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 .
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims re directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-10, is directed to a process. Additionally, the system, as claimed in claims 11-20, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of searching for products based on matching data. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of: executing search requests based on electronic tag matching, comprising:
Maintaining product data comprising a plurality of products, each product associated with a first entity,
Receiving input information associated with a first product;
Assigning to the first product a plurality of product tags based on the input information including an image of the product;
Generating from the image of the first product, a plurality of attributes corresponding to the first product;
Updating a tag universe including the plurality of product tags to include at least a subset of the plurality of attributes as new product tags corresponding to the first product;
Updating the product data to include the first product and the new product tags corresponding to the first product;
Receiving a query comprising at least one of an image or a text string;
Selecting from the updated tag universe a plurality of first tags for the query responsive to parsing the query;
Assigning to each first tag of the plurality of first tags, a respective weight based on a frequency count of a corresponding attribute;
Executing a search using respect8ive weights assigned to the plurality of first tags to identify the first product of the plurality of products responsive to matching the plurality of first tags to the new products tags of the first product;
Identifying the first entity associated with the first product; and
Providing for presentation responsive to the query, an identification of the first product and the first entity.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of searching for products based on matching data, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because maintaining product information on a plurality of products, receiving input information associated with a first product, assigning tags, generating first attributes, updating information, receiving a query, identifying candidate products and candidate entities, and providing the products/entities for presentation are commercial or legal interactions because they are sales activities.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as data structure(s), one or more processors, an inventory management system, one or more communication interfaces, plurality of third-party content servers, client device. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing identification of a product and entity) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component or merely use a generic server as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…’ad[d] nothing… that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573, U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: a device associated with one of the candidate first entities (claim 2, 3, 4). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5-10 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 11 recites the same abstract idea recited in representative claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites the additional elements of a memory comprising computer readable instructions. The additional elements in independent claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent clams 12-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-10. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-10, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 12-20 are also ineligible.
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, 5-11, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0180247) in view of Yoo (US 2021/0150605), and further in view of Guy et al. (US 2023/0011114).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Li discloses a method for executing search requests in data structures based on electronic tag matching (see at least paragraph [0049]-[0050] disclosing matching of tags from query, [0137] disclosing methods), comprising:
Maintaining, an inventory management system (See at least paragraph [0033] disclosing system), a product data structure comprising a plurality of products, each product associated with a first entity (See at least paragraph [0095] disclosing electronic product catalog with brand names associated with the products)
Receiving from a client device (See at least paragraph [0034]), a query comprising at least one of an image or a text sting (See at least paragraph [0034] disclosing interface allows user to submit query into search engine using client computing device, [0035] disclosing query includes word or phrase, [0336] disclosing query “where to by Samsung Galaxy S5 white LTW”)
Selecting from the updated tag universe, a plurality of first tags for the query responsive to parsing the query (See at least paragraph [0037] disclosing assigning tags to user’s query, including entity information such as brand, [0039]-[0041] disclosing generating tags for query such as brand, model, product type, and attributes, [0042] disclosing tag policy regarding how to determine what a tag is representing such as intent, merchant, location, question, etc., [0045] disclosing tag policy, [0057], [0118], [0131])
Executing a search to identify the first product of the plurality of products responsive to matching the plurality of first tags to one or more tags of the first product (See at least paragraph [0049]-[0050] disclosing match product to that of what user appears to be targeting in the query, keywords that match the tags associated with the query will be used for outputting results, [0067] disclosing keyword matching operation, [0117], [0131])
Identifying the first entity associated with the first product (See at least paragraph [0095]-[0096] disclosing brand dictionary to crawl through product catalog and extract brand names and determine from query if a brand name matches a brand in the brand dictionary in order to identify product, [0117])
Providing for presentation at the client device responsive to the query, an identification of the first product (See at least paragraph [0048] disclosing present result item in GUI, [0049]-[0050] disclosing search result page providing search result items, [0120] disclosing output result item to user in form of product page, digital advertisement, search result page, etc., [0131])
However, Li does not expressly provide for one or more processors, receiving, input information associated with a first product via one or more communication interfaces to at least one third party content server of a plurality of third-party content servers, assigning, by the one or more processors, to the first product, a plurality of product tags based on the input information including image of the product, generating, by the one or more processors, form the image of the first product, using an image recognition algorithm, a plurality of attributes corresponding to the first product, updating, by the one or more processors, a tag universe including the plurality of product tags maintained by the inventory management system to include at least a subset of the plurality of attributes as new product tags corresponding to the first product; and updating, by one or more processors, the product data structure to include the first product and the new product tags corresponding to the first product; and providing for presentation an identification of the one or more candidate products and the corresponding candidate first entities.
Yoo discloses one or more processors (Fig. 3), receiving, input information associated with a first product via one or more communication interfaces to at least one third party content server of a plurality of third-party content servers (See at least paragraph [0013] disclosing stores giving store information and product information to be stored in database of mall which generates keyword index document, [0053] disclosing store server,[0062] disclosing plurality of store servers, [0086] disclosing store data transceiver to communicate with shopping mall server to transmit and receive information, Fig. 4), assigning, by the one or more processors, to the first product, a plurality of product tags based on the input information including image of the product (see at least paragraph [0013] disclosing keyword information, [0017] disclosing product information includes product tag word and product image, [0020] disclosing tag words and keyword product information, [0021] disclosing extracting keywords), generating, by the one or more processors, form the image of the first product, using an image recognition algorithm, a plurality of attributes corresponding to the first product (See at least paragraph [0140] disclosing attributes such as tops, bottoms, swimsuits, etc., [0142]-[0143] disclosing obtain tag word for product matching product image specified in specific category such as one-piece dress tag word designation, [0134] disclosing obtain product images of product provided by a specific store, [0136] disclosing apply obtained product image for object detection and derive a tag word for a product, [0137] disclosing object detection using image based deep learning through a deep learning neural network), updating, by the one or more processors, a tag universe including the plurality of product tags maintained by the inventory management system to include at least a subset of the plurality of attributes as new product tags corresponding to the first product (See at least Fig. 4, paragraph [00136]-[00140] disclosing classifying based on derived tagged words, [0144] disclosing store derived keyword product information to corresponding keyword and store on database, [0198]); and updating, by one or more processors, the product data structure to include the first product and the new product tags corresponding to the first product (See Fig. 4, paragraph [00136]-[00140] disclosing classifying based on derived tagged words, [0144] disclosing store derived keyword product information to corresponding keyword and store on database, [0198]); and providing for presentation an identification of the one or more candidate products and the corresponding candidate first entities (See at least Fig. 8 disclosing product and store information in search results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li with the identified tags form an image, as taught by Yoo, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to detect tag words in order to generate more accurate keyword product information and improve performance of a product search result service through the keyword product information.
Neither Li nor Yoo expressly provide for assigning, by the one or more processors, to each first tag of the plurality of first tags, a respective weight based on a frequency count of a corresponding attribute; and executing a search using respective weights assigned to the plurality of first tags. However, Guy discloses assigning, by the one or more processors, to each first tag of the plurality of first tags, a respective weight based on a frequency count of a corresponding attribute; and executing a search using respective weights assigned to the plurality of first tags (Guy: see at least paragraph [0044], [0062], [0068] disclosing similarity information score above threshold, [0071] disclosing search query based on image similarity being of a higher weight and above higher threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Li discloses wherein selecting , the plurality of first tags comprises: responsive to the query including the text string, parsing the text string into keywords and matching the keywords to pre-defined keywords associated with the plurality of first tags (Li: see at least paragraph [0040]-[0041] disclosing semantically parsing query to determine different attribute tags such as “galaxy”, “Samsung”, “white” etc.)
However, neither Li nor Yoo expressly provide for responsive to the query including the image, assigning a pattern class to the image and mapping the pattern class to the plurality of the first tags.
Guy discloses for responsive to the query including the image, assigning a pattern class to the image and mapping the pattern class to the plurality of the first tags (Guy: see at least paragraph [0045] disclosing image searches include training dataset in order to recognize things such as pattern of item, [0074] disclosing determining aspect of pattern in image, [0127] disclosing determining image similarity based on intensity patterns within the images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the image searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, neither expressly provides for wherein selecting, the plurality of first tags comprises: using an object detection algorithm to identify one or more objects from the image; identifying a primary object from the image; determining a type of product corresponding to the primary object; identifying, using the product data structure, a plurality of attributes stored for candidate products that correspond to the determined type of product; and generating, for the primary object, a plurality of tags corresponding to the plurality of attributes responsive to identifying the plurality of attributes stored for candidate products.
Guy discloses wherein generating, by the one or more processors, the plurality of first tags according to the tag policy from the query comprises: using an object detection algorithm to identify one or more objects from the image (See at least paragraph [0088] disclosing object detection techniques to determine objects from search image); identifying a primary object from the image (See at least paragraph [0066] disclosing determining main object/product in image); determining a type of product corresponding to the primary object (See at least paragraph [0066] disclosing identifying product type of main object); identifying, using the product data structure, a plurality of attributes stored for candidate products that correspond to the determined type of product (See at least paragraph [0035], [0091], [0095] disclosing identifying attributes of products of that type); and generating, for the primary object, a plurality of tags corresponding to the plurality of attributes responsive to identifying the plurality of attributes stored for candidate products. (See at least paragraph [0030], [0031], [0035], [0045], [0067], [0091], [0093] disclosing generating labels (e.g., tags) for different aspects of the products).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the image searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Additionally, Guy discloses wherein the plurality of attributes includes a color of the product (See at least paragraph [0035]), a dimension of the product (See at least paragraph [0035]), and a time period associated with the product (See at least paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the image searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Additionally, Guy discloses wherein responsive to determining that the first object is a first product type, identifying a first plurality of attributes and responsive to determining that the first object is a second product type, identifying a second plurality of attributes different from the first plurality of attributes. (See at least paragraph [0030] disclosing image labeled based on category and then determine various aspects based on that, [0035] disclosing using relevancy corresponding to keyword tags such as that the item is kitchenware and other labels associated with the image, [0036], [0042] disclosing classify image according to one or more associated particular categories, [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the image searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Additionally, Guy discloses wherein the plurality of attributes are each assigned a weight to optimize a search process, wherein the weight is based on one of a unique number of different values for the attribute or a frequency count of the most common value for the attribute (See at least paragraph [0041], [0044], [0056], [0057], [0067], [0071] disclosing weighing various attributes int eh search to retrieve better results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo with the image searching techniques, as taught by Guy, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide effective search results listings for not only textual searches, but visually using image similarity techniques. See Guy: paragraph [0003]-[0006].
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Additionally, Li discloses wherein responsive to determining that the query is a text query, rearranging the query according to a standard format based on the words included in the text query (See at least paragraph [0036], [0037], [0040] disclosing following process to determine particular tags in smartphone in certain order such as first determining intent of user and then using multi-stage process to determine brand, etc.).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0180247) in view of Yoo (US 2021/0150605), further in view of Guy et al. (US 2023/0011114), and further in view of Mekala et al. (US 2014/0316941).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, the combination does not expressly provide for receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating automatic presentation without notification.
Mekala discloses receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating automatic presentation without notification (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing automatic mode for seller in order for their item listing to be presented to any of the decided zones/people.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo/Guy with the potential for notification with respect to presentation, as taught by Mekala, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to allow seller to better target potential buyers either manually or automatically. See Mekala paragraph [0027], [0060].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, the combination does not expressly provide for receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating automatic presentation with notification; and sending, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the device associated with the one of the first entity, a notification of the client device receiving the identification of the first product and the first entity.
Mekala discloses receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating automatic presentation with notification; (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing automatic mode for seller in order for their item listing to be presented to any of the decided zones/people.); and sending, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the device associated with the one of the first entity, a notification of the client device receiving the identification of the first product and the first entity. (See at least paragraph [0033] disclosing which potential buyers have access to item listings, [0060] disclosing notify seller of recommendation on who should be exposed the listing)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo/Guy with the potential for notification with respect to presentation, as taught by Mekala, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to allow seller to better target potential buyers either manually or automatically. See Mekala paragraph [0027], [0060].
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Li, Yoo, and Guy teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, the combination does not expressly provide for receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating seller confirmed notification; and sending, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the device associated with the first entity an input requesting approval of the client device receiving the identification of the first product and the first entity, wherein providing, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the client device responsive to the query, the identification of the first product and the first entity is responsive to receiving indication of the approval from the device associated with the first entity.
Mekala discloses receiving a notification generation selection from a device associated with the first entity, the notification generation selection indicating seller confirmed notification (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing seller to manually determine when to release the zones of the item listing); and sending, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the device associated with the first entity, an input requesting approval of the client device receiving the identification of the first product and the first entity, (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing seller in self-adjusting seller zone mode), wherein providing, by the one or more processors, for presentation at the client device responsive to the query, the identification of the first product and the first entity is responsive to receiving indication of the approval from the device associated with the first entity. (See at least paragraph [0060] disclosing present item listing to certain buyer in response to approval of that buyer’s zone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Li/Yoo/Guy with the potential for notification with respect to presentation, as taught by Mekala, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to allow seller to better target potential buyers either manually or automatically. See Mekala paragraph [0027], [0060].
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
NPL: "Recent developments of content-based image retrieval (CBIR)" (Li, X., Yang, J. and Ma, J., Recent developments of content-based image retrieval (CBIR), 2021, Neurocomputing, 452, pp.675-689.) disclosing using query image, retrieval database, and feature extraction from both to determine results to help user's find clothes.
Baird-Smith (US 2006/0224960) disclosing classification engine that receives item listing information form author/publisher/seller and generates a tagged item information form the tagged listing that includes different tags and stores them in the classification engine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights