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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 4/10/2026. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 19 is acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claim 21 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 8, Applicant argues the rejection performs an improper gist style analysis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner addressed Applicant’s argued limitation in the 101 rejection below.
Specifically, from the below 101 rejection:
The claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities of bringing in a photo/presenting a photo (photo print, from a magazine etc.) in a store, ask a customer service representative in a store about the product, be provided information in response to questions asked by the representative and or by the user, where questions and answers may be based on past or learned knowledge
….
This is part of the abstract idea
….
The additional elements that instead these method of organizing human activities are recited as being performed by a device (specifically an information processing device for, a communication interface, a storage unit, and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to:)
….
merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims additional elements provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here as recited in the claims applicant does not recite an improvement in a computer (for example the terminal or the information processing device), or in image analysis rather applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea
….
Further the above additional elements discussed above merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
This is not gist 101 analysis as argued by Applicant rather the claim limitations are considered under the abstract idea, practical application, and significantly more steps as required by the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis.
On Remarks pages 8-9, Applicant argues the Examiner’s previous response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection. The Examiner’s previous response in the Final Rejection dated 1/20/2026 was to explain how to the claims as broadly recited do not reflect the improvement in computers or technology argued by Applicant (see page 3 of the Final Rejection dated 1/20/2026). This is a requirement of the analysis of improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field (see MPEP 2106.05(a), cited herein:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field
Therefore the Examiner maintains the previous response in the Final Office Action dated 1/20/2026, cited herein:
In paragraphs 0004-0005, Applicant's specification generally asserts an
improvement to AI models, specifically when questions are properly or particularly input
there can be an improvement in the accuracy of the answers provided and if the question is not properly input, the user may not be able to acquire an appropriate answer as intended, as some users may not be very familiar with machine operations or use of Al prompts and thus such users may not be able to input questions to the Al model based question answering service.
However this asserted improvement is not reflected in the claims as amended. Specifically the claims do not disclose how these proper or particularly inputs are determined to be provided to the model to generate improved output in the accuracy of the answers of AI models. Rather at best the claims recite broad result based claiming of questions from previous history. So this would read on the system providing any questions from other users (that could be bad, fake, not helpful, etc. questions), which would not result in approved accuracy it would actually result in the opposite as asserted in paragraphs 0004-0005, bad, fake, not helpful, etc. questions/answers. Therefore this would not be considered an improvement in a computer.
Further expanding on the above response in view of Applicant’s current arguments regarding question history and a display screen, the argued limitation in claim 1 of
“acquire question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from the storage unit, the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image; generate candidate questions from the acquired question history information; cause the generated generate questions to be displayed to a user of the user terminal in a selectable state; receive a designation of a selected candidate question from the user terminal via a user input selection operation on a display screen of the user terminal the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions”
is recited at such a broad level of recitation that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities and therefore part of the abstract idea. Specifically it is a certain method of organizing human activity to provide bring in a photo/presenting a photo (photo print, from a magazine etc.) in a store, ask a customer service representative in a store about the product, be provided information in response to questions asked by the representative and or by the user, where questions and answers may be based on past or learned knowledge from previous interactions. Further it is certain methods of organizing human activities to select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that this is broadly recited as being performed by a processor, past history or interaction information is received from a “storage unit”, selection is performed on “a display screen of the user terminal”, and the image information is received from a user “terminal” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computer as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
As the cited section of MPEP 2106.05(a) discusses above
“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration”,
therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite an improvement in technology or another technical field as the additional elements merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers.
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues new independent claim 21, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as detailed in the update 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
On Remarks pages 10-13, Applicant argues the prior art. While such arguments as considered they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with respect to the prior art in this office action based on Applicant’s amendments and considering Applicant’s claims as a whole. See newly cited prior art of Huang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0354609) and Conwell (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2010/0046842).
Further the Examiner makes of note of prior art not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0318405) teaches a system for identifying products in an image for shopping (see Figures 1-3)
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 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor. Claims 11-18 and 20 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claim 21 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor and a server.
The claims 1-18 and 20-21 are directed to the idea of providing supplemental information related to a picture, where questions are asked relating to the picture and responses are provided.
This often happens in customer service, where a user comes into a store looking for a product or something similar (maybe with a picture or tear out from a magazine about a product) and asks a customer service member for information and is given corresponding information regarding their questions.
This includes social activities or teachings which is subject matter related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people accordingly, the claims recite a certain methods of organizing human activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities of bringing in a photo/presenting a photo (photo print, from a magazine etc.) in a store, ask a customer service representative in a store about the product, be provided information in response to questions asked by the representative and or by the user, where questions and answers may be based on past or learned knowledge. Further it is certain methods of organizing human activities to select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. Further as broadly recited here it is certain methods of organizing human activity to use responses as input (e.g. prompt) to rules (e.g., a model) to generate a response, for example when you see this perform this action based on previous history or when you see that perform this other action based on previous responses. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that instead these method of organizing human activity are recited as being performed by a device (specifically an information processing device for, a communication interface, a storage unit, and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to:), the image instead of coming from the user’s hand and being provided to the user is from/to a “user terminal” and “user terminal via the communication interface”, the photo instead of being analyzed by the user is being performed by “image analysis”, information that a user could determine from looking up in a file cabinet is instead determined via a “storage unit”, and responses or selection instead of being performed for example by pen and paper is performed “on a display screen of the user terminal” merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims additional elements provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here as recited in the claims applicant does not recite an improvement in a computer (for example the terminal or the information processing device), or in image analysis rather applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea. Further here Applicant recites use of any generic image analysis algorithm or method which merely results in apply it as it is results based claiming rather than for example reciting an improvement in image analysis.
Further the above additional elements discussed above merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of specifically acquire merchandise information when the item is a merchandise item and provide that to the user via text (for example write down the product like the one you are looking for is found here in the store or alternatively at our sister store etc.). This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this instead is being performed by a processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of acquiring mechanism information and providing it as an answer in text format. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this information is being acquired via the communication interface is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity including look into memory to provide the corresponding information or look into a file cabinet or supply sheet to the find the information. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this instead is being from a storage unit is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claim merely describes the storage unit. It being an auxiliary memory device. A user could look in a file cabinet or a supply sheet to the find the information, which is in auxiliary memory device. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of providing a notification of I’m looking for this specific product and point to a specific part of the image or picture. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of looking at an image and analyze it to make a determination of what is included in the information, as broadly recited in the claim. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this is being performed by the processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of looking at a picture that includes a device with a screen and providing a response of the device as the answer in text format. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this is being performed by a processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of providing related information of something of interest, for example a manual for a device. This is part of the abstract idea.
There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of storing information, like writing it down for later use, for example if a human has to look up something storing it so its accessible the next time someone asks it. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the storage is a storage unit and being performed by a processor merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities specifically bring in a photo/provide a photo (photo print, from a magazine etc.) into a store, ask a customer service representative in a store about the product, be provided information in response to questions asked by the representative and or by the user, where questions and answers may be based on past or learned knowledge. Further it is certain methods of organizing human activities to select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. Further as broadly recited here it is certain methods of organizing human activity to use responses as input (e.g. prompt) to rules (e.g., a model) to generate a response, for example when you see this perform this action based on previous history or when you see that perform this other action based on previous responses. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these certain methods of organizing human activities are instead being performed by a device (from a user terminal via a communication device), the image instead of coming from the user’s hand or information being provided directly to the user is being provided to the user by a “user terminal” and “user terminal via the communication interface”, the photo instead of being analyzed by the user is being performed by “image analysis”, information that a user could determine from looking up in a file cabinet is instead determined via “storage unit”, and responses or selection instead of being performed for example by pen and paper is performed “on a display screen of the user terminal” merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims additional elements provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which is equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here as recited in the claims applicant does not recite an improvement in a computer (for example the terminal), or in image analysis rather applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea. Further here Applicant recites use of any generic image analysis algorithm or method which merely results in apply it as it is results based claiming rather than for example reciting an improvement in image analysis.
Further the recitation of the above additional elements merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of acquire merchandise information when the item is a mechanism information and provide that to the user via text (for example write down the product like the one you are looking for is found here in the store or alternatively at our sister store etc.). This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of acquiring mechanism information. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this instead being acquired via the communication interface is detailed above in claim 11.
As per claim 14, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of specifically look into memory to provide the corresponding information or look into a file cabinet or supply sheet to the find the merchandise information. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this instead is being performed from a storage unit is detailed above in claim 11.
As per claim 15, the claim merely describes the storage unit. It being an auxiliary memory device. It is a certain method of organizing human activity to look in a file cabinet or a supply sheet to the find the information, which is in auxiliary memory device. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that this instead is being performed from a storage unit is detailed above in claim 11.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of providing information of I’m looking for this specific product and point to a specific part of the image or picture. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of looking at an image and analyze it to make a determination of what is included in the information. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite looking at a picture that includes a device with a screen and providing a response of the device as the answer in text format. This is part of the abstract idea.
There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 20, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of storing information, like writing it down for later use, for example if a human has to look up something storing it so its accessible the next time someone asks it. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the storage is a storage unit as been previously discussed above.
As per claim 21, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities of bringing in a photo/presenting a photo (photo print, from a magazine etc.) in a store, ask a customer service representative in a store about the product, be provided information in response to questions asked by the representative and or by the user, where questions and answers may be based on past or learned knowledge. Further it is certain methods of organizing human activities to select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. Further as broadly recited here it is certain methods of organizing human activity to use responses as input (e.g. prompt) to rules (e.g., a model) to generate a response, for example when you see this perform this action based on previous history or when you see that perform this other action based on previous responses. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that instead these method of organizing human activity are recited as being performed by devices (specifically a user terminal having a display screen and connected to a network, a server including: a communication interface connected to the network; a storage unit; and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to), the image instead of coming from the user’s hand and being provided to the user is from/to a “user terminal” and “user terminal via the communication interface”, the photo instead of being analyzed by the user is being performed by “image analysis”, information that a user could determine from looking up in a file cabinet is instead determined via a “storage unit”, and responses or selection instead of being performed for example by pen and paper is performed on/by “display screen of the user terminal” merely result in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Here the claims additional elements provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words apply it. Specifically here as a recited in the claims applicant does not recite an improvement in a computer (for example the terminal), or in image analysis rather applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea. Further here Applicant recites use of any generic image analysis algorithm or method which merely results in apply it as it is results based claiming rather than for example reciting an improvement in image analysis.
Further the above additional elements amount to no more than merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above under the practical application step.
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) 1-7, 10-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0354609).
As per claim 1, Huang teaches An information processing device for in-store customer shopping support, the device comprising: (see paragraph 0023 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: computing device implementing system (see paragraph 0023) and Figure 2 shows a store).
a communication interface; a storage unit; and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to: (see paragraph 0023-0025 and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: software running a computer to implement the system (see paragraphs 0023 and 0025) and further teaches a network (See Figure 1, reference character 120) and a product database and a data store (see reference characters 190 and 192, Figure 1)).
receive image information corresponding to an image from a user terminal via the communication interface; (see paragraphs 0017 and 0026-0027, Examiner’s note: receive images from a camera or from a search for a specific image from a query).
execute image analysis processing on the image information to identify content of the image from the user terminal; (see paragraph 0029 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: several objects that have been detected by an object detection engine).
acquire question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from the storage unit, the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image; generate candidate questions from the acquired question history information cause the generated candidate questions to be displayed to a user of the user terminal in a selectable state; receive a designation of a selected candidate question from the user terminal via a user input selection operation on a display screen of the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; (see paragraph 0027 and 0029-0030, Examiner’s note: teaches selecting attributes based on previous user selections, further reference character 208 in Figure 2 shows a selection of selectable options for the user to perform a targeted search).
acquire answer text corresponding to a candidate question selected by the user by inputting the selected question candidate as a prompt to a generative model functionalized to output answer text; and cause the acquired answer text to be provided to the user of the user terminal (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches in response displaying related products and related information to the user, as shown in Figure 2 which includes text answers).
As per claim 2, Huang teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire merchandise information when the content of the image is a merchandise item; and include the acquired merchandise information in the answer text (see Figure 2, Examiner’s note: shopping information related to the purchase presented to the user).
As per claim 3, Huang teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired via the communication interface (see paragraphs 0024 and 0026, Examiner’s note: client communicates with the visual search system through a network and a network may be used to connect the databases with the visual search system).
As per claim 4, Huang teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired from the storage unit (see paragraph 0054, Examiner’s note: images can come from various data sources across the Internet, networks, or product or vendor databases).
As per claim 5, Huang teaches
wherein the storage unit is an auxiliary memory device. (see paragraph 0054, Examiner’s note: images can come from various data sources across the Internet, networks, or product or vendor databases).
As per claim 6, Huang teaches
wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user (see paragraph 0029, Examiner’s note: a user can specify a crop box or create a cropped image box around an object of interest).
As per claim 7, Huang teaches
wherein the processor executes the image analysis processing on the image information to identify the content of the region of the image (see paragraphs 0027, 0029-0030, and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches providing related image attribute information (like reference character 206 in Figure 2) in response to a user’s selection of a cropped image box or clicking on a hot spot (part of the image))
As per claim 10, Huang teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: store the selected question candidate and the answer text in correlation with each other in the storage unit as question history information (see paragraphs 0027 and 002, Examiner’s note: teaches continuously monitors a user activity to learn patterns revealing user preferences for various activity types of objects, further teaches this information may be stored in a data store).
As per claim 11, Huang teaches An information processing method for in-store customer shopping support, the method comprising: (see paragraph 0023 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: computing device implementing functions (see paragraph 0023) and Figure 2 shows a store).
receiving image information corresponding to an image from a user terminal via a communication interface; (see paragraphs 0017 and 0026-0027, Examiner’s note: receive images from a camera or from a search for a specific image from a query).
executing image analysis processing on the image information to identify content of the image from the user terminal; (see paragraph 0029 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: several objects that have been detected by an object detection engine).
acquiring question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from a storage unit, the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image; generating candidate questions from the acquired question history information; causing the generated candidate questions to be displayed to a user of the user terminal in a selectable state; receiving a designation of a selected candidate question from the user terminal via a user input selection operation on a display screen of the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; (see paragraph 0027 and 0029-0030, Examiner’s note: teaches selecting attributes based on previous user selections, further reference character 208 in Figure 2 shows a selection of selectable options for the user to perform a targeted search).
acquiring answer text corresponding to a candidate question selected by the user by inputting the selected question candidate as prompt to a generative model functionalized to output answer text; and causing the acquired answer text to be provided to the user of the user terminal. (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches in response displaying related products and related to the user, as shown in Figure 2 which includes text answers).
As per claim 12, Huang teaches
further comprising: acquiring merchandise information when the content of the image is a merchandise item; and including the acquired merchandise information in the answer text. (see Figure 2, Examiner’s note: shopping information related to the purchase presented to the user).
As per claim 13, Huang teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired via the communication interface. (see paragraphs 0024 and 0026, Examiner’s note: client communicates with the visual search system through a network and a network may be used to connect the databases with the visual search system).
As per claim 14, Huang teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired from the storage unit. (see paragraph 0054, Examiner’s note: images can come from various data sources across the Internet, networks, or product or vendor databases).
As per claim 15, Huang teaches
wherein the storage unit is an auxiliary memory device. (see paragraph 0054, Examiner’s note: images can come from various data sources across the Internet, networks, or product or vendor databases).
As per claim 16, Huang teaches
wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user. (see paragraph 0029, Examiner’s note: a user can specify a crop box or create a cropped image box around an object of interest).
As per claim 17, Huang teaches
wherein the image analysis processing on the image information to identifies the content of the region of the image. (see paragraphs 0027, 0029-0030, and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches providing related image attribute information (like reference character 206 in Figure 2) in response to a user’s selection of a cropped image box or clicking on a hot spot (part of the image))
As per claim 20, Huang teaches
further comprising :storing the selected question candidate and the answer text in correlation with each other in the storage unit as question history information. (see paragraphs 0027 and 002, Examiner’s note: teaches continuously monitors a user activity to learn patterns revealing user preferences for various activity types of objects, further teaches this information may be stored in a data store).
As per claim 21,Huang teaches An in-store customer shopping support system, comprising: (see paragraph 0023 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: computing device implementing system (see paragraph 0023) and Figure 2 shows a store).
a user terminal having a display screen and connected to a network; (see paragraph 0024 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: client device connected to the network and displays Figure 2).
a server device including: a communication interface connected to the network; a storage unit; and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to: (see paragraph 0023-0025 and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: software running a computer to implement the system (see paragraphs 0023 and 0025) and further teaches a network (See Figure 1, reference character 120) and a product database and a data store (see reference characters 190 and 192, Figure 1)).
receive image information corresponding to an image from the user terminal via the communication interface; (see paragraphs 0017 and 0026-0027, Examiner’s note: receive images from a camera or from a search for a specific image from a query).
execute image analysis processing on the image information to identify content of the image from the user terminal; (see paragraph 0029 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: several objects that have been detected by an object detection engine).
acquire question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from the storage unit, the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image; generate candidate questions from the acquired question history information; cause the generated candidate questions to be displayed to a user of the user terminal in a selectable state on the display screen of the user terminal; receive a designation of a selected candidate question from the user terminal via a user input selection operation on the display screen of the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; (see paragraph 0027, 0029-0030, Examiner’s note: teaches selecting attributes based on previous user selections, further reference character 208 in Figure 2 shows a selection of selectable options for the user to perform a targeted search).
Acquire answer text corresponding to a candidate question selected by the user by inputting the selected question candidate as a prompt to a generative model functionalized to output answer text; and cause the acquired answer text to be provided to the user of the user terminal via the display screen of the user terminal. (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figure 2, Examiner’s note: teaches in response displaying related products and related to the user, as shown in Figure 2 which includes text answers).
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) 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0354609) further in view of Conwell (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2010/0046842).
As per claim 8, Huang teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire object information when the content of the image is an object; and include the acquired object information in the answer text (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3, Examiner’s note; shows information related to eyeglasses and purchases).
Huang does not expressly teach the specific object of a device including a device screen.
However, Conwell which is in the art of visual image search teaches the specific object of a device including a device screen (see paragraphs 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2, Examiner’s note: teaches one of the objects can be a device with a screen (see Figures 1+2 and paragraph 0010), further teaches providing manual information related to a searched device (see paragraph 0284)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang with the aforementioned teachings from Conwell with the motivation of providing a way to search for related information for another known object (see Conwell paragraphs s 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2), when Huang clearly teaches searching for related information for various detected objects in images is known (see Huang paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3)
As per claim 9, Huang teaches
wherein the object information includes related information. (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3, Examiner’s note; shows information related to eyeglasses and purchases).
Huang foes not expressly teach the specific object of a device and related information is an operation manual
However, Conwell which is in the art of visual image search teaches the specific object of a device and related information is an operation manual (see paragraphs 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2, Examiner’s note: teaches one of the objects can be a device with a screen (see Figures 1+2 and paragraph 0010), further teaches providing manual information related to a searched device (see paragraph 0284)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang in view of Conwell with the aforementioned teachings from Conwell with the motivation of providing a way to search for other known related information for another known object in an image (see Conwell paragraphs 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2), when Huang clearly teaches searching for related information for various detected objects in images is known (see Huang paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3).
As per claim 18, Huang teaches
further comprising: acquiring object information when the content of the image is an object; and including the acquired object information in the answer text. (see paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3, Examiner’s note; shows information related to eyeglasses and purchases).
Huang does not expressly teach the specific object of a device including a device screen.
However, Conwell which is in the art of visual image search teaches the specific object of a device including a device screen (see paragraphs 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2, Examiner’s note: teaches one of the objects can be a device with a screen (see Figures 1+2 and paragraph 0010), further teaches providing manual information related to a searched device (see paragraph 0284).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Huang with the aforementioned teachings from Conwell with the motivation of providing a way to search for related information for another known object (see Conwell paragraphs 0010, 0284, and Figures 1+2), when Huang clearly teaches searching for related information for various detected objects in images is known (see Huang paragraphs 0029-0030 and Figures 2-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0318405) teaches a system for identifying products in an image for shopping (see Figures 1-3)
Kannan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2011/0082735) teaches sending recommendations to a user based on an image match and a user may designate a portion of the image by drawing a circle (see Figure 4A and paragraph 0037)
Natesh et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,055,759) teaches providing recommendations based on user selection in an image (See Figure 1)
Kharabanda et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2024/0362279) teaches providing answers based on questions about images provided by a user taking a picture of a product (see paragraphs 0037, 0053, 0055)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights