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 .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on April 13, 2026.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-14, 16-29, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and claim 14 is directed to a device, each of which is a statutory category of subject matter.
At step 2A prong I, independent claim 1 (exemplary) recites: transmitting a registration request of a first user; receiving photo identification information including performance image information, wherein the photo identification information includes biometric fingerprint information; identifying a preliminary group of images stored on the electronic device, at least in part based on the biometric fingerprint information and the performance image information; displaying, by the electronic device, a subset of the preliminary group of images; and transmitting, from the electronic device, the subset of the preliminary group of images. These limitations recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly marketing activities and behaviors and following rules.
At step 2A prong II, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of an electronic device, a processing unit, a network interface, a memory, a processor, and a display, each of which is a generic computing component performing generic computing functions (processing, interfacing, storing, displaying). The additional elements of transmitting and receiving data are insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and accordingly, when considered both individually and as a whole, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
At step 2B, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements discussed above are generic computing components performing generic computing functions, and the steps of transmitting and receiving, identified above as insignificant extra-solution activity, are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d). When considered both individually and as a whole, the claimed invention represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computing devices, does not apply an inventive concept, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the independent claims are not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-13, 16-19, and 21-23 further limit the abstract idea and/or recite computing elements or functions that have been identified above as generic computing elements or insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore are similarly held to be ineligible.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-14, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20130117442) in view of Huang (US 2019/0080012).
With reference to claims 1, 8, and 14, Kim teaches a method implemented by an electronic device, the method comprising:
transmitting a registration request of a first user (see page 4, paragraph 9 – “this embodiment is a profile registration unit”); and
transmitting, from the electronic device, the subset of the preliminary group of images (see page 4, paragraph 9 – “transmits the user profile image received from the user profile management server 100 to the social network server 400 to update and register the user profile image”).
Kim does not teach the specific photo identification process.
However, Huang teaches:
receiving, at the electronic device, photo identification information including performance image information, wherein the photo identification information includes biometric fingerprint information (see paragraph 52, steps 202/204 of receiving and assigning inferences, which are equivalent to performance information, see also paragraph 39 that facial geometry, i.e. biometric fingerprint information, can be applied by the model to analyzed images);
identifying a preliminary group of images stored on the electronic device, at least in part based on the biometric fingerprint information and the performance image information (see paragraph 53, step 206 – providing a subset of images);
displaying, by the electronic device, a subset of the preliminary group of images (see paragraph 53 – it is implied that the user is shown the subset of images through “the individual receiving the recommended face images” and “the size of the recommended face images can be quite small”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the user profile setup of Kim with the image recommendation engine of Huang, because Kim teaches creating the profile for a social network, and Huang teaches that the image recommendation engine can be used with online dating services (a type of social network) (see paragraphs 37-38 of Huang), thus they are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine them to allow a computer to act as an agent on behalf of the user to save time and improve success in recommending desirable images (Huang, paragraphs 37-38).
With reference to claims 4, 11, and 17, Kim and Huang teach what is required by claims 1, 8, and 14, and Huang further teaches displaying a profile of a second user; receiving an input indicating a preference for the profile of the second user; and transmitting an indication of the input, wherein the photo identification information is at least in part based on the preference (see paragraph 57, receiving a new set of images and the trained model to allow the model to analyze the new images, and see paragraph 72, the model acting as an agent on behalf of the human to like or dislike the newly presented images).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claims 5, 12, and 18, Kim and Huang teach what is required by claims 1, 8, and 14, and Huang further teaches wherein the preliminary group of images is identified at least in part based on including a human face (see paragraph 52 – face images).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claims 6, 13, and 19, Kim and Huang teach what is required by claims 1, 8, and 14, and Huang further teaches receiving an input to approve the subset of the preliminary group of images (see paragraph 53 – the user can like or dislike the recommended images).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claims 21, 22, and 23, Kim and Huang teach what is required by claims 1, 8, and 14, and Huang further teaches wherein the biometric fingerprint information includes detailed facial geometry (see Huang, paragraph 39).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Huang as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Hopkins (US 2023/0120441).
With reference to claims 3, 10, and 16, Kim and Huang teach what is required by claims 1, 8, and 14, but fail to teach wherein the registration request includes a verification video including a face of the first user, and the biometric fingerprint information at least in part is based on the face of the first user.
Hopkins teaches wherein the registration request includes a verification video including a face of the first user, and the biometric fingerprint information at least in part is based on the face of the first user (see paragraph 28 – “the image may also be analyzed to determine if the image is an image of a different person (e.g., using deep face verification models, by comparing a fingerprint of the image submitted by the user to fingerprint of images of other people known to be used improperly, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the image validation methods of Huang and Hopkins as they are both in the same field of endeavor, and the combination would result in being able to both analyze images for user preferences, as well as verify that images are valid and are not fraud, thus preventing improper use of images (see Hopkins, paragraph 28) in the online social networking system as taught by the combination of Kim, Huang, and Hopkins.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims include features that reflect improvements identified in the specification. However, as currently claimed, the improvements are non-technical in nature, and are therefore only improvements to the abstract idea. The steps of receiving images, identifying a subset of images, and transmitting the subset of images, is not defined in the claims in a technical way other than using generic computing components, and is not analogous to the facts of Desjardins. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights