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 .
The instant application having application number 19/249,095, filed on June 25, 2025, has claims 1-20 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12361053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 under examination are obvious, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference Patent. Every limitations in the instant application under examination claims are recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences or additional limitations between the claims are highlighted below by underlining and bolding all limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the independent claim 1, of the instant application to determining, by the computing system, the particular sub-portion of the one or more objects selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels and determining, by the computing system, the particular sub-portion of the image selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels and the one or more visual features. Note, such deviation would not interfere with the functionality of the claims that are already patented, and would achieve the same end result.
Please, see the comparison table below:
Instant Application 19249095
Patent No. 12361053
1. A computer-implemented method for free-form user selection of visual features for visual search, the method comprising: providing for display, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, an image that depicts one or more objects; processing, by the computing system, the image to determine one or more initial visual feature suggestions; providing, by the computing system, the one or more initial visual feature suggestions for display overlaid over the image; receiving, by the computing system and via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating, by the computing system, a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features; processing, by the computing system, the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing, by the computing system, one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
11. A computing system for free-form user selection of visual features for visual search, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: providing for display an image that depicts one or more objects; processing the image to determine one or more initial visual feature suggestions; providing the one or more initial visual feature suggestions for display overlaid over the image; receiving, via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features; processing the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: providing for display an image that depicts one or more objects; processing the image to determine one or more initial visual feature suggestions; providing the one or more initial visual feature suggestions for display overlaid over the image; receiving, via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features; processing the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
1. A computer-implemented method for free-form user selection of visual features for visual search, the method comprising: providing for display, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, an image that depicts one or more objects; receiving, by the computing system and via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating, by the computing system, a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features, wherein generating the visual query comprises: determining, by the computing system, the particular sub-portion of the one or more objects selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels; and determining, by the computing system, the particular sub-portion of the image selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels and the one or more visual features; processing, by the computing system, the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing, by the computing system, one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
11. A computing system for free-form user selection of visual features for visual search, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: providing for display an image that depicts one or more objects; receiving, via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features, wherein generating the visual query comprises: determining the particular sub-portion of the one or more objects selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels; and determining the particular sub-portion of the image selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels and the one or more visual features; processing the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
17. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: providing for display an image that depicts one or more objects; receiving, via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features, wherein generating the visual query comprises: determining the particular sub-portion of the one or more objects selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels; and determining the particular sub-portion of the image selected by the free-form user input based on the subset of pixels and the one or more visual features; processing the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing one or more of the set of visual search results for display.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The application claim 1 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 1; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 1 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 1 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
The application claim 11 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 11; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 11 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 11 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
The application claim 17 does not contain specific limitations as shown in the patent claim 17; however, according to In re Goodman, the application claim 17 is generic to the species of information covered by claim 17 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is anticipated by the species of the patented invention.
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 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for free-form user selection of visual features for visual search, the method comprising: providing for display, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, an image that depicts one or more objects; processing, by the computing system, the image to determine one or more initial visual feature suggestions; providing, by the computing system, the one or more initial visual feature suggestions for display overlaid over the image; receiving, by the computing system and via a user interface, a free-form user input to that selects a subset of pixels of the image; generating, by the computing system, a visual search query based on the image and the free-form user input, wherein the visual search query comprises a particular sub-portion of the image, wherein the particular sub-portion comprises one or more visual features; processing, by the computing system, the visual search query that comprises the particular sub-portion selected by the free-form user input to identify a set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image; and providing, by the computing system, one or more of the set of visual search results for display.” Which makes the claim directed to an abstract idea, namely selecting and analyzing visual information to perform a search, which falls within the category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, as it involves receiving an image, selecting a subset of pixels, and generating a query based on the selected portion.Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, including a “computing system,” “one or more processors,” and “user interface,” merely perform generic computer functions such as displaying, processing, receiving input, and providing results. These elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology, nor do they apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a technological environment.Step 2B
The claim does not include an inventive concept. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the field. The claim merely implements the abstract idea on a generic computer.Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent-eligible.
Same rationale applies to claims 11 and 17.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “obtaining, by the computing system, an initial visual query comprising the image from a user computing device.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “receiving, by the computing system, a selection of a user interface toggle to proceed with the visual; search query.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “before processing, by the computing system, the visual search query to identify the set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image: providing, by the computing system and with the user interface, the visual search query for display with an enlarged version of the particular sub-portion of the image.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “before receiving, by the computing system and via the user interface, the free-form user input to that selects the subset of pixels of the image: receiving, by the computing system and via the user interface, a selection of an input mode toggle button that places the user interface in a free-form user selection mode.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “before processing, by the computing system, the visual search query to identify the set of visual search results responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion of the image: providing, by the computing system and with the user interface, a swathe of translucent color to overlay on the particular sub-portion of the image.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the free-form input selects a plurality of sub- portions of the image.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the visual search query comprises the plurality of sub-portions of the image.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the one or more initial visual feature suggestions are provided for display with one or more visual indicators for detected objects.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitations of “before receiving, by the computing system and via the user interface, the free-form user input to that selects the subset of pixels of the image: providing, by the computing system and via the user interface, a pixelated grid structure for display.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 10 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the operations further comprise: processing the image with an object detector to detect one or more objects; and wherein the one or more initial visual feature suggestions are determined based on the one or more objects.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 13 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein receiving the free-form user input to the user interface further comprises: receiving a subset of pixels selected by the user from a plurality of pixels, wherein the image depicting one or more objects is divided into the plurality of pixels.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 14 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the operations are performed based at least in part with a visual search application.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 15 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the visual search application is a camera-first application that controls a camera of a user computing device.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 16 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the image is provided for display via a touch sensitive display device.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 18 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the free-form user input comprises a click and slide input in the shape of a circle.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 19 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the image is received and stored in a content cache.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 recites the same abstract idea of claim 11. The claim recites the additional limitations of “wherein the set of visual search results are responsive to visual features included in the particular sub-portion.” which is further elaborating on the abstract idea, and therefore it does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 1 to 20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached on (571)272-9784.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
April 17, 2026
/NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights