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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
The following informalities have been identified.
Claim 1 the preamble recites a “platform”, while each of the dependent claims 2-5 recites “system”.
Claim 6 (page 2) 3rd line “cross-reference” should be “cross-referencing”.
Claim 12 1st line “identified logo” should be “identified ID”.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
1. A smart logo platform, comprising one or more computers with executable instructions that, when executed, cause the platform to:
(a) receive an image, video, or live feed from a camera of a mobile device;
(b) process the image, video, or live feed through a trained logo identification model to determine whether an identified logo is in the image, video, or live feed;
(c) identify a plurality of IDs associated with the identified logos in the image, video or live feed;
(d) cross-reference any identified IDs with a database, wherein the database comprises a plurality of IDs, a plurality of selectable initiators, and a plurality of content wherein each selectable initiator and content is associated with a specific ID;
(e) display the selectable initiator associated with any identified IDs to the mobile device; and
(f) display the content associated with any identified IDs to the mobile device when the selectable initiator is interacted with.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea of mental processes. In claim 1 elements (b)-(d) are recited at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. These concepts fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas, which is observation, evaluation and/or judgment. The limitations, interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and in consistent with the specification, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 1, items (a), (e) and (f) can be regarded as additional elements. These elements recite data gathering and output, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. Claim 1 further recites one or more computers. However, the one or more computers are merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Claim 1 further recites “a trained logo identification model”. The trained model is recited in high level such that it amounts to using a computer with generic machine learning model to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 1, items (a), (e) and (f) are regarded as additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities. Items (a), (e) and (f) recite data gathering and output, which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites, “where the selectable initiator associated with the identified ID is a deeplink that opens a messaging app on the mobile device when selected by a user”. These additional elements provide extra information of the selectable indicator. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the messaging app is prepopulated with a message that includes the content associated with the identified logo”. These additional elements provide extra information of the messaging app. These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the plurality of selectable initiators and the plurality of content is tailored to a plurality of metadata associated with the mobile device”. These additional elements recite mental processes without additional elements. Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the plurality of metadata includes current location of the mobile device, the date and time that an image, video, or live feed was received from the mobile device, and the frequency of a selectable initiator associated with a specific logo being interacted with on the mobile device”. These additional elements provide extra information of the metadata .These additional elements neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount it to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 6 as applied to claim 1. Claim 6 is the corresponding method claim with respect to apparatus claim 1, and recites similar steps as claim 1. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 7 as applied to claim 2. Claim 7 is the corresponding method claim with respect to apparatus claim 2, and recites similar limitations as claim 2. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 8 as applied to claim 3. Claim 8 is the corresponding method claim with respect to apparatus claim 3, and recites similar limitations as claim 3. Claim 8 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 9 as applied to claim 4. Claim 9 is the corresponding method claim with respect to apparatus claim 4, and recites similar limitations as claim 4. Claim 9 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 10 as applied to claim 5. Claim 10 is the corresponding method claim with respect to apparatus claim 5, which recites similar limitations as claim 5. Claim 10 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 11 as applied to claim 1. Claim 11 is the corresponding medium claim with respect to apparatus claim 1, and recites similar steps as claim 1. Claim 11 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 12 as applied to claim 2. Claim 12 is the corresponding medium claim with respect to apparatus claim 2, and recites similar limitations as claim 2. Claim 12 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 13 as applied to claim 3. Claim 13 is the corresponding medium claim with respect to apparatus claim 3, and recites similar limitations as claim 3. Claim 13 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 14 as applied to claim 4. Claim 14 is the corresponding medium claim with respect to apparatus claim 4, and recites similar limitations as claim 4. Claim 14 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to claim 15 as applied to claim 5. Claim 15 is the corresponding medium claim with respect to apparatus claim 5, which recites similar limitations as claim 5. Claim 15 is not eligible.
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) 1-3, 6-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennington et al. (US 20240095295 A1, hereafter Pennington), in view of Chao et al. (US 20190318408 A1, hereafter Chao).
As per claim 1, Pennington teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a smart logo platform (FIG. 2), comprising one or more computers (FIG. 2) with executable instructions (FIG. 2; para. [0012]) that, when executed, cause the platform to:
receive an image, video, or live feed from a camera of a mobile device (FIG. 3; para. [0012] “As shown in FIG. 3, the user uses the camera on the mobile device 200 to scan and capture images of text (e.g., trademark and slogan) 300, graphics (e.g., logo) 302, signage 304, or 3-dimensional (3-D) objects 306 …”);
process the image, video, or live feed through a trained logo identification model to determine whether an identified logo is in the image, video, or live feed (para. [0012] “The captured images are analyzed to determine whether they contain target text, logo, graphics, or 3D objects stored in the Quick Link database, as shown in block 106”; para. [0017] “Artificial intelligence, machine learning, Google Lens, and other techniques and applications may be used to search for and compare image contents”);
identify a plurality of Quick Link database even when the stored target images don't match up with the user's scanned image precisely by taking account of different angles, lighting, sizes, etc.”);
cross-reference any identified th row; para. [0017] “For example, if NIKE, the athletic wear company, wants Quick Link users to be able to scan an actual NIKE athletic shoe on someone's foot, to be able to automatically navigate to the NIKE website page selling that exact model of shoe, NIKE may upload images of multiple views (e.g., side, front, back, top, bottom, perspective views) of each shoe in its inventory as the target images in the Quick Link database”);
display the selectable initiator associated with any identified
display the content associated with any identified automatically navigates to a digital destination specified in the Quick Link database, such as its website, an online storefront where their merchandise is offered, its storefront in the metaverse, a video of its newest runway show, etc”).
Pennington teaches every limitation except for IDs associated with detected logos. Note Pennington matches detected logos in the database and uses the matched logos as IDs. IDs associated with detected logos, however, is not apparently available.
Chao in an analogous field discloses apparatuses and methods of providing real-time notifications on affordability and advisability of purchasing goods or services using augmented reality (Abstract). The method comprises obtaining visual data from a user device, detecting an object in the visual data, identifying a product identifier associated with the identified object based on the visual data, and generating, in response to determining the user’s attempt, recommendation data based on a product identifier associated with the object and an account associated with the user (FIG. 1; para. [0039]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pennington to incorporate the teaching of Chao to identify IDs associated with logos. Doing so would allow product information associated with the product identifier to be retrieved as suggested by Chao (para. [0039]).
As per claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, Pennington in view of Chao teaches where the selectable initiator associated with the identified ID is a deeplink that opens a messaging app on the mobile device when selected by a user (Pennington FIG. 7 “URL”; para. [0015] “Alternately, the Quick Link application may display a button that says “Cool Guy's Facebook” to enable the user to click on it to navigate to the FACEBOOK profile”).
As per claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Pennington in view of Chao teaches wherein the messaging app is prepopulated with a message that includes the content associated with the identified logo (Pennington para. [0015] “Alternately, the Quick Link application may display a button that says “Cool Guy's Facebook” to enable the user to click on it to navigate to the FACEBOOK profile”).
Claim 6, an independent method claim, recites steps corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore the recited steps of 6 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 1. Additionally, the rational and motivation to combine Pennington and Chao presented in claim 1 applicable to claim 6.
Claim 7, dependent upon claim 6, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore the recited limitations of 7 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 2.
Claim 8, dependent upon claim 7, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 3. Therefore the recited limitations of 8 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 3.
Claim 11, an independent medium claim, recites elements corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore the recited elements of 11 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding elements in claim 1. Additionally, the rational and motivation to combine Pennington and Chao presented in claim 1 is applicable to claim 11.
Claim 12, dependent upon claim 11, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore the recited limitations of 12 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 2
Claim 13, dependent upon claim 12, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 3. Therefore the recited limitations of 13 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 3
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennington et al. (US 20240095295 A1, hereafter Pennington), in view of Chao et al. (US 20190318408 A1, hereafter Chao), as applied above to claims 1, 6 and 11 respectively, and further in view of McGuire et al. (US 20250310591 A1, hereafter McGuire).
As per claim 4, Pennington in view of Chao does not teach the recited limitations.
McGuire in an analogous field discloses a method for selecting or otherwise obtaining customized visual indications or representations (Abstract; para. [0001]). Specifically, the method obtaining user data for a user, wherein the user data comprises or represents user activity and/or content metadata associated with user activity; obtaining metadata and/or one or more other properties associated with a plurality of visual indications associated with a content item; selecting one or more of the plurality of visual indications based on at least the user data and the visual indication metadata and/or the one or more other properties of the visual indication; displaying the selected one or more visual indications, for example, as part of a content selection interface (Fig. 1; para. [0004], [0103]-[0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Pennington and Chao to incorporate the teaching of McGuire to tailor selectable initiators and the plurality of content to a plurality of metadata associated with the mobile device. Doing so would allow user engagement data to be considered to obtain customized visual indications or representations as suggested by McGuire (para. [0066]-[0067]).
Claim 9, dependent upon claim 6, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 4. Therefore the recited limitations of 9 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao and McGuire in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 4.
Claim 14, dependent upon claim 11, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 4. Therefore the recited limitations of 14 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao and McGuire in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennington et al. (US 20240095295 A1, hereafter Pennington), in view of Chao et al. (US 20190318408 A1, hereafter Chao) and McGuire et al. (US 20250310591 A1, hereafter McGuire), as applied above to claims 4, 9 and 14 respectively, and further in view of Hanson et al. (US 20110074811 A1, hereafter Hanson).
As per claim 5, Pennington in view of Chao and McGuire teaches the plurality of metadata includes the frequency of a selectable initiator associated with a specific logo being interacted with on the mobile device (McGuire para. [0122] “… for example there may be individual data items for each individual relevant user action over the preceding 6 months or other predetermined or selected time period. For example each learn action (e.g. each time a user has watched or recorded a program at any time during the previous six months or other relevant time period) will have its own data item (e.g. table entry) in the user data”). Same motivation applied to claim 4 is applicable here.
Pennington in view of Chao and McGuire, however, does not teach the plurality of metadata includes current location of the mobile device, the date and time that an image, video, or live feed was received from the mobile device.
Hanson in an analogous field discloses a system for preparing and adjusting digital maps for laying out print products (e.g., books) for documenting e.g., travels and captured images (Abstract; para. [0001]). Specifically, data is collected and preserved on the portable mobile device that represents the location of the device as each image is captured. Similarly, an internal clock or a received timing signal (e.g., satellite based) may be used to provide the time and date that each image was captured. In some arrangements, such time and position data is embedded into the appropriate digital image for later retrieval and use. For example, such time and position information may be represented with metadata, or other type of information structure, which is associated with each captured image. See FIG. 1; para. [0017]-[0018].
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Pennington, Chao and McGuire to incorporate the teaching of Hanson to include in the plurality of metadata current location of the mobile device, the date and time that an image, video, or live feed was received from the mobile device. The motivation for such a treatment is to Doing so would allow a graphical presentation to be produced that allows the locations of the images to be quickly identified along with the traveled path as recognized by Hanson (para. [0020]).
Claim 10, dependent upon claim 9, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 5. Therefore the recited limitations of 10 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao, McGuire and Hanson in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 5.
Claim 15, dependent upon claim 14, recites limitations corresponding to limitations recited in claim 5. Therefore the recited limitations of 15 are mapped to Pennington in view of Chao, McGuire and Hanson in the same manner as corresponding limitations in claim 5.
Conclusion
Additionally, prior art Kim et al. (US 20100268604 A1) discloses a method and a system for detecting a logogram from a digital content, recognizing the detected logogram, and providing a user with a variety of information associated with the logogram. In detail, the method and the system acquire a plurality of logograms associated with digital content producers, store the acquired logograms in a logogram database, compare the detected logogram with the logograms stored in the logogram database, determine whether the detected logogram matches any one of the logograms stored in the logogram database, and provide information to the user viewing the digital content or information on the content distribution to the corresponding digital content producer based on the logogram if the detected logogram matches at least one specific logogram stored in the logogram database (Abstract; FIG. 1, 3 and 5; para. [0056]-[0064]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights