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 .
Priority
This application claims priority as a CON of US Application No. 19/957,996 filed 9/30/2022.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites:
generate content that depicts a user with the good or service at the destination including adjusting a visual property of the content based on the one or more travel parameters by applying a visual edit that includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect to the synthetic digital content.
This subject matter above does not conform to the disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed in paragraphs 0015 and 0033, travel parameters that are usable in generating the include one or more of a search radius around the destination, a time range such as times of the day and/or days of the week/month/year, style preferences, one or more themes, and/or a selection of particular individuals to visit the destination. This is also echoed by claim 2.
Paragraph 0049 discloses that visual effects are applied based on a variable condition, such as the positioning of the sun in a scene. Para 0049 provides minimal detail concerning how the visual effects are applied, relying on known types of effects, though the paragraph provides a more detailed example of how a shadow effect may be applied by describing simulation of the sun as a light source to create shadow. There is no correlation between this description and the claimed “travel parameters” discussed above. Moreover, paragraph 0049 does not provide sufficient disclosure so as to demonstrate that Applicant possesses the claimed limitation of generate content that depicts a user with the good or service at the destination including adjusting a visual property of the content based on the one or more travel parameters by applying a visual edit that includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect to the synthetic digital content. Even assuming 0049 provides sufficient disclosure for adjusting visual properties based on a variable condition or development, the variable condition/development (discussed in e.g., 0032, 0051) is distinct from the travel parameters themselves.
Accordingly as originally filed, the disclosure does not adequately describe how adjusting a visual property by applying a visual edit based on the one or more travel parameters is accomplished.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, dependent claims 2-9 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claims 10-16 (method) and claims 17-20 (system), claims 10-16 and 17-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-9, including adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content based on the one or more travel parameters by applying a visual edit to the synthetic digital content, such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 10-16 and 17-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13 and 19 specifically, claim 13 and 19 each require the lighting effect based on the one or more travel parameters and a relative position and intensity of a light source in the synthetic digital content. While 0049 may provide an example of a lighting effect (e.g., shadow) that replicate the sun as a light source overhead, similar to the above this does not demonstrate how one or more travel parameters are used in applying the lighting effect.
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 (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a device to:
receive an input that includes a destination and one or more travel parameters
generate a recommendation for a good or service based on the destination and the one or more travel parameters;
generate content that depicts a user with the good or service at the destination including adjusting a visual property of the content based on the one or more travel parameters by applying a visual edit that includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect to the synthetic digital content; and
output the recommendation by displaying the content with the adjusted visual property.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions and/or fundamental economic principals or practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because the limitations above set forth or describe personalizing product recommendations for a travel itinerary. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a client device, comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory,
an application of the client device,
synthetic digital content, and,
a user interface of the client device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). That is, the recited memory, at least one processor, application, and user interface are merely used as tools to perform the recommendation of products based on itinerary, and act only as mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on these generic computing components. This is true even in view of applying a visual edit or effect, which merely automates a manual process that could be performed using a physical aid (such as pen and paper) using a generic computer. Further, additional elements such as synthetic digital content do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as digital environments).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea), and do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception (abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as digital environments). Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, dependent claims 2-9 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-9 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-9 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Further additional elements such as digital content, social media platforms, web scraping and image recognition techniques (e.g., in claims 3-4, 8) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-9 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims amount to no more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea), and do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception (abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 10-16 (method) and claims 17-20 (system), claims 10-16 and 17-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 10-16 and 17-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
With specific regarding to claim 13 and claim 19, the lighting effect as claimed incurs similar analysis as the visual effect of claim 1. That is, the Examiner reiterates that these claims are little more than “apply it” because they merely automate a manual process that could be performed using a physical aid (such as pen and paper) using a generic computer, and ultimately represent nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 5-7, 9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (US 2021/0065274 A1) in view of Smith (US 2012/0221418) and Berkovich (US 2014/0160155).
Regarding claim 1, Castinado discloses a client device, comprising:
at least one memory (see: 0007, 0026, 0030, Fig. 1 (115A-C, 100)); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to cause the client device to (see: 0007, 0030, Fig. 1 (115A-C, 155)):
receive an input that includes a destination (e.g., future location, vacation destination) and one or more travel parameters (e.g., future date, purchase history, style – see also claim 2 below) detected by an application of the client device (see: 0031-0032, 0043, 0046, Fig. 4 (405));
generate a recommendation for a good or service based on the destination and the one or more travel parameters (see: 0020, 0046, 0062, Fig. 4);
output the recommendation in a user interface of the client device (see: 0020 (present recommendations of products top the user), 0022 (messages include links to online retailers), 0030 (send recommendations as a message), 0062 (send a recommendation of the product, including details of the product), Fig. 4 (435)).
Though disclosing the above including a device that generates recommendations and providing digital content (e.g., in the form of messages having product details and/or links), Castinado does not disclose the device configured to:
generate synthetic digital content that depicts a user of the client device with the good or service at the destination based on the one or more travel parameters
output the recommendation by displaying the synthetic digital
In the field of product advertisement and recommendations, Smith teaches the known technique of generate synthetic digital content that depicts a user of the client device with the good or service at the destination based on the one or more travel parameters and output the recommendation by displaying the synthetic digital content (see: Fig. 15 #1505, Fig. 16 (1605, “London”), 0076, 0054 (a preview of their family on vacation in Hawaii in a beach scene, or a preview of the family in matching pajamas, or a preview of the family sitting outside of their new home, or a preview of a family member in ski wear and goggles/sunglasses at a ski resort), 0100)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado to have utilized the known technique of depicting items on a user at a destination as taught by Smith in order to have utilized background imagery to have enhanced targeted marketing capabilities of Castinado (see: Smith: 0076).
Lastly, the combination of Castinado in view of Smith does not teach that generating the synthetic digital content includes:
adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content by applying a visual edit that includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect to the synthetic digital content; and
output the synthetic digital content with the adjusted visual property.
To this accord, Berkovich teaches a device to generate synthetic digital content by adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content based on the one or more travel parameters (e.g., one or more individuals) by applying a visual edit that includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect to the synthetic digital content (see: 0044-0046, Fig. 1 (160-180), Fig. 2 (310), Fig. 14, Fig. 17) and output the synthetic digital content with the adjusted visual property (see: Fig. 1 (180)(, Fig. 15 (700, 702), 0060). Notably, Berkovich teaches an insertion object (e.g., user 310, 652, 700) is inserted into scene in such a way that a shadow (e.g., 652, 752) of the insertion object is formed in the scene, but also performs alternative visual processing (e.g., rescaling, transparency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Smith to have applied the known technique for adjusting visual properties of an image, as taught by Berkovich, in order to have created a better illusion of the user within a destination depicted in the synthetic digital content of Castinado in view of Smith (see: Berkovich: 0001, 0060), thereby improving the device of Castinado in view of Smith.
2. The client device of claim 1, wherein the one or more travel parameters include a time to visit the destination (e.g., Castinado: date), a search radius around the destination, one or more individuals to visit the destination (e.g., Smith: user or family), or style preferences of the one or more individuals (e.g., purchase history, user style) (see: Castinado: 0032, 0046; Smith: Fig. 15 #1505, Fig. 16 (1601)), 0054 (a preview of their family on vacation in Hawaii in a beach scene, or a preview of the family in matching pajamas, or a preview of the family sitting outside of their new home, or a preview of a family member in ski wear and goggles/sunglasses at a ski resort), 0076, 0100)).
5. The client device of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is generated based on a theme and includes one or more clothing items or accessories in accordance with the theme (see: Castinado: 0046, 0062; Smith: 0054, 0076, Fig. 15-16).
6. The client device of claim 1, wherein the recommendation further includes a purchasing option to acquire the good or service (see: Castinado: Fig. 4 (435), 0047 (link to purchase a product directly), 0062-0063 (link to purchase)).
7. The client device of claim 1, wherein the synthetic digital content is generated based in part on one or more of a weather forecast, a detected event at the destination, or a local mandate associated with the destination (see: Castinado: 0034, 0042, 0053 ; Smith: Fig. 15-16, 0054, 0076).
Note: Castinado teaches that recommendations are partially based on a weather forecast, while Smith teaches the recommendations including synthetic digital content.
9. The client device of claim 1, wherein adjusting the visual property includes adjusting a sizing, location, positioning, contrast, exposure, lighting, or resolution of one or more portions of the synthetic digital content (see: Berkovich: 0044 (rescaling), 0061 (position or lightness)).
Regarding claims 17-18 (system), claims 17-18 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-2 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 17-18 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (US 2021/0065274 A1) in view of Smith (US 2012/0221418) and Berkovich (US 2014/0160155) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chu (US 2019/0188773).
Regarding claim 3, Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich teaches all of the above but does not teach where to generate the recommendation for the good or service includes collecting product data that includes digital content associated with the destination, and the recommendation is generated based in part on identifying goods or services included in the digital content associated with the destination.
Also in the field of destination-based recommendations, Chu teaches a recommendation system that generates recommendations by:
collecting product data that includes digital content (e.g., images, such as those including the user and/or a crowd) associated with the destination (e.g., a destination) (see: Fig. 1 (122, 124, 134), 0014, 0037, 0078, 0091), wherein the recommendation is generated based in part on identifying goods or services included in the digital content associated with the destination (see: Fig. 1B (136), 0028, Fig. 5 (510, 518), Fig. 6 (136), 0074-0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich to have applied the known technique for collecting and using digital content to make recommendations as taught by Chu in order to have made it easier for a user to determine what clothing to wear on a date at a destination location the user has not visited, at a destination the user has only visited during a different season of the year, or a destination that they have previously experienced but is experiencing a substantial change in weather at that destination on that date (see: Chu: 0056-0057).
20. The system of claim 17, wherein generating the recommendation includes receiving digital content that depicts the user and digital images associated with the destination (see: Chu: Fig. 1 (122, 124, 134), 0014, 0037, 0078, 0091), processing the digital content that depicts the user by a clothing image detection model configured to identify goods or services within instances of digital content to extrapolate one or more user preferences of the user (see: Chu: Fig. 1 (122, 124, 134), 0014, 0037, 0078, 0091), and filtering the digital images associated with the destination based on the one or more user preferences (see: Chu: Fig. 1B (136), 0028, Fig. 5 (510, 518), Fig. 6 (136), 0074-0075).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Smith, Berkovich and Chu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PTO form 892-U (herein 892U).
Regarding claim 4, Castinado in view of Smith, Berkovich and Chu teaches all the above but does not teach wherein the digital content is collected from one or more social media platforms using web scraping techniques. Castinado recognizes the use of social media (e.g., 0003, 0017), and using web scraping techniques on social media platforms was notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, 892U discloses the well-known technique of utilizing web scraping techniques to collect information from one or more social media platforms (see: Annotations in abstract, p. 2-3, p. 6, and Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Smith, Berkovich and Chu to have utilized the known web scraping technique of 892U in order to have provided a tool to monitor and analyze social media and web data and use this data as a new source of information (see: 892U: Abstract (annotation), p. 6 (annotations)).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Codella (US 2018/0349977).
Regarding claim 8, Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich teaches all the above including wherein the recommendation is generated based in part on the style preferences associated with the user (see: Castinado: 0046; Smith: 0054). The combination, however, does not teach the client device further configured to receive digital content that depicts the user and implement one or more image recognition techniques to identify style preferences associated with the user.
In the field of product recommendations, Codella teaches a recommendation system configured to receive digital content that depicts the user and implement one or more image recognition techniques to identify style preferences associated with the user (see: 0010 (sense of style based on images posted to social media, which is used to select products for recommendation), 0031 (image processing on photos or images posted to social media), 0032 (preferred styles, favorite brands, social media photos) & 0049 (image processing on photos or images posted to social media)). Notably, the recommendations of Codella generated based in part on the style preferences (see: Fig. 2 (214), 0010, 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich to have utilized the known for receiving content depicting the user, as taught by Codella, to generate the recommendations of Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich in order to have more accurately determined user preferences, styles and other information that could have been used to select products for recommendation and thus presented products that would have better appealed to users (see: Codella: 0010).
Claim 10-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado (US 2021/0065274 A1) in view of Leonard (US 2015/0186977), Smith (US 2012/0221418) and Berkovich (US 2014/0160155).
Regarding claim 10, Castinado discloses a method performed by a client device, comprising:
receiving an input that includes a destination and one or more travel parameters detected by an application of the client device (see: 0031-0032, 0043, 0046, Fig. 4 (405 – location and date));
generating a recommendation for a good or service based on the product data and the one or more travel parameters (see: 0020, 0046, 0062, Fig. 4);
outputting the recommendation in a user interface of the client device (see: 0020 (present recommendations of products top the user), 0022 (messages include links to online retailers), 0030 (send recommendations as a message), 0062 (send a recommendation of the product, including details of the product), Fig. 4 (435)).
Though disclosing the above, Castinado does not teach collecting product data including digital content depicting the destination.
Also in the field of destination-based recommendations, Leonard teaches a recommendation system that generates recommendations by collecting product data including digital content depicting a destination (see: 0027 (destination data includes images, data associated with image, and social network data), 0028 (extract destination characteristic from destination data, destination characteristics can indicate that a particular style or cut of jeans are popular in an area surrounding the destination geolocation), 0048 (current listings, purchase histories, and images (including images with a geotag within a distance of a destination)), 0065 (destination image is associated with a particular piece of apparel)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado to have applied the known technique for collecting and using digital content to make recommendations as taught by Leonard in order to have leveraged data collected specific to unique environments to provide the recommendations of Castinado, thereby preventing visitors from other regions from standing out as non-congruent with local style while also avoiding visitors that are ill equipped to deal with the region's environment (see: Leonard: 0003).
Additionally, despite teaching generating and providing recommendations Castinado does not generating synthetic digital content that depicts a user of the client device with the good or service at the destination including adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content based on the one or more travel parameters and
outputting the recommendation by displaying the synthetic digital content with the adjusted visual property.
In the field of product advertisement and recommendations, Smith teaches the known technique of generating synthetic digital content that depicts a user of the client device with the good or service at the destination including adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content based on the one or more travel parameters and outputting the recommendation by displaying the synthetic digital content (see: Fig. 15 #1505, Fig. 16 (1605, “London”), 0076, 0054 (a preview of their family on vacation in Hawaii in a beach scene, or a preview of the family in matching pajamas, or a preview of the family sitting outside of their new home, or a preview of a family member in ski wear and goggles/sunglasses at a ski resort), 0100)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Leonard to have utilized the known technique of depicting items on a user at a destination as taught by Smith in order to have utilized background imagery to have enhanced targeted marketing capabilities of Castinado (see: Smith: 0076).
Lastly, the combination of Castinado in view of Chu and Smith does not teach that generating the synthetic digital content includes adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content by applying a visual edit to the synthetic digital content; and
output the synthetic digital content with the adjusted visual property.
To this accord, Berkovich teaches a device to generate synthetic digital content by adjusting a visual property of the synthetic digital content based on the one or more travel parameters (e.g., one or more individuals) by applying a visual edit to the synthetic digital content (see: 0044-0046, Fig. 1 (160-180), Fig. 2 (310), Fig. 14, Fig. 17), and,
output the synthetic digital content with the adjusted visual property (see: Fig. 1 (180), Fig. 15 (700, 702), 0060). Notably, Berkovich teaches an insertion object (e.g., user 310, 652, 700) is inserted into scene in such a way that a shadow (e.g., 652, 752) of the insertion object is formed in the scene, but also performs alternative visual processing (e.g., rescaling, transparency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Leonard and Smith to have applied the known technique for adjusting visual properties of an image, as taught by Berkovich, in order to have created a better illusion of the user within a destination depicted in the synthetic digital content of Castinado in view of Smith (see: Berkovich: 0001, 0060), thereby improving the device of Castinado in view of Leonard and Smith.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising filtering the product data based on the one or more travel parameters, the one or more travel parameters including a time to visit the destination (e.g., Castinado: date), a search radius around the destination, one or more individuals to visit the destination (e.g., Smith: user or family), or style preferences of the one or more individuals (e.g., purchase history, user style) (see: Castinado: 0032, 0046; Smith: Fig. 15 #1505, Fig. 16 (1601)), 0054 (a preview of their family on vacation in Hawaii in a beach scene, or a preview of the family in matching pajamas, or a preview of the family sitting outside of their new home, or a preview of a family member in ski wear and goggles/sunglasses at a ski resort), 0076, 0100)).
12. The method of claim 10, wherein the visual edit includes one or more of a shadow, filter, or blend effect (see: Berkovich: 0044-0046, Fig. 1 (160-180), Fig. 2 (310), Fig. 14, Fig. 17).
14. The method of claim 10, wherein the recommendation is based in part on a prevalence of goods or services included in the digital content depicting the destination (see: Leonard: 0028 (extract destination characteristic from destination data, destination characteristics can indicate that a particular style or cut of jeans are popular in an area surrounding the destination geolocation), 0057 (destination characteristic indicates popularity of a particular piece of apparel based on trends indicated by social media data included in the destination data (e.g., numerous social media posts associated with a particular piece of apparel for users near the destination geolocation)), 0065 (destination image is associated with a particular piece of apparel)).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2011/0234631).
Regarding claim 13, Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich teaches all the above but does not teach wherein the visual edit includes a lighting effect applied to the synthetic digital content, the lighting effect based on the one or more travel parameters and a relative position and intensity of a light source in the synthetic digital content.
In the field of image generation, Klim teaches an augmented reality device that applies a lighting effect to digital content, the lighting effect based on the one or more travel parameters (e.g., time and date) and a relative position and intensity (e.g., direction and intensity) of a light source in the synthetic digital content (see: 0017, 0040, 0042, 0054-0055, Fig. 6 (64), Fig. 8 (810, 820, 825, 840-845).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich to have utilized the known shadowing technique as taught by Kim in order to have seamlessly integrated computer-generated data (images) into real-world scenes in a manner that breathed realism into the virtual images (see: Kim: 0001, 0018).
Claim 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Novak (US 2021/0326913).
Regarding claim 15, Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich teaches all the above but does not teach wherein generating the recommendation includes generating a product recommendation score that indicates a likelihood of conversion by the user of the client device for the good or service.
In the field o fashion recommendations, Novak teaches generating a product recommendation score that indicates a likelihood of conversion by the user of the client device for the good or service (see: 0031, 0034, 0083, Fig. 5 (501)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the manner of making recommendations taught by Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich to have utilized the known technique for calculating and applying product recommendation scores as taught by Novak in order to have enabled Castinado in view of Leonard, Smith and Berkovich to have used an overall likelihood to purchase or desirability prediction metric for each of the product options in order to have made a more informed selection for the user (see: Novak: 0034).
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the product recommendation score is based in part on one or more of social media statistics associated with the good or service, a product rating score associated with the good or service, or a correlation between the good or service and one or more style preferences of the user (see: Novak: 0027, 0034, 0096, Fig. 1 (104, 109), Fig. 5 (507)).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2011/0234631).
Regarding claim 19, Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich teaches all the above but does not teach wherein the visual edit includes a lighting effect applied to the synthetic digital content, the lighting effect based on the one or more travel parameters and a relative position and intensity of a light source in the synthetic digital content.
In the field of image generation, Klim teaches an augmented reality device that applies a lighting effect to digital content, the lighting effect based on the one or more travel parameters (e.g., time and date) and a relative position and intensity (e.g., direction and intensity) of a light source in the synthetic digital content (see: 0017, 0040, 0042, 0054-0055, Fig. 6 (64), Fig. 8 (810, 820, 825, 840-845).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Castinado in view of Smith and Berkovich to have utilized the known shadowing technique as taught by Kim in order to have seamlessly integrated computer-generated data (images) into real-world scenes in a manner that breathed realism into the virtual images (see: Kim: 0001, 0018).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Freund (US 2015/0058079) discloses a system and method for detecting marketable subjects (items and products) in a plurality of images posted to social media and determining the popularity of the marketable subjects (see: Fig. 2, Fig. 4, 0045, 0024).
Hasan (US 10,460,464) discloses a system that receives an itinerary including contextual information such as destination and initial packing recommendations, generating updated recommendations based on updated contextual information (e.g., forecasts) (see: col. 2 lines 65-col. 3 lines 7, col. 8 lines 38-56, col. 15 lines 51-55, Fig. 2, Fig. 6, Fig. 8).
Berger (US 2023/0020218) discloses searching a plurality of products to identify a first product that corresponds to the first pose of the first user depicted in the first image and that includes one or more attributes associated with the first fashion item, and modifying the first image to generate an advertisement that depicts the first user wearing the first product. An augmentation system that applies overlays, augmentations or visual effects (e.g., an image filter) (see: abstract, 0018, 0039, 0054-0057, Fig. 8, Fig. 10).
Chau (US 2010/0250581) discloses a system and method that provides a modified image in response to a request for a street level image at a particular location, wherein the previously captured image is modified to illustrate the current conditions at the requested location
Woolf (US 2023/0259695) discloses an object detection AI is trained to identify fashion objects within the image and extracting different types of objects. For a location application, the algorithm is trained to identify landmarks or location information appearing in the image. This allows the content selection platform to recognize the context of the image (see: 0131-0132, Fig. 5-7).
Rapoport (US 2014/0324843) discloses obtaining a set of images for a geographic location, determination a point in time that a user will be at the location, and depicting the location at the point in time (see: abstract, Fig. 1-4, Fig. 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights