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 .
Double Patenting
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 1+2, 8+9, 15+16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,620,350, in view of Lee et al. (Korean Patent Application Publication 2019-0115501, IDS), hereinafter referred as Lee.
Because:
Claim 1 of instant application (similar as to claims 8 and 15)
Claim 1 of 11,620,350 (similar as to claims 9 and 17)
A method comprising:
accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle;
causing a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client;
determining a classification corresponding to the vehicle; and
presenting a notification corresponding to the classification, the notification comprising information associated with the classification.
A method comprising:
causing display of an image that comprises image data at a client device; receiving an input at the client device, the input comprising an input attribute; determining that the input attribute transgresses a threshold value; generating a scan request at the client device responsive to the determining that the input attributes transgresses the threshold value, the scan request an image that comprises image data; identifying a vehicle within the image based on the image data;
generating a bounding box that encompasses the vehicle in the image; cropping the image based on the bounding box;
determining a classification of the vehicle within the bounding box based on the cropped image;
presenting a notification that includes the classification at the client device; receiving a selection of the notification from the client device; accessing content based on the classification responsive to the selection of the notification; and causing display of a presentation of the content at the client device.
Claim 2 of instant application (similar as to claims 8 and 15)
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an input, the input comprising a scan request, the scan request causing the first messaging client to identify the vehicle.
It is corresponding to part of limitations highlighted in claim 1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claim 1 of instant application includes an additional limitation of “accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle,” This is obvious in view of Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor Lee discloses a method for determining a classification corresponding to a vehicle (Fig. 4). In addition, Lee discloses the method further comprising accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle ([0048], access vehicle image in vehicle recognition system transmitted from traffic surveillance system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle. The motivation for doing this is that the data can be collected from distributed sensing devices for a centralized processing so that processing power can be enhanced.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,079,295, in view of Lee.
Because:
Claim 1 of instant application (similar as to claims 8 and 15)
Claim 1 of 12,079,295 (similar as to claims 6 and 11)
A method comprising:
accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle;
causing a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client;
determining a classification corresponding to the vehicle; and
presenting a notification corresponding to the classification, the notification comprising information associated with the classification.
A method comprising:
causing display of an image at a client device, the image depicting one or more objects;
receiving an input that selects an object from among the one or more objects depicted within the image;
determining a classification of the object depicted within the image based on the input that selects the object from within the image; presenting a notification that includes the classification at the client device;
receiving a selection of the notification from the client device;
identifying a database from among a plurality of databases based on the classification of the object, responsive to the selection of the notification;
accessing content from within the database based on the classification responsive to the selection of the notification; and
causing display of a presentation of the content at the client device.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The claim 1 of instant application includes an additional limitation of “accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle,” This is obvious in view of Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor Lee discloses a method for determining a classification corresponding to a vehicle (Fig. 4). In addition, Lee discloses the method further comprising accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle ([0048], access vehicle image in vehicle recognition system transmitted from traffic surveillance system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and accessing, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle. The motivation for doing this is that the data can be collected from distributed sensing devices for a centralized processing so that processing power can be enhanced.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 of instant application are corresponding to claims 5, 10 and 15 of patent 12,079,295, respectively.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed an idea for presenting a notification corresponding to the classification which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15:
The claims in the instant application include:
access, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle;
cause a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client;
determine a classification corresponding to the vehicle; and
present a notification corresponding to the classification, the notification comprising information associated with the classification.
Regarding “determine a classification corresponding to the vehicle, it can be interpreted as a human can observe/analyze an image of a vehicle, and determine what kind of vehicle it is (e.g. model, color, etc.). The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “present a notification corresponding to the classification, the notification comprising information associated with the classification,” it can be interpreted as the human can make a note based on above determination. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
access, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle;
cause a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client;
system, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding “access, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle”, it is considered as a fundamental data communication step. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding “cause a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client”, it is considered as simply displaying information on a screen (rendering). It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding “system, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, they are computer hardware / software. It is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., access, present, system, processor, and memory) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., access, present, system, processor, and memory) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., access, present, system, processor, and memory) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 20, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 9 and 15 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 9 and 15, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "receive ... ", “generate …”, “access …”, “present …” and “comprise …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Korean Patent Application Publication 2019-0115501, IDS), hereinafter referred as Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses a computing system (Fig. 5), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 5, #20, [0060], controller); and
one or more memory (Fig. 5, #30, [0065], storage unit) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing system to:
access, by a first messaging client, an image transmitted from a second messaging client, the image depicting a vehicle ([0048], access vehicle image in vehicle recognition system transmitted from traffic surveillance system);
cause a presentation of the image within a graphical user interface (GUI) of the first messaging client (Fig. 4, S101, [0048], receive an image, displayed in display device Fig. 5 #40, exhibited in Fig. 1 and 2);
determine a classification corresponding to the vehicle (Fig. 4, S111, [0055 - 0056], classifies vehicle model); and
present a notification corresponding to the classification, the notification comprising information associated with the classification (Fig. 4, S113, [0056, 0066], output in display device to notify the vehicle model).
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 8), Lee discloses the computing system wherein the instructions further configure the computing system to receive an input, the input comprising a scan request, the scan request causing the first messaging client to identify the vehicle ([0056], “The vehicle recognition system searches for vehicle types through a CNN model and outputs the searched results (S113)”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, they are corresponding to claims 8 and 9, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, they are corresponding to claims 8 and 9, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 8 and 9.
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) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Edmunds.com (dated back to 2017, IDS).
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 9), Lee fails to explicitly disclose the computing system wherein the input is a first input, and the instructions further configure the computing system to: receive a second input selecting the notification; generate an updated notification based on additional information corresponding to the classification; and present the updated notification within the GUI.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Edmunds.com discloses a system for image acquisition and processing (abstract). In addition, Edmunds.com discloses the system receiving an input that selects a search results (query notification) from the client device (in Edmunds.com 1, user can select one of a search results (e.g. a 1st one from searching Honda Accord); and generate an updated notification based on additional information corresponding to the classification; and present the updated notification within the GUI (in Edmunds.com 2, causing display of a presentation of the further detail for that particular Honda Accord at the client device).
Both Lee and Edmunds.com served purpose of vehicle searching and displaying results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further discovering the details for the vehicle (KSR scenario A).
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 combined the search result of Lee for a further selection and search of Edmunds.com according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a further detail related to a specific vehicle.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, they are corresponding to claim 10, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 10.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Edmunds.com, and in further view of Smirnov et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0140130), hereinafter referred as Smirnov.
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 10), Lee in view of Edmunds.com fails to explicitly disclose the computing system wherein the instructions further configure the computing system to: receive a third input selecting the updated notification; access a database that comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL); access a content based on the URL; and present the content within the GUI.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Smirnov discloses a system for query searching (abstract). In addition, Smirnov discloses the system comprises receive a input selecting a link (the updated notification) (Fig. 6, step 1, [0039]); access a database that comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) (Fig. 6, step 3, [0039]); access a content based on the URL; and present the content within the GUI (Fig. 6, step 5 – 6, [0039]).
Both Edmunds.com and Smirnov served purpose of web searching and displaying results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further discovering the details for the web content (KSR scenario A).
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 combined the search result of Edmunds.com for a further selection and search of Smirnov according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a further detail related to a web content.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, they are corresponding to claim 11, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 11.
Claim(s) 5 – 6, 12 – 13 and 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Edmunds.com, and in further view of Smirnov and Ueta (European Patent Application Publication EP 3 438 851).
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 10), Lee in view of Edmunds.com and in further view of Smirnov fails to explicitly disclose the computing system wherein the vehicle is a first vehicle and the additional information comprises: at least two images respectively depict a second vehicle and a third vehicle; a first percentage value indicate a likelihood of a match between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; and a second percentage value indicate a likelihood of a match between the first vehicle and the third vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Ueta discloses a system for query searching (abstract). In addition, Ueta discloses the system wherein at least two images respectively depict a second vehicle and a third vehicle; a first percentage value indicate a likelihood of a match between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; and a second percentage value indicate a likelihood of a match between the first vehicle and the third vehicle ([0007, 0009]).
Both Lee and Ueta served purpose of web searching and displaying results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further discovering how is the match (KSR scenario A).
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 combined the search result of Lee and for a further display the match score of Ueta according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a further discovering how is the match.
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 12), Smirnov discloses the computing system wherein the instructions further configure the computing system to: receive a third input selecting a link (the second vehicle) (Fig. 6, step 1, [0039]); access a database that comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) corresponding to the link (second vehicle) (Fig. 6, step 3, [0039]); access a content based on the URL; and present the content within the GUI (Fig. 6, step 5 – 6, [0039]).
Both Smirnov and Ueta served purpose of web searching and displaying results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further discovering the details for the web content (KSR scenario A).
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 combined the search result of Ueta for a further selection and search of Smirnov according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a further detail related to a web content.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, they are corresponding to claims 12 and 13, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 12 and 13.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, they are corresponding to claims 12 and 13, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 12 and 13.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Edmunds.com, and in further view of Horiuchi (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0304591).
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 8), Lee fails to explicitly disclose the computing system wherein the notification comprises an audio content overlaid on the image depict the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Edmunds.com discloses a system for image acquisition and processing (abstract). In addition, Edmunds.com discloses the system search a query and present a notification comprises a text content overlaid on the image depict the vehicle (in Edmunds.com 1, user can search “Honda Accord”, and get a list of result of images overlaid with text content).
However, Edmunds.com fails to explicitly disclose the text content can be audio content.
In a similar field of endeavor Horiuchi discloses a system for image display with text (Fig. 10). In addition, Horiuchi discloses the system the text can be converted to speech ([0135]).
Lee, Edmunds.com and Horiuchi served purpose of searching and displaying results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the combination and the outcome would have been predictable to that same person. Combining one for the other achieves the predictable result of allowing a user further discovering the details for the vehicle (KSR scenario A).
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 combined the search result of Lee Edmunds.com and Horiuchi according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a further detail related to a specific vehicle with various format, so that the application of Lee can be broadened.
Regarding claim 7, it is corresponding to claim 14, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights