DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 non-statutory without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a processor, a memory, and computer-readable media do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A method for performing an image search on a datastore storing a plurality of images of visual works created by a plurality of talents, the method comprising: using a processor to perform: receiving data indicative of a search request; and after receiving the data indicative of the search request: accessing, in memory, a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents, the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work; identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an author that created the set of images of visual works; and displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card, the displaying comprising: ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index; and including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works.
The limitation of receiving data indicative of a search request as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data into a designated place.
The limitation of and after receiving the data indicative of the search request: accessing, in memory, a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “accessing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data of images from a designated space.
The limitation of the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually store data related to creative data and associated information.
The limitation of identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an author that created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually indicate data related to desired data associated with images and the author of the image.
The limitation of displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate data related to desired data.
The limitation of ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “ordering” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to organize requested data.
The limitation of including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “including” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to add data in a location that includes associated information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: identifying the search results comprises identifying multiple authors including the author and, for each of the multiple authors, a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; and displaying the set of search results comprises displaying multiple selectable talent cards each associated with a respective one of the multiple authors and displaying a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; wherein: the search index further stores, for each of a plurality of labels, a subset of the plurality of images of visual works and confidence scores associated with respective images in the subset of images of visual works; and ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using the search index comprises ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using confidence scores associated with the set of images of visual works and at least one of the plurality of labels; wherein displaying, in the GUI, the selectable talent card comprises: identifying, using the search index, multiple images of visual works created by the author; and selecting a subset of the multiple images of visual works created by the set of images of visual works; wherein the method further comprises using the processor to perform: receiving, through the GUI, a first user input selecting the selectable talent card; receiving, through the GUI, a second user input to make the author of the set of images of visual works a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the second user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate in a data record associated with the job order; receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to make the author a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate for the job order in a data record associated with the job record; receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to view more visual works created by the author; and in response to receiving the user input, generating, in the GUI, a display of images of visual works created by the author.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 1 because they further the limitations of Claim 1 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A non-transitory computer- readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for performing an image search on a datastore storing a plurality of images of visual works created by a plurality of talents, the method comprising: after receiving data indicative of a search request: accessing, in memory, a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents, the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work; identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an identification of an author that created the set of images of visual works; and displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card, the displaying comprising: ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index; and including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works.
The limitation of receiving data indicative of a search request as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data into a designated place.
The limitation of accessing, in memory, a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “accessing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data of images from a designated space.
The limitation of the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually store data related to creative data and associated information.
The limitation of identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an author that created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually indicate data related to desired data associated with images and the author of the image.
The limitation of displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate data related to desired data.
The limitation of ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “ordering” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to organize requested data.
The limitation of including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “including” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to add data in a location that includes associated information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: identifying the search results comprises identifying multiple authors including the author and, for each of the multiple authors, a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; and displaying the set of search results comprises displaying multiple selectable talent cards each associated with a respective one of the multiple authors and displaying a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; wherein: the search index further stores, for each of a plurality of labels, a subset of the plurality of images of visual works and confidence scores associated with respective images in the subset of images of visual works; and ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using the search index comprises ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using confidence scores associated with the set of images of visual works and at least one of the plurality of labels; wherein displaying, in the GUI, the selectable talent card comprises: identifying, using the search index, multiple images of visual works created by the author; and selecting a subset of the multiple images of visual works created by the set of images of visual works; wherein the method further comprises using the processor to perform: receiving, through the GUI, a first user input selecting the selectable talent card; receiving, through the GUI, a second user input to make the author of the set of images of visual works a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the second user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate in a data record associated with the job order; receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to make the author a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate for the job order in a data record associated with the job record; receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to view more visual works created by the author; and in response to receiving the user input, generating, in the GUI, a display of images of visual works created by the author.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 8 because they further the limitations of Claim 8 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A system for performing an image search on a datastore storing a plurality of images of visual works created by a plurality of talents, the system comprising: memory storing a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents, the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work; and a processor configured to: receive data indicative of a search request; and after receiving the data indicative of the search request: identify, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, one or more images of one or more visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an identification of an author that created the one or more images of one or more visual works; and display a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card, the displaying comprising: ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index; and including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works.
The limitation of the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually store data related to creative data and associated information.
The limitation of receiving data indicative of a search request as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “receiving” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually gather data into a designated place.
The limitation of and after receiving the data indicative of the search request: identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works and an author that created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “identifying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually indicate data related to desired data associated with images and the author of the image.
The limitation of displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “displaying” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually illustrate data related to desired data.
The limitation of ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “ordering” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to organize requested data.
The limitation of including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “including” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to add data in a location that includes associated information.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls withing the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform receiving, accessing, storing, identifying, displaying, ordering, and including steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: identifying the search results comprises identifying multiple authors including the author and, for each of the multiple authors, a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; and displaying the set of search results comprises displaying multiple selectable talent cards each associated with a respective one of the multiple authors and displaying a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; wherein: the search index further stores, for each of a plurality of labels, a subset of the plurality of images of visual works and confidence scores associated with respective images in the subset of images of visual works; and ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using the search index comprises ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using confidence scores associated with the set of images of visual works and at least one of the plurality of labels; wherein displaying, in the GUI, the selectable talent card comprises: identifying, using the search index, multiple images of visual works created by the author; and selecting a subset of the multiple images of visual works created by the set of images of visual works; wherein the method further comprises using the processor to perform: receiving, through the GUI, a first user input selecting the selectable talent card; receiving, through the GUI, a second user input to make the author of the set of images of visual works a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the second user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate in a data record associated with the job order; receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to make the author a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate for the job order in a data record associated with the job record.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent Claim 15 because they further the limitations of Claim 15 which are directed towards an abstract idea.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform identifying, displaying, storing, ordering, selecting, receiving, and generating steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marriott et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0025003 A1) in view of Burke et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0042830 A1).
In respect to Claim 1, Marriott teaches:
a method for performing an image search on a datastore storing a plurality of images of visual works created by a plurality of talents, the method comprising: using a processor to perform: receiving data indicative of a search request; (Marriott teaches [0024] reception of data from a semantic search query.)
and after receiving the data indicative of the search request: accessing, in memory, a search index for the plurality of images of visual works created by the plurality of talents, (Marriott teaches [0032] a search collection of images and associated image information.)
the search index storing: talent information for the plurality of images of the visual works including, for each of the plurality of images of the visual works, (Marriott teaches [0032] storing information associated with images.)
Marriott does not explicitly disclose:
an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work;
an author that created the set of images of visual works;
identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works
and displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card,
the displaying comprising: ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index;
and including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works
However, Burke teaches:
an identification of an author who created the image of the visual work; an author that created the set of images of visual works; (Burke teaches [0471] attribution of an author with the work.)
identifying, using the search index and the data indicative of the search request, search results by identifying a set of images of visual works of the plurality of images of visual works; and displaying a set of search results in a graphical user interface (GUI) by displaying, in the GUI, a selectable talent card, (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
the displaying comprising: ordering, in the selectable talent card, the set of images of visual works using the search index; (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
and including, in the talent card, an identification of the author who created the set of images of visual works (Burke teaches [0471] attribution of an author with the work.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
As per Claim 2, Burke teaches:
wherein: identifying the search results comprises identifying multiple authors including the author and, for each of the multiple authors, a respective set of images of visual works created by the author; and displaying the set of search results comprises displaying multiple selectable talent cards each associated with a respective one of the multiple authors and displaying a respective set of images of visual works created by the author (Burke teaches [0471] attribution of an author with the work.) (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
As per Claim 3, Marriott teaches:
wherein: the search index further stores, for each of a plurality of labels, a subset of the plurality of images of visual works and confidence scores associated with respective images in the subset of images of visual works; and ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using the search index comprises ordering the set of images of visual works in the selectable talent card using confidence scores associated with the set of images of visual works and at least one of the plurality of labels (Marriott teaches [0024] relevance scores associated with content collections.)
As per Claim 4, Burke teaches:
wherein displaying, in the GUI, the selectable talent card comprises: identifying, using the search index, multiple images of visual works created by the author; and selecting a subset of the multiple images of visual works created by the set of images of visual works (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
As per Claim 5, Burke teaches:
wherein the method further comprises using the processor to perform: receiving, through the GUI, a first user input selecting the selectable talent card; receiving, through the GUI, a second user input to make the author of the set of images of visual works a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the second user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate in a data record associated with the job order (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
As per Claim 6, Burke teaches:
receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to make the author a candidate for a job order; and in response to receiving the user input, storing an indication of the author as a candidate for the job order in a data record associated with the job record (Burke teaches [0471] attribution of an author with the work.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
As per Claim 7, Burke teaches:
receiving, in the selectable talent card, user input indicating a request to view more visual works created by the author; and in response to receiving the user input, generating, in the GUI, a display of images of visual works created by the author (Burke teaches [0083, FIG. 74] & [0268], “FIG. 37 illustrates a media view and comment display page. The system can generate a display page including media such as images and/or video.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Burke into the system of Marriott. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide enhanced search results utilizing network machine learning database algorithms which improve over time. Machine learning improves efficiency and accuracy with increasing amounts of data processing. (Burke [0084, 0173, 0266, 0857])
Claims 8-14 are the media claims corresponding to method claims 1-7 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Claims 15-20 are the system claims corresponding to method claims 1-6 respectively, therefore are rejected for the same reasons noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights