DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on August 1, 2024, and Drawings filed on August 1, 2024.
2. Claims 2-9 are pending in this case. Claim 2, 4, 8 are independent claims.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 3 are allowable. Claim 2 is unique in the sense that which the prior arts teach the limitations of using database image data to identify image feature value and then use the image feature value to identify a first vector and then use the first vector to compare to the second vector which is input by the user; the prior arts do not teach the additional limitations of wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain first data comprising the database image feature value data and the first vector, wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain second data comprising the query image feature value data and the second vector, and wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain second similarity of the first data to the second data.
35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
With regard to claims 2-3, this application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the processing portion is configured to, the database is configured to in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Fig. 1 and paragraph 85.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee, 2020/0097604A1.
With regard to claim 4:
Lee discloses an image retrieval system comprising: a database (See paragraph 30 wherein in response to receiving the search query sentence 104 from the client application 202, the search engine 204 may retrieve a set of candidate images from a database 206.); and a processing portion, wherein the database is configured to store document data (See paragraph 96 wherein the search engine 204 may retrieve candidate sentences from the database 206.) and database image data (the search engine 204 may retrieve a set of candidate images from a database 206 as described in paragraph 30); wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain first similarity of the database image data to a query image data (See paragraph 74 to 75 for similarity score S’ and S which represent the first and second similarity, wherein the image-sentence similarity score S determined using the image-text formulation and the sentence-image similarity score S′ determined using the text-image formulation are both measures of the similarity between the image I and the sentence T.), wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain second similarity of first data to second data (See paragraph 59 and 60 wherein the first vector and which is generated from the image and the second vector which is input by the user is compared to determine the second similarity.), wherein the first data comprises a first vector representing a first keyword of the database image data (see fig. 5 for words vector generated from images, wherein On the left side of FIG. 5 are regions vectors v.sub.1, . . . , v.sub.k representing the plurality of regions 302 in the image 102.), and wherein the second data comprises a second vector representing a second keyword of the query image data (see fig. 4 for the input vector, The search query sentence may be, for example, the sentence 104 (“A person riding a bike with a dog on a leash.”) in FIG. 1.).
With regard to claim 5:
Lee discloses the image retrieval system according to claim 4, wherein the processing portion is configured to link the first keyword to the database
image data (See paragraph 23 wherein the image 102 can include a plurality of regions containing one or more features. In FIG. 1, the image 102 includes rectangular bounding boxes 106 that have been illustrated to represent the regions that contain a person, a bike, a dog, a leash, a helmet, sunglasses, a house, and a window.), and wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain the first vector representing the first keyword (See paragraph 61 where On the left side of FIG. 6 are regions vectors v.sub.1, . . . , v.sub.k representing the plurality of regions 302 in the image 102.).
With regard to claims 6 and 9:
Lee discloses the image retrieval system according to claim 4, wherein the first keyword represents at least one of a concept, a technological content, a remarkable point of the database image data (See paragraph 23 wherein the image 102 may include several features, such as objects, actions, and attributes, depicted by the image 102. For example, the features in the image 102 may include a person riding a bike which the concepts for the keywords.).
With regard to claim 8:
Lee discloses an image retrieval system comprising: a database (See paragraph 30 wherein in response to receiving the search query sentence 104 from the client application 202, the search engine 204 may retrieve a set of candidate images from a database 206); and a processing portion, wherein the database is configured to store document data (See paragraph 96 wherein the search engine 204 may retrieve candidate sentences from the database 206,) and database image data (The search engine 204 may retrieve a set of candidate images from a database 206 as described in paragraph 30); wherein the processing portion is configured to obtain similarity of first data to second data (See paragraph 59 and 60 wherein the first vector and which is generated from the image and the second vector which is input by the user is compared to determine the second similarity.), wherein the first data comprises a first vector representing a first keyword of the database image data (See fig. 5 for words vector generated from images, wherein On the left side of FIG. 5 are regions vectors v.sub.1, . . . , v.sub.k representing the plurality of regions 302 in the image 102.), and wherein the second data comprises a second vector representing a second keyword of a query image data (See fig. 4 for the input vector, The search query sentence may be, for example, the sentence 104 (“A person riding a bike with a dog on a leash.”) in FIG. 1.).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Xu, Pub. No.: 2017/0308553A1.
With regard to claim 7:
Lee does not disclose the aspect wherein the processing portion is configured to correct similarity of the database image data to the query image data after obtaining the first similarity and the second similarity
However Xu discloses the image retrieval system according to claim 4, wherein the processing portion is configured to correct similarity of the database image
data to the query image data after obtaining the first similarity and the second similarity (See paragraph 41 to 43 wherein A use may correct similarity of the database image data by select an additional image 410, select one or more of the keywords 412 and/or reposition or resize the search control 405. If the user repositions and/or resizes the search control 405, a new image segment is generated and additional images and/or keywords corresponding to that new image segment are determined and presented to the user.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Xu to Lee so system can correct the similarity of the database data to the query image data based on user feedback in order to provide better results that fit the needs of the user.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu, Patent Number: 7499916 B2: teaches an image retrieval system performs both keyword-based and content-based image retrieval. It also A user interface allows a user to specify queries using a combination of keywords and examples images.
Takata, Pub. No.: US 20140089000 A1: Teaches A similar case searching apparatus that includes a search vector generating unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights