Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/890,529

METHOD, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM FOR DETERMINING IMAGE FOR DISPLAY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, JENNIFER T
Art Unit
2629
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Beijing Youzhuju Network Technology Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
833 granted / 1022 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1038
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1022 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office action is responsive to amendment filed on 11/03/25. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakharov (Zakharov et al. US 2024/0295953) in view of Pathak et al. (US 2024/0394479). Regarding claims 1 and 20, Zakharov discloses a method for determining an image for display (e.g., 114, 116, 118, para. 0026), comprising: obtaining a plurality of images associated with an object (paras. 0103- 0104); generating a prompt for a language model based on the plurality of images (paras. 0105-0106); obtaining a plurality of attractiveness ranks corresponding to the plurality of images by feeding the prompt to the language model (paras. 0106-0107); determining a plurality of probability distributions corresponding to the plurality of images based on the plurality of attractiveness ranks (paras. 0108-0109, 0167); and determining a target image for display from the plurality of images based on the plurality of probability distributions (paras. 0110-0111). Zakharov does not specifically disclose the plurality of images are candidate images. In a similar field of endeavor of image generation system, Pathak discloses a plurality of candidate images (such as the prompt-managing component 122 uses the number of content units specified by the complexity-analyzing component 132 to govern an amount of the candidate content information that is selected for incorporation into the prompt information, para. 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the candidate images as taught by Pathak in the system of Zakharov in order to reduce a number of content units in the prompt information (para. 0006). Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses generating the prompt for the language model based on the plurality of candidate images comprises: obtaining a description of task objective (paras. 0103-0104 of Zakharov); obtaining an image list based on the plurality of candidate images (paras. 0103- 0104 of Zakharov); and generating the prompt based on the description of task objective and the image list (paras. 0105-0106 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses generating the prompt based on the description of task objective and the image list comprises: obtaining a scoring criteria associated with the object (paras. 0106-0108 of Zakharov); and generating the prompt based on the description of task objective, the image list, and the scoring criteria (paras. 0106-0108 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses generating the prompt based on the description of task objective, the image list, and the scoring criteria comprises: obtaining a template of output, the template of output comprising a field of image identification and a field of attractiveness score (paras. 0105-0108 of Zakharov); and generating the prompt based on the description of task objective, the image list, the scoring criteria, and the template of output (paras. 0105-0108 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses determining the target image for display from the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of probability distributions comprises: generating a plurality of sample values corresponding to the plurality of candidate images by performing random samplings on the plurality of probability distributions respectively (paras. 0110-0111 of Zakharov); and determining the target image from the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of sample values (paras. 0110-0111 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses determining the target image from the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of random sample values comprises: determining a candidate image with a greatest sample value as the target image (paras. 0110-0111 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses generating the plurality of probability distributions corresponding to the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of probability distributions comprises: generating a plurality of Beta distributions corresponding to the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of attractiveness ranks, a Beta distribution of the plurality of Beta distributions comprising an alpha parameter and a beta parameter, the alpha parameter indicating a number of times that users interact with a candidate image, the beta parameter indicating a number of times that users have not interacted with the candidate image (para. 0091 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses the plurality of candidate images comprises a first candidate image and a second candidate image, an attractiveness rank of the first candidate image is higher than an attractiveness rank of the second candidate image, and generating the plurality of Beta distributions corresponding to the plurality of candidate images based on the plurality of attractiveness ranks comprises: initializing a plurality of alpha parameters of the plurality of Beta distributions based on the plurality of attractiveness ranks, wherein a value of an alpha parameter corresponding to the first candidate image is greater than a value of an alpha parameter corresponding to the second candidate image (paras. 0124-0126 of Zakharov). Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses transmitting the target image to a user device for display; receiving a feedback data, the feedback data indicating whether a user has interacted with the target image (paras. 0124-0126 of Zakharov); and updating a target Beta distribution corresponding to the target image based on the feedback data (paras. 0124-0126 of Zakharov). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zakharov and Pathak discloses updating the target Beta distribution corresponding to the target image based on the feedback data comprises: increasing a value of an alpha parameter of the target Beta distribution in response to the feedback data indicating that the user has interacted with the target image (paras. 0124-0126 of Zakharov); and increasing a value of a beta parameter of the target Beta distribution in response to the feedback data indicating that the user has not interacted with the target image (paras. 0124-0126 of Zakharov). Regarding claim 11, Zakharov discloses an electronic device (e.g., 114, 116, 118, para. 0026), comprising: a memory and a processor (paras. 0034 and 0036); wherein the memory is configured to store one or more computer instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: obtain a plurality of candidate images associated with an object; generate a prompt for a language model based on the plurality of images (paras. 0103- 0104); obtain a plurality of attractiveness ranks corresponding to the plurality of images by feeding the prompt to the language model (paras. 0106-0107); determine a plurality of probability distributions corresponding to the plurality of images based on the plurality of attractiveness ranks (paras. 0108-0109, 0167); and determine a target image for display from the plurality of images based on the plurality of probability distributions (paras. 0110-0111). Zakharov does not specifically disclose the plurality of images are candidate images. In a similar field of endeavor of image generation system, Pathak discloses a plurality of candidate images (such as the prompt-managing component 122 uses the number of content units specified by the complexity-analyzing component 132 to govern an amount of the candidate content information that is selected for incorporation into the prompt information, para. 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the candidate images as taught by Pathak in the system of Zakharov in order to reduce a number of content units in the prompt information (para. 0006). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on at least one reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7696. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00. 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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 5712722963. 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. /JENNIFER T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597398
MINI-LED BACKLIGHT MODULE, DRIVING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596446
FUNCTIONAL PANEL, DISPLAY DEVICE, INPUT/OUTPUT DEVICE, AND DATA PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591298
HUMAN EYES DESIGN: FIRST PERSON VR CHARACTERS FOR TESTING INCLUSIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592198
Pixel Circuit and Display Device Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586506
DISPLAY DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+5.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1022 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month