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 Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s submission of the priority document JP 2024-063352 on 12/3/2025 into the file wrapper is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 7-9, Applicant argues the 101 rejection. In particular Applicant argues Ex Parle Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Panel Review Panel Decision), recently revised sections of the MPEP to reflect the Ex Parle Desjardins decision, Applicant’s specification at paragraphs 0004-0005, and improvements to a computer, specifically AI.
The Examiner has carefully considered the above, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 AI prompts and thus such users may not be able to input questions to the AI 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.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states the claims must reflect the asserted improvement, cited herein:
“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.
….
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims do not reflect the asserted improvement, therefore the claims are not found to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Additionally with respect to Applicant’s arguments, “For example, nothing in Examiner Guidance permits a simple reading out of the tangible elements “ a communication interface,” “ storage unit, and “ a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit” from claim 1. Nor can it be ignored that claim 1 recites the “processor” (not a store clerk or the like) as expressly “configured to” perform various functions/actions/processes and the like.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here the Examiner was stating why the additional elements beyond the abstract idea do not amount to a practical application and or significantly more, as required by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test of MPEP 2106. Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 10-12, Applicant argues the prior art rejection. Specifically here Applicant argues that in the cited prior art of Christensen the user does not select any of the questions but instead at best answers the question and none of the questions are supplied as input into the generative model. Further Applicant argues that the prior art rejection appears to cover the reverse flow of the system asking user/customers questions about the image/product rather than the customer having a question to be asked of the system related to the image. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is true, there may be differences between the cited prior art and Applicant’s invention, such differences are not reflected in the claims. Specifically, providing the user with questions on an interface related to an inputted image, the users answering them, and those questions and answers being used to AI provide results like recommendations, as taught in the cited sections of 0024, 0042-0043, 0065, and claim 2 of Christensen read on the limitations of “cause the generated candidate questions to be displayed to a user of the user terminal in a selectable state; receive a selected candidate question from the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; 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.” The questions in Christensen are the broadly recited “selectable” as the user can choose to respond or provide input to the one or more questions as recited in the cited sections therefore they are selectable.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor. Claims 11-20 recite a process as the claims recite a method.
The claims 1-20 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 method 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 human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could bring in 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. A user could select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further a customer service representative could write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. Further as amended responses can be input (e.g. prompt) to rules (e.g., a model) to generate a response.
The additional elements that instead of this functions being done by a human or humans this is 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” 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 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.
Limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite 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 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” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could acquire merchandise information when the item is a merchandise 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.).
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 human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could provide a product that they are interested in to the customer representative that includes merchandise information. The additional element that this instead being acquired via the communication interface is detailed above in claim 1.
The additional element that this instead is being performed by a processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims recite human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could look into their memory to provide the corresponding information or look into a file cabinet or supply sheet to the find the information. 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. The additional element that this is being performed by the processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could say I’m looking for this specific product and point to a specific part of the image or picture. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claims recite human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could look at an image and analyze it to make a determination of what is included in the information. The additional element that this is being performed by the processor is detailed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims recite human activities a human or humans could perform specifically a human could ask questions about the user to provide corresponding text information in response to the user request related to the user. The additional elements that the user information is instead “device information” and the image is displayed on a “screen” rather than a tear out from a magazine or a photo print merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
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 recited in the claims applicant does not recite an improvement in a computer (for example the acquired device or screen), applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by an acquired device and the image is displayed on the screen merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 9, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could perform a manual operation by for example telling the customer service representative, hey look here this is what I’m interested in and point to a part of the photo. The additional element that the human instead of performing this with a back and forth face to face conversation with a human customer service representative performs this with a “device” merely results in apply it as discussed above in claim 1 and 8.
As per claim 10, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could store 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. 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 human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could bring in 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. A user could select which questions to respond to based on the information they are interested in and further a customer service representative could write down responses via text for example go to this part of the store, here’s my contact information, etc. Further as amended responses can be input (e.g. prompt) to rules (e.g., a model) to generate a response.
The additional elements that instead of being done by a human or humans this is being performed by a device (from a user terminal via a communication device), 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 or merely is instead determined via “storage unit” 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 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 limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by a device (from a user terminal via a communication device or terminal device), the image instead of coming from the user’s hand and being provided to the user is from/to a “user terminal via the communication interface” and “terminal device”, 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 or merely is instead determined via “storage unit” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could 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.).
As per claim 13, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could provide a product that they are interested in to the customer representative that includes merchandise information. 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 human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could look into their memory to provide the corresponding information or look into a file cabinet or supply sheet to the find the information. The additional element that this instead is being 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. A user could look in a file cabinet or a supply sheet to the find the information, which is in auxiliary memory device. The additional element that this instead is being from a storage unit is detailed above in claim 11.
As per claim 16, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could say I’m looking for this specific product and point to a specific part of the image or picture. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could look at an image and analyze it to make a determination of what is included in the information. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could ask questions about the user to provide corresponding text information in response to the user request related to the user. The additional elements that the user information is instead “device information” and the image is displayed on a “screen” rather than a tear out from a magazine or a photo print merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 11.
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 acquired device or screen), applicant is merely using the above to implement the abstract idea.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite being performed by an acquired device and the image is displayed on the screen merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could perform a manual operation by for example telling the customer service representative, hey look here this is what I’m interested in and point to a part of the photo. The additional element that the human instead of performing this with a back and forth face to face conversation with a human customer service representative performs this with a “device” merely results in apply it as discussed above in claim 11 and 18.
As per claim 20, the claims recite human activities a human or humans would perform specifically a human could store 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. The additional element that the storage is a storage unit r merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0114639) further in view of Shimaya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0376971).
As per claim 1, Christensen et al. teaches An information processing device for in-store customer shopping support, the device comprising: (see paragraphs 0034-0035, Examiner’s note: device with computer readable instructions of processing information).
a communication interface; (see paragraphs 0021-0024, Examiner’s note: interface where a user can provide and information).
a storage unit; (see paragraphs 0043-0044, Examiner’s note: storing information in memories for use in performing the AI operations).
and a processor connected to the communication interface and the storage unit, the processor configured to: (see paragraphs 0034-0035, Examiner’s note: device with computer readable instructions of processing information).
receive image information corresponding to an image from a user terminal via the communication interface; (see abstract and paragraphs 0021-0026, 0029 and 0039, Examiner’s note: receive information from a mobile device and provide to a server. Can receive information from one or more cameras).
execute image analysis processing on the image information to identify content of the image from the user terminal; (see paragraphs 0011, 0035, 0042, 0053, Examiner’s note: AI accelerator to provide additional recommendations).
acquire question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from the storage unit, 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 selected candidate question from the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; acquire answer 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; and cause the acquired answer to be provided to the user of the user terminal. (see paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065, and claim 2, Examiner’s note: teaches product data being stored in a data store (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Further teaches providing questions and answers in the interface (see paragraphs 0024, 0065, and claim 2)).
Christensen et al. doe not expressly teach (1) the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image and (2) the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstract and Figure 5) teaches(1) the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image and (see paragraph 0068, 0016-0017, 0167-0170, Examiner’s note: providing responses based on history)
(2) the response or answer being text(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing way for a user to more easily find the desired answer based on history (see Shimaya et al. paragraph 0167-0170) as well as providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 2, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: (see paragraphs 0035-0037, Examiner’s note: software running a computer to perform operations).
acquire merchandise information when the content of the image is a merchandise item; and include the acquired merchandise information in the answer (see paragraph 0029, 0031, and 0061, Examiner’s note: user can purchase item therefore it is merchandise)
While Christensen et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches providing a response to a user in an interface, Christensen et al. doe not expressly teach the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches the response or answer being text
(2) the response or answer being text(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 3, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired via the communication interface (see paragraphs 0021-0026, Examiner’s note: interface where a user can send and receive information).
As per claim 4, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired from the storage unit (see paragraphs 0042-0043, Examiner’s note: data store for storing information).
As per claim 5, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the storage unit is an auxiliary memory device (see paragraphs 0043-0044, Examiner’s note; data can be stored in a memory of the computing device or external to the computing device).
As per claim 8, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire device information when the content of the image is a device screen; and include the acquired device information in the answer (see paragraphs 0021-0026 and 0038, Examiner’s note: providing information additionally in related to other things on a user device like browsing history or opening and using an application. Teaches the user interface may have touchscreen).
While Christensen et al. teaches providing a response to a user in an interface, Christensen et al. doe not expressly teach the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches the response or answer being text
(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 9, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the device information includes an operation manual. (see paragraphs 0021-0026, Examiner’s note: providing information additionally in related to other things on a user device like browsing history or opening and using an application).
As per claim 10, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: (see paragraphs 0035-0037, Examiner’s note: software running a computer to perform operations).
Christensen et al. does not expressly teach store the selected question candidate and the answer text in correlation with each other in the storage unit as question history information.
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches store the selected question candidate and the answer text in correlation with each other in the storage unit as question history information(see paragraph 0061, 0068, 0078, 0016-0017, 0167-0170, Examiner’s note: providing responses based on history, where history is stored)
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing way for a user to more easily find the desired answer based on history (see Shimaya et al. paragraph 0167-0170), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 11, Christensen et al. teaches An information processing method for in-store customer shopping support, the method comprising: (see paragraphs 0009 and 0061, Examiners note: method for recommending using AI, further teaches a user can purchase an item).
receiving image information corresponding to an image from a user terminal via a communication interface; (see abstract and paragraphs 0021-0026, 0029 and 0039, Examiner’s note: receive information from a mobile device and provide to a server. Can receive information from one or more cameras).
executing image analysis processing on the image information to identify content of the image from the user terminal; (see paragraphs 0011, 0035, 0042, 0053, Examiner’s note: AI accelerator to provide additional recommendations).
acquiring question history information correlated to the identified content of the image from a storage unit, 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 selected candidate question from the user terminal, the selected candidate question being one of the generated candidate questions; acquiring answer 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; and causing the acquired answer to be provided to the user of the user terminal. (see paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065, and claim 2, Examiner’s note: teaches product data being stored in a data store (see paragraphs 0042-0043). Further teaches providing questions and answers in the interface (see paragraphs 0024, 0065, and claim 2)).
Christensen et al. does not expressly teach (1) the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image and (2) the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches(1) the question history information corresponding to previous user questions associated with the content of the image and (see paragraph 0068, 0016-0017, 0167-0170, Examiner’s note: providing responses based on history)
(2) the response or answer being text(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing way for a user to more easily find the desired answer based on history (see Shimaya et al. paragraph 0167-0170) as well as providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 12, Christensen et al. 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. (see paragraph 0029, 0031, and 0061, Examiner’s note: user can purchase item therefore it is merchandise)
While Christensen et al. teaches providing a response to a user in an interface, Christensen et al. does not expressly teach the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches the response or answer being text
(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 13, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired via the communication interface. (see paragraphs 0021-0026, Examiner’s note: interface where a user can send and receive information).
As per claim 14, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the merchandise information is acquired from the storage unit. (see paragraphs 0042-0043, Examiner’s note: data store for storing information).
As per claim 15, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the storage unit is an auxiliary memory device. (see paragraphs 0043-0044, Examiner’s note; data can be stored in a memory of the computing device or external to the computing device).
As per claim 18, Christensen et al. teaches
further comprising: acquiring device information when the content of the image is a device screen; and including the acquired device information in the answer (see paragraphs 0021-0026 and 0038, Examiner’s note: providing information additionally in related to other things on a user device like browsing history or opening and using an application. Teaches the user interface may have touchscreen).
While Christensen et al. teaches providing a response to a user in an interface, Christensen et al. does not expressly teach the response or answer being text
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) teaches the response or answer being text
(see Figure 6B, 3C, Examiner’s note: shows text responses).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to present a response (see Shimaya et al. Figure 6B, 3C), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
As per claim 19, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the device information includes an operation manual. (see paragraphs 0021-0026, Examiner’s note: providing information additionally in related to other things on a user device like browsing history or opening and using an application)
As per claim 20, Christensen et al. does not expressly teach further comprising: storing the selected question candidate and the answer text in correlation with each other in the storage unit as question history information.
However Shimaya et al. which is in the art of answering questions on a mobile device (see abstracta and Figure 5) 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 paragraph 0061, 0068, 0078, 0016-0017, 0167-0170, Examiner’s note: providing responses based on history, where history is stored)
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Shimaya et al. with the motivation of providing way for a user to more easily find the desired answer based on history (see Shimaya et al. paragraph 0167-0170), when presenting answers to questions and displaying responses to the user in an interface are known (see Christensen et al. paragraphs 0024, 0042-0043, 0065)
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0114639) further in view of Shimaya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0376971) further in view of Mei et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0294520).
As per claim 6, Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. does not expressly teach wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user.
However, Mei et al. which is in the art of image based search (see abstract) teaches wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user (see paragraphs 0029, 0058, 0090-0092, and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: coordinates of selection of parts of an image by a user to provide a result).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Mei et al. with the motivation of providing a way to look at a portion of an image for better targeted results (see Mei et al. paragraphs 0003, 0029, 0058, and 0090-0092), when providing results based on numerous user interests including an image is known (see Christensen et al. abstract and paragraphs 0021-0027)
As per claim 7, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the processor executes the image analysis processing on the image information to identify the content of the image. (see paragraphs 0011, 0035, 0042, 0053, Examiner’s note: AI accelerator to provide additional recommendations).
Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. does not expressly teach of the region of the image
However, Mei et al. which is in the art of image based search (see abstract) teaches of the region of the image(see paragraphs 0029, 0058, 0090-0092, and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: coordinates of selection of parts of an image by a user to provide a result).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. in view of Mei et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Mei et al. with the motivation of providing a way to look at a portion of an image for better targeted results (see Mei et al. paragraphs 0003, 0029, 0058, and 0090-0092), when providing results based on numerous user interests including an image is known (see Christensen et al. abstract and paragraphs 0021-0027)
As per claim 16, Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. does not expressly teach wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user.
However, Mei et al. which is in the art of image based search (see abstract) teaches wherein the image information includes coordinate information indicating a region in the image that has been designated by the user (see paragraphs 0029, 0058, 0090-0092, and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: coordinates of selection of parts of an image by a user to provide a result).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Mei et al. with the motivation of providing a way to look at a portion of an image for better targeted results (see Mei et al. paragraphs 0003, 0029, 0058, and 0090-0092), when providing results based on numerous user interests including an image is known (see Christensen et al. abstract and paragraphs 0021-0027)
As per claim 17, Christensen et al. teaches
wherein the image analysis processing on the image information to identifies the content of the image. (see paragraphs 0011, 0035, 0042, 0053, Examiner’s note: AI accelerator to provide additional recommendations).
Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. does not expressly teach of the region of the image
However, Mei et al. which is in the art of image based search (see abstract) teaches of the region of the image(see paragraphs 0029, 0058, 0090-0092, and Figure 1, Examiner’s note: coordinates of selection of parts of an image by a user to provide a result).
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 Christensen et al. in view of Shimaya et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Mei et al. with the motivation of providing a way to look at a portion of an image for better targeted results (see Mei et al. paragraphs 0003, 0029, 0058, and 0090-0092), when providing results based on numerous user interests including an image is known (see Christensen et al. abstract and paragraphs 0021-0027)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
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 7-3:30.
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