technical detail other than a high level apply it and/or generally linking to a field of use. The rejection is maintained.
As previously stated, the cited recognition algorithm is considered a mathematical relationship and the data structure stored in the at least one memory is cited so broadly that it is considered to be a collection of data values along with their relationships that are applied to the data, which is not a technological solutions.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Cited prior art
Examiner respectfully disagrees and stated during the interview and on the interview summary that further consideration and search would be required. Upon further examination, Huang was found to disclose model development/ generation using recognized customer characteristics/ sentiments. See also (Huang [0092] “sensed and/or recognized customer characteristics [individual features executed by the recognition algorithm] are received and added to the model… the model is updated and stored for later access.” Due to the broad claim of the data structure, it is interpreted to be a collection of data values along with their relationships that are applied to the data which addresses the function of the updated model.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Knighton 2006/0036577 discloses digital models.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action because the amended claims were found to be taught by the primary prior art. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights