DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on April 13, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 13 has been previously cancelled and amendments to claim 1 has been entered. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “…the claims require the device to "select and present decision related information associated with the one or more second users based on a ranking algorithm, wherein the decision related information includes one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions, wherein the one or more result information is based on a satisfaction indicator," which clearly does not fall within the aforementioned groupings of abstract ideas.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations that are directed toward managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, having at least one pre-existing association between the first user and the one or more second user and select and present decision related information associated with the one or more second users based on a ranking algorithm. Therefore the claims fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity category.
Applicant argues: “…the claims in the present application include one or more additional elements that extend beyond the judicial exception(s) and integrate the exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To the extent that a prompt may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a graphical user interface), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the prompting step is interpreted to include a graphical user interface, then this is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
This analysis is also applied to the ranking algorithm, which is a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, which the courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception. In the instant case the ranking algorithm is utilized as a tool to perform an existing process of selecting a response with the highest rank.
The same analysis is applied to the satisfaction indicator, which only provides whether a user is satisfied with the results of the decision, which is also a commonplace business method to allow users to provide an indication of satisfaction.
The prompt, ranking algorithm and satisfaction indicator, represent mere instructions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These additional elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is patent ineligible.
Furthermore, the additional elements fails to indicate an improvement in computer functionality. As stated above the claims recite limitations directed toward commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer.
Applicant argues: “…even if the Examiner concludes that the above-highlighted elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, they are indeed unconventional or otherwise more than what
is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, for at least the reason that the claim elements, individually and in combination, are not found in the prior art, as evidenced below.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed toward a system and method for providing a recommendation based on matched user attributes, or collaborative filtering to aid in decision making. The novelty of the invention is found through the combination of prior art references. One of ordinary skill within the art, would recognize through the combination of references the claimed invention. Additionally, the claims remain rejected under the current SME guidelines.
Applicant argues: “The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art and not based on applicant's disclosure. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed.Cir.1991).”
Examiner agrees in part. Although Ventilla does not explicitly disclose the newly amended limitations in claim 1, Ventilla is shown to teach other limitations that when combined read on the claimed invention.
Claim 1 as amended, is directed toward a user manually entering a query, and prompted to enter additional information associated with the query. As stated in the Applicant submitted Specifications:
[0053]… the first user may be asked to provide detail about the potential job, degree of study, additional relationship information, and/or any other additional information associated with the query or the first user.
[0055]… the additional personal information may be collected in any desired manner. For example, a variety of fields may be presented that are a function of the proposed question, such that the first user may be prompted to manually entered values for the fields, select options among proposed values, etc.
This describes a parent question and a child question. For example, a user may be asked if they are a lawyer, if answered yes, the child question would be at what law firm. This line of questioning would help determine one or more second users associated with a first user based on the specificity of the question. Newly discovered prior art reference, Tarr et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0210820 has been combined to teach the claimed limitations.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims 1-12 and 14-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims satisfy the statutory category of an apparatus and also recite:
receive personal information associated with a first user, wherein the personal information associated with the first user is received from a third party;
determine a first code to associate with the first user, the code being based, at least in part, on the received personal information;
determine one or more second users based, at least in part, on;
the first code associated with the first user at least one second code associated with the one or more second users, wherein the second code is determined, at least in part, by at least one field value manually entered by the first user based on a prompt, the prompt requesting additional information associated with a query of the first user and being generated as a function of the query, and at least one pre-existing association between the first user and the one or more second users; and
select and present decision related information associated with the one or more second users based on a ranking algorithm, wherein the decision related information includes one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions, wherein the one or more result information is based on a satisfaction indicator.
The steps, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which would include displaying terms such as a balance of clicks being offered (as claimed), for example, the first code associated with the first user[[ and ]] at least one second code associated with the one or more second users, wherein the second code is determined, at least in part, by user-entered restrictions, and at least one pre-existing association between the first user and the one or more second users.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite an additional element. As such, there is nothing recited that can be considered a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception.
To the extent that presenting may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a display monitor or screen), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the presenting step is interpreted to include a computer monitor or screen, then this is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
A network as recited is also at a high level of generality, which is a generic communication infrastructure utilized by generic computers, performing generic computer functions having mere instructions executing programmed instructions.
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Similarly, a computer monitor or screen would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception nor would a network. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a display (such as a computer screen) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The ranking algorithm is recited as mere instructions to execute the abstract idea using a generic computer component. The algorithm does not improve the function of the computer or any other technology nor does the specification provide sufficient detail as to an improvement to a technology.
The claim is patent ineligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2-12 include limitations that further describes the user, second user, the relationship between the first and second user and decisions associated with the second user. Claims 14-20 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to answers, recommendations and results submitted by the second user in response to submitted questions.
The claims are not patent 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engle U.S. Patent Application 2008/0097867 in view of Davar et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0254215 further in view of Tarr et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0265224.
As per Claim 1, Engle discloses a device comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing instructions (Figure 10, Main Memory 1004);
one or more processors in communication with the non-transitory memory wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to (Figure 10, Processor 1002):
receive personal information in the form of metadata associated with a first user, wherein the personal information associated with the first user is received from a third party via a network (pg.3, ¶ [0039] discusses The attribute profile module 112 may build the user profile… The database of content provider module(s) 122 may create, store and/or supply the data of the user profile, e.g., attribute profile of the user, Figure 1, a recommendation module communicating with a global database and a content provider module and users through a network…pg.6, ¶ [0076] further describes users being registered with a content provider module…¶ [0040] discusses the bio data 132 may contain facts or events in a person's life, such as a name, a date of birth, a gender, hobbies, and/or interests1);
determine a first code to associate with the first user, the code being based, at least in part, on the received personal information (pg.5, ¶ [0061] discusses user may apply an attribute to a product, and the user profile module 114 of FIG. 1 may apply (e.g., add and/or subtract) an assigned value (e.g., whether positive and/or negative) to a user profile of the user2);
determine one or more second users based, at least in part, on the first code associated with the first user and at least one second code associated with the one or more second users (pg.5, ¶ [0068] discusses as an attribute profile of the user C 706, e.g., the user C's attribute profile 702) matches with an attribute profile of the user D 708 (e.g., the user D's attribute profile 704), the product C 710 (e.g., which has already been watched by the user C 706) may be recommended to the user D 708, e.g., who has yet to see the product C 710); and
at least one pre-existing association between the first user and the one or more second users (pg.6, ¶ [0074] discusses The user B 904 may be already connected to the user C 906, as they may be mutual friends, old acquaintances, family members, etc. Because the user B 904 is a mutual friend to both the user A 902 and the user C 906, the user A 902 may be connected to the user C 906 (e.g., since the user A 902 and the user C 906 may learn about each other from the user B 904 whom they trust). Similarly, the user C 906 and the user E 910 who have the user D as a mutual friend may be connected. Also, the user A 902 and the user D 908 may be introduced (e.g., automatically) through the user C 906 once the user A 902 and the user D agree to be connected);
select and present decision related information associated with the one or more second users (pg.4, ¶ [0041] discusses the content provider module 106 that may communicate with the users 110. For example, an attribute select module (e.g., the attribute select module 120) of a recommendation module (e.g., the recommendation module 102) may fetch and/or display a set of attributes (e.g., from the attribute profile 124) corresponding to a content-based product. The set of attributes may embody possible reasons as to why the users react to the content-based products. A content provide module (e.g., the content provider module 106) may collect any number of value data assigned by any number of users (e.g., the users 110) to the set of attributes embodying possible reasons as to why the users may react to the content-based product…pg.3, ¶ [0046] discusses the value data 2 214 may be the opinion of the user 1 204 about the product 2 230. The value data 3 216 may be the opinion of the user 1 204 about the product 3 232. The value data 4 218 may be the opinion of the user 1 204 about the product N 250. The value data 5 218 may be the opinion of the user 2 206 about the product 1 228).
Engle teaches a recommendation module capable of fetching data regarding a product, where a user profile data is created stored and supplied by a content provider module and stored in a global database. Other users having preexisting relationships are matched using data gathered and recommended products that may be similar based on opinions about a particular product.
Engle further teaches wherein the one or more result information is based on a satisfaction indicator (pg.5, ¶ [0061] discusses the user may assign a positive and/or a negative value depending upon something that the user may really enjoy and/or abhor. The user may assign a value data to any of the attributes. The user profile module 114 may first gather the user's value data and/or generate (e.g., and/or update) an attribute profile of the user (e.g., the user profile 128 of FIG. 1) based upon dynamic, aggregate user feedbacks).
However, Engle fails to specifically disclose at least one second code associated with the one or more second users, wherein the second code is determined, at least in part, by user entered restrictions, and presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users wherein the decision related information includes one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions.
Davar et al. teaches wherein the personal information associated with the first user is received from a third party (pg.4, ¶ [0055] discusses the API provides communication to the overlay plug-in. The connection to the friend network provides a connection to at least one of any available social networks…pg.6, ¶ [0088] discusses data mining of existing websites, social networks and databases to interact with the FN-API. Data can be used to update the social applications in the FN, for example to rank and recommend people and products…pg.8, ¶ [0144] discusses a user's Web3SA profile contains: The users’ personal data),
at least one second code associated with the one or more second users, wherein the second code is determined, at least in part, by user entered restrictions (pg.10, ¶ [0182] discusses A user can prioritize (filtering and sorting) the product reviews based on his FN affinity with the reviewer, and the reviewer's perceived proficiency in the subject (both user and system-wide proficiency rankings)...pg.12, ¶ [0227] discusses user can control this by marking a friend at a certain affinity/, filter enemies/idiots) and
presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users based on a ranking algorithm (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses if a user is visiting a photography website, one embodiment includes the overlay plug-in displaying information about only those members of the user's focal group that have relevance to the browsed page(s) in the photography website…¶ [0070] discusses the overlay enables a transformation of the state of information displayed on the user's computing devices, thereby supplementing the displayed information based on information of the other users of the focal group.. ¶ [0051] discusses an embodiment includes the information associated with the at least one member having relevance to the focal group, being ranked by a level of importance. For one embodiment the ranking of the level of importance of information is influenced by a perceived level of importance of each of the at least one member associated with the information. Other embodiments include the perceived level of importance of each of the at least one member being influenced by at least one of a member rank on a relevant topic, a level of affinity between the user and each member, a level of expertise of each member, a level of trust of each member, a level of performance of past information provided by each member, a level of proficiency of each member),
wherein the decision related information includes one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses a user looking at a camera review of a website views (on the display) only the information of those members of the focal group who have reviewed or own the camera3),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display reviews of products submitted by individuals with similar personal attributes as in the improvement discussed in Davar in the system executing the method of Engle. As in Davar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to filter product reviews submitted by individuals having similar preferences to the product recommendation and similar customer matching system with the predicted result of selecting relevant customer product reviews as needed in Engle.
Both Engle and Davar teach limitations that allow users to define attributes of a profile and associate other users using those defined profiles. Davar provides a widget to overlay next to a product that displays an associated user’s review, in other words has the ability to provide a prompt regarding a searched item. Therefore, the Engle-Davar combination teaches receiving manual input from a user regarding a searched product and providing a prompt to the user regarding a searched product.
Tarr et al., teaches at least one second code associated with the one or more second users,
wherein the second code is determined (pg.5, ¶ [0094] discusses Job="Human Resource Manager" is an affinity definition for the affinity group consisting of all the profiles such that users answered Job="Human Resources Manager.”),
at least in part, by at least one field value manually entered by the first user based on a prompt (pg.6, ¶ [0103] discusses When the survey wizard displays a question, one aspect is to determine if the FieldGroup is an open FieldGroup, supporting open-text answers. An open FieldGroup is one that allows for free text entries by a user, as opposed to a closed FieldGroup, where a user may only select values from a list or use numeric answers),
the prompt requesting additional information associated with a query of the first user and being generated as a function of the query (pg.6, ¶ [0102] discusses the type of job (FieldGroup for Job) may be answer related to the affinity group associated with law firms, as may be the FieldGroup for "total hours billed per year," etc. Therefore, because FieldGroup Job may be answer-related to FieldGroup Industry and FieldGroup Law Firm, the system suggests to the user to select his type of job from a list that includes corporate attorney, litigation attorney, paralegal, and so forth. While, if the user had answered "Computer Software" for the FieldGroup Industry, then the system would have suggested different possible answers for FieldGroup Job, such as computer programmer, senior software engineer, IT support technician, etc. Alternatively, instead of using the suggested popular answers, the user may enter a new value, and input a job title that is completely new to the system. Based on the user's responses, the system categorizes the users profile and aligns it with profiles that possess similar characteristics).
The cited portions of Tarr et al. teaches a survey wizard capable of receiving text inputs from a user and requesting additional information based on the answer of the previous question and matching a user with other users based on the received text inputs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have open-text input to allow users to input responses as in the improvement discussed in Tarr et al., in the system executing the method of the Engle-Davar combination. As in Tarr et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to allow a user to input a textual response to questions to determine an association among two users with the predicted result of identifying affinity groups a user belongs to as needed in the Engle-Davar combination.
As per Claim 2, Engle discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the personal information associated with the first user includes one or more of a gender of the first person (pg.3, ¶ [0040] discusses the bio data 132 may contain facts or events in a person's life, such as a name, a date of birth, a gender, hobbies, and/or interests).
As per Claim 3, Engle discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first code includes at least one of one or more numbers (pg.4, ¶ [0049] discusses a product profile (e.g., the product profile 130 of FIG. 1) of a content-based product may be generated through applying any number of value data ( e.g., the value data to include 1 for liking the content-based product, 0 for no opinion, and -1 for disliking the content-based product) assigned by a user to a set of attributes embodying possible reasons as to why the user may react to the content-based product).
As per Claim 4, Engle discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first code includes a code automatically selected from a plurality of codes (pg.3, ¶ [0043] discusses the recommendation module may recommend the content-based product to the particular user when the product profile of the content-based product matches with the user profile of the particular user beyond a threshold value. A bio data (e.g., the bio data 132) of the users ( e.g., the users 110) may be applied to perform recommendation of the different content-based product so as to increase an accuracy of the recommendation).
As per Claim 5, Engle discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first code is associated with a range of ratings (pg.4, ¶ [0050] discusses e.g., the value data to include 1 for liking the content-based product, 0 for no opinion, and -1 for disliking the content-based product).
As per Claim 6, Engle discloses the device of claim 5, where a set of text data reviewing the content-based product may be searched through a number of selected websites to collect any number of meta-data describing the content-based product, pg.4, ¶ [0053].
However, Engle is silent regarding wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to receive a query from the first user.
Davar et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to receive a query from the first user (pg.3, ¶ [0043] discusses a user can visit a website that provides restaurant reviews, and the user can submit a query to find a good restaurant in a particular area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in Engle the ability to allow a user to search for a particular product or user as taught by Davar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 7, Engle discloses the device of claim 6. However, Engle is silent regarding wherein the query includes a question.
Davar et al. wherein the query includes a question (pg.4, ¶ 0059] discusses the actions list can include a "request review" in which a user is able to ask one or more members of a focal group for an opinion /review of this item).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the art of decision assistance the ability to include a question in a search query as taught by Davar et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Engle discloses the device of claim 6, where the method include searching for a set of text data reviewing the content-based product through any number of selected websites to collect any number of meta-data describing the content based product and/or evaluating any number of meta-data to determine a genre of the content based product. pg.1, ¶ [0009]
However, Engle a fails to explicitly state wherein the query includes a key word.
Davar et al. teaches wherein the query includes a key word (pg. 7, 1.1.1 Search ¶ [0117] discusses possible FN services on results for google search: include highlighting pages with relevant FN content filtering pages based on FN SA criteria FN partner ad placement4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the Engle reference the ability to enter keywords in a query as taught by Davar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 9, Engle discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine the one or more second users based on the first code associated with the first user, the second code associated with the one or more second users (pg.5, ¶ [0068] discusses as an attribute profile of the user C 706, e.g., the user C's attribute profile 702) matches with an attribute profile of the user D 708 (e.g., the user D's attribute profile 704), the product C 710 (e.g., which has already been watched by the user C 706) may be recommended to the user D 708, e.g., who has yet to see the product C 710).
However, Engle is silent regarding wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine the one or more second users based on the query.
Davar teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine the one or more second users based on the query (pg.3, ¶ [0043] discusses a user can visit a website that provides restaurant reviews, and the user can submit a query to find a good restaurant in a particular area… if the user has the overlay plug-in enabled, the sorting of the displayed results are further improved by strategically positioning the reviews produced by the members of the user's focal group who have high affinity or high proficiency in the subject.
The cited portion describes how a user’s query is input and only one or more second user reviews are returned who have high affinity or proficiency in the subject, thereby determining one or more second users based on the query.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to select users based on an inputted search query as in the improvement discussed in Davar in the system executing the method of Engle. As in Davar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to filter reviews submitted by individuals having similar preferences to the product recommendation with the predicted result of selecting relevant customer product reviews as needed in Engle.
As per Claim 10, Engle discloses the device of claim 9, where the opinion of users of similar attributes are matched.
However, Engle is silent regarding wherein the device is configured such that presenting the decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting information associated with a previous decision of the one or more second users.
Davar teaches wherein the device is configured such that presenting the decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting information associated with a previous decision of the one or more second users (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses For example, a user looking at a camera review of a website views (on the display) only the information of those members of the focal group who have reviewed or own the camera).
The cited portion describes where the camera reviews only display the reviews of members of the focal group who have reviewed or owned the camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display user reviews that have relevance as in the improvement discussed in Davar in the system executing the method of Engle. As in Davar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to filter reviews submitted by individuals having similar preferences to the product recommendation with the predicted result of selecting relevant customer product reviews as needed in Engle.
As per Claim 15, Engle discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to presenting information associated with the one or more second users (pg.7, ¶ [0086] discusses a first user of the network and a second user of the network may be automatically connected when a first user profile of the first user matches with a second user profile of the second user beyond a threshold value. In operation 1306, a first bio data (e.g., the bio data 132) of the first user may be rendered to the second user and a second bio data of the second user to the first user).
As per Claim 16, Engle discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the information associated with the one or more second users includes at least one of a gender of the one or more second users (pg.3, ¶ [0043] discusses a bio data ( e.g., the bio data 132) of the users (e.g., the users 110) may be applied to perform recommendation of the different content-based product so as to increase an accuracy of the recommendation…¶ [0040] discusses The bio data 132 may contain facts or events in a person's life, such as a name, a date of birth, a gender, hobbies, and/or interests).
As per Claim 18, Engle discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the computer program product is configured such that presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting one or more satisfaction information associated with the one or more second users (pg.4, ¶ [0055] discusses a user may check a "likes" column of the "humor" of Genres/Attributes 302 of FIG. 3A to indicate that the user likes the product because of its humor. In another case, the user may check a "dislikes" column of the "gore" of genres/attributes 302 of FIG. 3A to indicate that the user dislikes the product because of its gory nature).
The cited portion of Engle teaches where a user’s product recommendation allows a user to check like or dislike regarding a product, thereby presenting a satisfaction regarding the product, however, Engle is silent wherein the computer program product is configured such that presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users.
Davar teaches wherein the computer program product is configured such that presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users (pg.3, ¶ [0044] discusses For example, a user looking at a camera review of a website views (on the display) only the information of those members of the focal group who have reviewed or own the camera).
The cited portion describes where the camera reviews only display the reviews of members of the focal group who have reviewed or owned the camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display user reviews that have relevance as in the improvement discussed in Davar in the system executing the method of Engle. As in Davar, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to filter reviews submitted by individuals having similar preferences to the product recommendation with the predicted result of selecting relevant customer product reviews as needed in Engle.
As per Claim 20, Engle discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the one or more processors execute instructions to determine the one or more second users that are associated with a past decision (pg.5, ¶ [0068] discusses As an attribute profile of the user C 706 (e.g., the user C's attribute profile 702) matches with an attribute profile of the user D 708 (e.g., the user D's attribute profile 704), the product C 710 (e.g., which has already been watched by the user C 706) may be recommended to the user D 708 (e.g., who has yet to see the product C 710)….¶[0067] discusses recommending a content-based product already used by a user to a different user through comparing a user profile of the user and a different user profile of the different user).
The Examiner is construing the past decision as content-based product already watched by a user, because watching a product is a past decision of a user to watch a particular product.
Claims 11-12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engle U.S. Patent Application 2008/0097867 in view of Davar et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0254215 further in view of Tarr et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0265224 further in view of Ventilla et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0106895.
As per Claim 11, Engle discloses the device of claim 10, where users having similar attributes are matched with to provide content recommendations.
Davar et al. teach where a user may input a question and receive response from users with similar preferences.
Tarr et al. teaches a survey engine is required to ask FieldGroups that are relevant for a particular user.
However, Engle, Davar and Tarr et al., are silent regarding wherein the device is configured such that presenting the information associated with the previous decision of the one or more second users includes presenting information associated with how the one or more second users responded to an obstacle associated with the query.
Ventilla et al. teaches wherein the device is configured such that presenting the information associated with the previous decision of the one or more second users includes presenting information associated with how the one or more second users responded to an obstacle associated with the query (Figure 1A, depicts Question 104 submitted by Bob, Answer 108 from Julia replies with an answer to the question and includes details of where to hike, a secret trail, how long it takes and what to bring to overcome being sun burnt i.e. sunblock).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display a response to the question with answers as to how to overcome obstacles in the submitted question as in the improvement discussed in Ventilla et al. in the system executing the method of the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination. As in Ventilla et al, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display responses to questions having answers to obstacles to the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination with the predicted result of providing relevant user recommendations as needed in the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination.
As per Claim 12, Engle discloses the device of claim 11, where users having similar attributes are matched with to provide content recommendations.
Davar et al. teach where a user may input a question and receive response from users with similar preferences.
Tarr et al. teaches a survey engine is required to ask FieldGroups that are relevant for a particular user.
However, Engle, Davar and Tarr et al., is silent regarding wherein the device is configured such that presenting the information associated with how the one or more second users responded to the obstacle includes presenting a result associated with an action of the one or more second users to overcome the obstacle
Ventilla et al. discloses wherein the device is configured such that presenting the information associated with how the one or more second users responded to the obstacle includes presenting a result associated with an action of the one or more second users to overcome the obstacle (Fig. 1E depicts an answer to the question “San Francisco hotels pets”, an answer submitted by a second user that includes a hotel name that is great for pets and has weekend specials, the result being a hotel in a great location that accommodates pets and has weekend specials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display a response to the question with answers as to how to overcome obstacles and results to the submitted question as in the improvement discussed in Ventilla et al. in the system executing the method of the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination. As in Ventilla et al, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display responses to questions having answers to obstacles to the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination with the predicted result of providing relevant user recommendations as needed in the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination.
As per Claim 14, Engle discloses the device of claim 11, where users having similar attributes are matched with to provide content recommendations.
Davar et al. teach where a user may input a question and receive response from users with similar preferences.
Tarr et al. teaches a survey engine is required to ask FieldGroups that are relevant for a particular user.
However, Engle, Davar and Tarr et al., is silent regarding wherein presenting the information associated with how the one or more second users responded to the obstacle includes presenting a recommendation of the one or more second users to overcome the obstacle
Ventilla et al. discloses wherein presenting the information associated with how the one or more second users responded to the obstacle includes presenting a recommendation of the one or more second users to overcome the obstacle (Figure 1A, depicts Question 104 submitted by Bob, Answer 108 from Julia replies with an answer to the question and includes details of where to hike, a secret trail, how long it takes and recommends to bring sunblock).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display a response to the question with answers as to how to overcome obstacles and include recommendations in the submitted question as in the improvement discussed in Ventilla et al. in the system executing the method of the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination. As in Ventilla et al, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display responses to questions having answers to obstacles to the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination with the predicted result of providing relevant user recommendations as needed in the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination.
As per Claim 17, Engle discloses the device of claim 16, where users having similar attributes are matched with to provide content recommendations.
Davar et al. teach where a user may input a question and receive response from users with similar preferences.
Tarr et al. teaches a survey engine is required to ask FieldGroups that are relevant for a particular user.
However, Engle, Davar and Tarr et al., is silent regarding wherein device is configured such that presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions.
Ventilla et al. teaches wherein device is configured such that presenting decision related information associated with the one or more second users includes presenting one or more past decisions associated with the one or more second users and one or more result information corresponding to the one or more past decisions (Fig. 1A depicts an answer 180 to the question 104, the answer submitted by a second user includes the result of taking a secret side trail while on a hike).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to display a response to the question with answers including results to the submitted question as in the improvement discussed in Ventilla et al. in the system executing the method of the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination. As in Ventilla et al, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display responses to questions having answers to obstacles to the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination with the predicted result of providing relevant user recommendations as needed in the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination.
As per Claim 19, Engle discloses the device of claim 6, where users having similar attributes are matched with to provide content recommendations.
Davar et al. teach where a user may input a question and receive response from users with similar preferences.
Tarr et al. teaches a survey engine is required to ask FieldGroups that are relevant for a particular user.
However, Engle, Davar and Tarr et al., is silent regarding wherein the question includes a question about a future decision of the first user.
Ventilla et al. teaches wherein the question includes a question about a future decision of the first user (Figure 1A, depicts Bob submits question 104 that states looking for something with great views and varied terrain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ability to include an intention within s submitted question as in the improvement discussed in Ventilla et al. in the system executing the method of the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination. As in Ventilla et al, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to display responses to questions having answers to obstacles to the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination with the predicted result of providing relevant user recommendations as needed in the Engle+Davar+Tarr combination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHFORD S HAYLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5106. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM with Flex.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/ASHFORD S HAYLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
1 The bio data 132 is data that describes a set of data in particular personal information about a user.
2 Examiner is construing the applied attribute to a product as received personal information, because the information is related to a personal preference of the user.
3 Examiner is construing the ability to review a camera owned by member of the focal group as a second user (member of focal group) providing decision information about a past decision (purchase of camera) and the result information (review of the purchased camera).
4 Examiner notes, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that a google search utilizes keywords searching when a query is input.
Prosecution Insights