DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 5 June 2025 and the preliminary amendment filed 7 May 2026.
Claims 18-20 are new.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
This application claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/656757 filed on 6 June 2024. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of this prior filed application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 28 August 2025, 4 November 2025, and 23 April 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 not listed below are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recites “based on output of the product-based learning model inputting the pixel data.” The claims appears to literally require that the product-based learning model inputs the pixel data somewhere. However the structure of the claim would suggest that the product-based learning model receives the pixel data. As such, the meaning of the claim would be ambiguous to one of ordinary skill in the art, rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the claim will be requires as requiring the model receives the referenced data. Claim 1 uses similar language in conjunction with two other models. Claims 18-20 recite similar language and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claim 19, which is representative of claims 1 and 20, recites a digital imaging and artificial intelligence (AI)-based method configured to analyze product images and make product recommendations, the digital imaging and AI-based method comprising:
obtaining,
detecting, input the
obtaining,
predicting,
recommending,
outputting, .
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of analyzing image data and user information to recommend products and/or routines to a user. This concept describes a mental process that a sale person should follow to provide custom product recommendations, similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people sub-grouping of methods of organizing human activity. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, this concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “evaluation”, and “judgement” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Further, this concept as claimed does not require a scale of data beyond the mental faculties of a human being and the operations of the abstract idea can be practically performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations are determined to recite a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of one or more processors and an application configured to execute on the one or more processors. Claim 19 recites the additional element of an application executing on one or more processors. Claim 20 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which causes an image application (app) to perform steps. These additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality and are interpreted as a generic computing device. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite various learning models which are trained. At the level of generality with which these additional elements are claimed, these additional elements amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea with a computing device. As already noted, such an additional element does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of pixel data captured by an imaging device. This additional element does not impose any meaningful limit and only amounts to necessary data gathering. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require a particular machine, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional element do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of pixel data captured by an imaging device. However, Misawa demonstrates (An image sensor of a conventional digital camera has a relatively small number of pixels such as 640.times.480 See at least Column 1 Lines 15-16) that such data was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. This indicates that this additional element was conventional and thus further reinforces the determination that this additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require a particular machine, do not effect a transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, the combination of additional elements only generally links the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 further describe the abstract idea, but these claims continue to recite an abstract idea. Dependent claim 2-17 recites no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons given above. As such these claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. At Step 2B, the previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons given above. Because dependent claims 2-17 are directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, these dependent claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claim 18 further describes the processor as being a server processor of a server, the server performing steps of the abstract idea. This additional element continues to amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device at both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the previously identified additional elements, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Martinez Vazquez et al. (US 2021/00891998 A1) discusses determining risks associated with recognized products based on user profile information.
De Vries et al. (US 20230170065 A1) discusses determining a recommendation based on a patient risk.
Nakagawa (US 2025/0209509 A1) discusses an AR system that recognizes products in a user’s view and provides alternate recommendations.
Zhu et al. (US 2023/0089850 A1) discusses providing alternate product recommendations based on a user’s goals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-07-29
Prosecution Insights