DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/8/2026.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 11 and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0093437, filed on 7/27/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “obtain at least one endorser image of an endorser having a high brand suitability…” The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered “high” to one person may not be considered “high” to another person. One cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of what would qualify as “high” and what would not. Thus, the claims are indefinite. The examiner recommends amending “high” to “highest” or possibly changing it to language that indicates it should exceed a threshold (if the original disclosure supports it). The remaining claims are rejected as they each depend from claim 10.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the predetermined endorser features correspond to weight values having a larger size among the plurality of weight values.” This limitation does not provide criteria for what qualifies as larger among the different weight values. In other words, “larger” than what? Larger than a specific value? Larger than 95% of the other values? The examiner cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of what constitutes as “larger” and thus the claim is indefinite. The examiner recommends amending to language that indicates what standard “larger” refers to (if the original disclosure supports it). The remaining claims are rejected as they each depend from claim 10.
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 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 10, 12-16, 18, and 19 are directed to a device. Claim 20 is directed to a method. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 10 and 20 recite virtually identical claim language. Claim 20 will be used as representative. Each claims additional elements will be addressed individually. The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 10, 20:
obtaining at least one content of a specific product, wherein the at least one content includes an image of the specific product;
obtaining product attribute information of the specific product based on the at least one content, wherein the product attribute information includes a product feature vector including a plurality of feature values respectively corresponding to a plurality of product features;
identifying a plurality of weight values based on the product feature vector and a reference matrix, wherein the reference matrix defines relationships between the plurality of product features and a plurality of endorser features;
obtaining endorser attribute information of each of a plurality of endorsers;
calculating a brand suitability of each of the plurality of endorsers based on the plurality of weight values and the endorser attribute information of each of the plurality of endorsers;
obtaining at least one endorser image of an endorser having a high brand suitability among the plurality of endorsers and predetermined endorser features among a plurality of features corresponding to the at least one endorser image, wherein the predetermined endorser features correspond to weight values having a larger size among the plurality of weight values;
obtaining endorser image recommendation information including the at least one endorser image and the predetermined endorser features; and
displaying a first display including the at least one endorser image and the predetermined endorser features based on the endorser image recommendation information.
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claim 12: wherein the predetermined endorser features correspond to a predetermined number of weight values among the plurality of weight values.
Claim 13: wherein the first display includes endorser feature values corresponding to the predetermined endorser features for each of the at least one endorser image.
Claim 14: wherein the first display further includes at least one other endorser image of an endorser of each endorser image included in the endorser image recommendation information.
Claim 15: provide a mediation interface with a first endorser of a first endorser image, if the first endorser image among the at least one endorser image displayed on the first display is selected.
Claim 16: wherein, if a first endorser image among the at least one endorser image displayed on the first display is selected, display a second display providing an image of the specific product, the selected first endorser image, and an advertisement image generated based on the image of the specific product and the selected first endorser image
Claim 18: update the reference matrix based on an advertisement performance corresponding to an advertisement image prepared based on the at least one endorser image
Claim 19: wherein the plurality of weight values are: identified, based on the specific product being a first product, based on the reference matrix and first product attribute information of the first product, and identified, based on the specific product being a second product, based on the reference matrix and second product attribute information of the second product; and wherein the first product attribute information and the second product attribute information are at least partially different.
The claims provide a manner of obtaining images of a product, obtaining attributes of the product including a product feature vector, identifying weight values of the product feature vector and a reference matrix, obtain endorser attribute information, calculate brand suitability for endorsers based on the weight values and the endorser attribute information, obtain endorser images of endorsers having high brand suitability, obtain endorser image recommendation information, and recommending an endorser image for the purpose of creating advertisements (spec [1], [4], [5]). Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Additionally, but for the inclusion of generic computing devices, a human analog would be able to obtain images of a product, obtain attributes of the product including a product feature vector, identify weight values of the product feature vector and a reference matrix, obtain endorser attribute information, calculate brand suitability for endorsers based on the weight values and the endorser attribute information, obtain endorser images of endorsers having high brand suitability, obtain endorser image recommendation information, and recommend an endorser image. Thus, the claims fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claims recite mathematical concepts. The claims include obtaining product feature vector, identifying weight values based on the product feature vector and a reference matrix, and calculating brand suitability based on the weight values and endorser attribute information.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: first screen (claims 10, 13-16, 20); electronic device comprising a display, a memory, and at least one processor (claim 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18); second screen (claim 16);
The electronic device comprising a display, a memory, and at least one processor is recited at a high level of generality and amount to “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing devices (spec [35], [172]). The computer merely sends and receives data (obtains, provide), processes data (identify, determine, calculate), and provides generic displaying (display). Nothing in the claims improves upon computers themselves, technology, or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The first and second screens merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment (i.e. on a computer). This is merely a digital display medium as opposed to paper or any other medium. Nothing in the claims improves upon screen technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online).
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18-20 are allowed over the prior art, however, remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
The examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references to teach each and every limitation in the context of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner was unable to find the combination of:
obtain product attribute information of the specific product based on the at least one content, wherein the product attribute information is based on includes a product feature vector including a plurality of feature values respectively corresponding to a plurality of product features;
identify a plurality of weight values based on the product feature vector and a reference matrix, wherein the reference matrix defines relationships between the plurality of product features and a plurality of endorser features;
obtain endorser attribute information of each of a plurality of endorsers;
calculate a brand suitability of each of the plurality of endorsers based on the plurality of weight values and the endorser attribute information of each of the plurality of endorsers;
The closest prior arts include:
Hewitt et al (US 2020/0111129) teaches receiving product data that identifies qualities or characteristics that should be associated with their product and brand. It identifies potential endorsers and analyzes their images to determine various features about them including things like fashion sense, athletic ability, hair, etc. Users with features that match the features of the product and brand are then selected for advertising campaigns.
Chopra et al (US 2021/0073267) teaches using a neural network to identify digital attributes from multiple attribute groups within target digital images. The cognitive attribute classification system can generate tags based on attributes of an object portrayed in a digital image. It can identify various features of a product. For example, with regard to an example digital image that portrays a shirt, the attribute group the attribute group classifier can predict attributes of the example attribute group of collar type (e.g., straight point, semi spread, cutaway, spread, etc.); another attribute group classifier can predict attributes of the example attribute group of sleeve type (e.g., long sleeve, elbow sleeve, short sleeve, tank top, etc.); yet another attribute group classifier can predict attributes of the example attribute group of pocket type; still another attribute group classifier can predict attributes of the example attribute group of texture type; another attribute group classifier can predict attributes of the example attribute group of neckline type (e.g., v-neck, crew, scoop, etc.); and so forth.)
Saxena et al (US 11,245,966) teaches the networking system searches a local storage (e.g., a camera roll) of a client device and determines engagement scores for images (or other user-generated digital content items) within the local storage that predict user-engagement with the images of the local storage. The networking system can further generate a creation insight including an identification of one or more images from the local storage based on the associated engagement scores (e.g., having the highest engagement scores).
Berger et al (US 11,854,069) teaches analyzing images of a person for attributes, analyzes product attributes, and selects an image product pair used to generate an advertisement.
Khan et al (US 2021/0065236) teaches calculating a predicted match score for an influencer to pair with an advertising opportunity. When the score exceeds a threshold a prompt is provided to create a video advertisement.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered and finds persuasive applicant’s previous arguments regarding objections to the claims. As a result, such objections have been withdrawn.
The examiner has considered and finds persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding previous rejections under 35 USC 112. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn (new 112 rejections have been added based on the amended claims.)
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101. With regard to being directed to an abstract idea the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amendments merely add math to the claims which is part of the abstract idea. Further, a human analog either mentally or with pen and paper could analyze product feature vectors. Further, computational processes are merely part of the abstract idea and can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Simply because they require computation does not mean they cannot be done mentally. If applicant means that they must inherently be done by a computer the examiner disagrees. Humans are very capable of vectorizing data to perform mathematical computations. Further, a human is very capable of performing matrix multiplication to produce weight values or to produce comparative suitability rankings in the mind or with pen and paper. Nothing in the claims limits the data to something so complex that a human cannot perform the computations. Identifying the values with the highest weights is further merely part of the abstract idea and also could be done by a human.
Further, applicant’s claims are not similar to example 39. The present claims not only contain certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but also claim actual mathematical processes. Further, as claimed, the processes can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Applicants claims do not seek to improve facial recognition or any sort of image analysis techniques. Applicant is merely using image analysis on product data and endorser data to determine whether an endorser would be good for the product. The difference is example 39 is directed toward a technique for improving facial recognition and applicants invention merely uses a mathematical process to select an endorser for advertising purposes.
With regard to McRO the examiner respectfully disagrees. McRO recited a set of rules that would not be done the same way by a human. In other words, the rules of McRO only existed for the purpose of getting a computing device to perform a particular task that would not be done the same way by a human. Conversely, the present claims merely recite a mathematical process for selecting an endorser. The rules are not unique to getting a computer to do a task that would be done differently by a human. The mathematical process of the present claims would be done the same way by human with or without a computer.
Regarding step 2A prong 2 the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not even mention additional elements. All of the cited reasons are merely part of the abstract idea. With regard to the weight determining the content of the interface, the examiner finds this is nothing more than generic displaying. The mathematical process yields a result and then that result is just shown to the user. This in no way improves interface technology or a technical field. The claims recite little more than a generic computing device used to perform the calculations. Thus, any alleged improvement is to the abstract idea itself and not under lying technology or a technical field.
With regard to step 2B, again applicant conflates additional elements with the abstract idea. The mathematical computations cited by the applicant are not additional elements and merely part of the abstract idea. As indicated in the rejection, the only additional elements are a generic computer and generic display devices. Nothing in the claims improves upon computers themselves as the computer is used for little more than mathematical computation. The examiner has not indicated any of the additional elements were insignificant extra solution activity and thus whether they were well-understood, routine, and conventional are not relevant.
With regard to Bascom and example 36, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims provide not unconventional arrangement. They merely rely on a computer to perform mathematical computations. There is nothing unconventional about using a computer in this manner. In Bascom the unconventional arrangement provided a technical advantage with regard to filtering content. Using a computer to perform math provides no such technical advantage outside of the computer can perform the calculations faster than a human. However, in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (788 F.3d 1359, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) on page 8 of the written opinion it states that relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. The mathematical process for selecting endorsers in no way improves computers or computer technology.
As a result, the rejection has been maintained.
The examiner has considered and finds persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 103. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights