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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025, 04/28/2025, and 10/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The instant claims comprise software elements such as an interface and a product planner. To be statutory, the subject matter of a claim must be directed to one of the four subject matter categories including: process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Since the claims are not within one of the four categories, they are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 11 is/are directed to a method. Thus, claim 11 is within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claims recite:
classifying one or more search images searched for based on at least one of collected one or more keywords into one or more clusters;
receiving a reference image selection input from a user for selecting at least one of the one or more search images classified into the one or more clusters;
receiving image editing prompt data from the user; and
outputting a product design image based on one or more images selected by the reference image selection input and the image editing prompt data.
Analyzing key words and images, receiving editing prompt and generating a product design relates to commercial interactions and therefore are categorized as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. While the claims include computing device elements, they are recited at a high level of generality. This nominal recitation does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claim 11 does not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 11 recites a computing device including one or more processors and a memory storing one or more programs to execute the method which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “classifies the collected one or more keywords into a major category keyword and a sub-category keyword according to a predetermined rule…”. The specification does not describe the criteria or rule used to classify keywords into a major category or sub-category. Paragraphs [0007] and [0031] merely restate the claim language without any additional description of how to perform the steps. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets claim 2 as relating to paragraphs [0032, 0033] wherein Applicant references keyword classification and ranking for generating search images.
Claim 3 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “receives input for at least one of a search platform, a search keyword, and a search period through the interface”, and the claim also recites “searches for an image from the search platform based on the search keyword and the search period to generate one or more search images” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stankiewicz et al, US 2024/0420216.
As per claim 1, Stankiewicz et al discloses an apparatus for supporting product planning, the apparatus comprising: an interface configured to input or output data; and a product planner connected to the interface wherein the product planner classifies one or more search images searched based on at least one of collected one or more keywords into one or more clusters ([0006, 0024, 0040-0041] – user interface to input text to facilitate image retrieval; [0035] – clustering operation on text description input by user), receives a reference image selection input from a user through the interface for selecting at least one of the one or more search images classified into the one or more clusters ([0035] – clustering images generated by a user to provide recommendations), receives image editing prompt data from the user through the interface ([0081] – user may elect to edit an image prior to executing a search), and outputs a product design image based on one or more images selected as the reference image selection input and the image editing prompt data ([0026, 0027, 0035] – AI image generation based on user text and image inputs).
As per claim 2, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the product planner classifies the collected one or more keywords into a major category keyword and a sub- category keyword according to a predetermined rule, and receives a user's keyword selection input for at least one of the major category keyword and the sub-category keyword through the interface and outputs a daily search amount based on the user's keyword selection input ([0021, 0035] – based on text input, attributes are analyzed and clustered to indicate that users are searching for items having certain attributes as part of generating recommendations and item image generation [0063] – the ranking tool uses data from the clustering, forecasting and purchasing data to rank attributes and clusters to rank items).
As per claim 3, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the product planner receives input for at least one of a search platform, a search keyword, and a search period through the interface ([0026-0033] - search engine to input image or textual data to retrieve stored images and/or generates an image), searches for an image from the search platform based on the search keyword and the search period to generate one or more search images ([0026-0033] - search engine to input image or textual data to retrieve stored images and/or generates an image), and classifies the one or more search images to generate one or more clusters ([0035] – clustering of images by extracting and analyzing image attributes).
As per claim 4, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the product planner receives input from the user about the number of clusters, determines a predetermined classification criterion according to the number of clusters, and generates clusters of the number of clusters based on the predetermined classification criterion determined according to the number of clusters ([0058, 0059, 0062, 0063] – a cluster of items with images that were selected by a user to submit to the search engine 108 may be ranked higher than a cluster of items that were further refined by the user; each cluster may be generated based on images and associated linked descriptions (e.g., full search strings), and those which are searched are associated with potential user interest, while intermediate images and related search strings may be clustered into groups of items indicating a lack of interest. As such, particular attributes may be further isolated as to their influence on desirability of a particular item design.
As per claim 11, Stankiewicz et al discloses a method for supporting product planning performed by a computing device including one or more processors and a memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising: classifying one or more search images searched based on at least one of collected one or more keywords into one or more clusters ([0006, 0024, 0040-0041] – user interface to input text to facilitate image retrieval; [0035] – clustering operation on text description input by user), receiving a reference image selection input from a user through the interface for selecting at least one of the one or more search images classified into the one or more clusters ([0035] – clustering images generated by a user to provide recommendations), receiving image editing prompt data from the user through the interface ([0081] – user may elect to edit an image prior to executing a search), and outputting a product design image based on one or more images selected as the reference image selection input and the image editing prompt data ([0026, 0027, 0035] – AI image generation based on user text and image inputs).
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) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankiewicz et al, US 2024/0420216, in view of Kataoka et al, US 2025/0086689.
As per claim 5, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the product planner estimates demand based on prediction input data including at least one of the product design image, product information, a distribution platform, a celebrity score, a social media score, a sales start date, and a sales price ([0061-0065], system estimates demand for items whether the item was purchased by the user to whom the item was recommended) but does not explicitly disclose estimating a sales quantity. Kataoka et al describes outputting a prediction of sales quantity for a product based on demand prediction [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Stankiewicz et al the ability to estimate sales quantity as taught by Kataoka et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, Stankiewicz et al fails to explicitly disclose while Kataoka et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the expected sales quantity is sales quantity data according to date ([0022, 0027] – sales quantity prediction is based on sales data of monthly sales quantity in the past). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Stankiewicz et al the ability to estimate sales quantity as taught by Kataoka et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the product planner searches for one or more similar products based on the prediction input data ([0028, 0030, 0031] – AI image generator searches for similar images and evaluates image similarity to the input image).
As per claim 8, Stankiewicz et al fails to disclose, while Kataoka et al discloses wherein the product planner extracts comparative input data corresponding to the prediction input data for the one or more similar products, and estimates the expected sales quantity based on the comparative input data for each of the one or more similar products ([0022, 0027 – sales quantity prediction is based on sales data of monthly sales quantity for similar product in the past). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Stankiewicz et al the ability to estimate sales quantity as taught by Kataoka et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, Stankiewicz et al fails to disclose, while Kataoka et al discloses wherein the product planner searches for actual sales data for the one or more similar products and outputs the actual sales data along with the estimated expected sales quantity for each of the one or more similar products ([0022, 0027] – actual past sales data along with predicted sale data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Stankiewicz et al the ability to estimate sales quantity as taught by Kataoka et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, Stankiewicz et al discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the product planner outputs comparative input data corresponding to the prediction input data for one or more similar products ([0028, 0030, 0031] – AI image generator searches for similar images and evaluates image similarity to the input image).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art is listed in the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625