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 action is made non-final.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “based at last in part” in lines 6-7 of the claim but “last” is a typographical error and should be replaced with “least”. Claims 8 and 15 recite corresponding limitations and are objected to for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 10776626 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a method, comprising:
presenting two content items of a plurality of content items via a user interface of a web-based application (FIG. 1A and Col. 6, line 38 to Col. 7, line 33, FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5 and FIG. 4 and Col. 15, lines 6-24: two content items, such as two images 420 of coffee tables, are presented via a user interface 400 of a web-based application);
receiving, via the user interface of a web-based application, an annotation relating to an indication of which of the two content items are associated with a criterion (FIG. 1A and Col. 7, lines 14-33, FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5 and FIG. 4 and Col. 15, lines 6-24: as seen in block 330, an annotation is received via user selection of any images that fit a criterion. Continuing the example of the two images 420 of coffee tables, one, both, or none of the two content items may be selected, and hence annotated, as fitting the criterion); and
updating a score relating to the criterion for each of the plurality of content items based at last in part on the annotation (FIG. 1A and Col. 7, lines 34-47, FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5 and FIG. 4 and Col. 15, lines 6-24: based at least in part on the annotation, a score relating to the criterion for each of the plurality of content items is updated. The score, for example, may be in tuple form as a pairwise match).
Regarding claim 2, Lin further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of content items comprise images (FIG. 1A and Col. 6, line 38 to Col. 7, line 33, FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5 and FIG. 4 and Col. 15, lines 6-24: two content items comprise images, such as images 420 of coffee tables).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the criterion relates to a smell of the plurality of content items, a taste of the plurality of content items, or a feel of the plurality of content items (FIG. 1A and Col. 7, lines 14-33, FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5 and FIG. 4 and Col. 15, lines 6-24: continuing the example of FIG. 4, the criterion, for example, relates to a feel of the plurality of content items, specifically whether the feel of the content items match the source item; See Col. 5, line 42 to Col. 6, line 37 for supplemental details regarding the feel of items).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising training a first artificial intelligence (AI) model to determine trends with a plurality of annotations of the plurality of content items associated with the criterion (FIG. 1A and Col. 7, line 34 to Col. 8, line 59: AI stylist model 175 is a first AI model that is trained to determine trends, including meaningful patterns in the data, with a plurality of annotations).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches further teaches the method of claim 6, comprising training a second AI model to utilize information learned by the first AI model to automatically, without human intervention, annotate the plurality of content items based on the learned information (FIG. 1B and Col. 8, line 60 to Col. 9, line 31 and FIG. 3 and Col. 13, line 3 to Col. 15, line 5: a second AI model, or trained AI stylist model 180, is trained to use information learned by the first AI model, or AI stylist model 175, to automatically annotate the plurality of content items based on the learned information).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 12-14, the claims recite a system, comprising: a memory storing processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (interactive computing system 206 comprising memory 210 and processor(s) 220 of FIG. 2 and Col. 11, line 2 to Col. 13, line 2), cause the system to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1, 2, and 5-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 19-21, the claims recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable memory media, comprising: processor-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (memory 210 and processor(s) 220 of FIG. 2 and Col. 11, line 2 to Col. 13, line 2), cause the one or more processors to perform operations corresponding to the method of claims 1, 2, and 5-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
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 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 10776626 B1), in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0060757 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the method of claim 1. Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of content items comprise video.
Li teaches wherein the plurality of content items comprise video ([0051-0056]: the plurality of content items may comprise video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Li so as to have wherein the plurality of content items comprise video. Doing so would allow a greater variety of content, including video, to be reviewed by a human to improve training of the model. Moreover, video content may provide more details of an object that is otherwise captured in a static image from a single angle, potentially increasing the model’s accuracy and robustness.
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the method of claim 1. Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of content items comprise audio.
Li teaches wherein the plurality of content items comprise audio ([0051-0056]: the plurality of content items may comprise audio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin to incorporate the teachings of Li so as to have wherein the plurality of content items comprise audio. Doing so would allow a greater variety of content, including audio, to be reviewed by a human to improve training of the model. Moreover, audio content may provide more details of an object that is otherwise captured in a soundless static image, potentially increasing the model’s accuracy and robustness.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claims recite a system corresponding to the method of claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the claims recite one or more non-transitory computer-readable memory media corresponding to the method of claims 3 and 4, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including:
US 2012/0269436 A1: estimating likelihood of labels for images based on assigned labels, classifier scores, and structured model
US 10977297 B1: training for automatic assignment of labels to content items without manual assignments by humans
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights