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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 21-40 have been examined.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been canceled.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a method, medium, and system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
identify a first product activity and a second set of product activity of a first customer, the first product activity and the second product activity identifying a first set of products of a product portfolio offering in which the first customer has expressed interest, wherein the first product activity includes at least an in-store activity of the first customer, and wherein the second product activity includes online activity of the first customer;
analyze interdependence between products of a second set of products of the product portfolio offering purchased by a second customer, wherein analyzing the interdependence includes determining a dependence of one of two or more products on another of the two or more products to accomplish a first task, and wherein the two or more products are used in conjunction to accomplish the first task;
generate an optimized product portfolio offering for the first customer by predicting a set of related products from the product portfolio offering based on: similarity between the first set of products and the second set of products of the product portfolio offering purchased by the second customer, and interdependence between products of the first set of products and products of the second set of products;
rank products of the optimized product portfolio offering based on the products’ ability to enable sale of one or more other products of the optimized product portfolio;
based on the ranking of products of the optimized product portfolio offering, generate a recommended product subset comprising a reduced number of products from the optimized product portfolio offering.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because it involves commercial interactions such as marketing behaviors and/or activities.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
one or more processing resources;
a non-transitory machine readable medium;
display the recommended product subset;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 22-29 are directed to the abstract idea itself. In addition, even if these claims were not directed to the abstract idea, they do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
one or more processing resources;
a non-transitory machine readable medium;
display the recommended product subset;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 21, 30, and 38, these claims recite the limitation “determine, based on the first set of products and the second set of products, whether a second task associated with the first customer is similar to the second task” which renders the claims indefinite as the claim is comparing the same task to itself. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as comparing the first task to the second task. Correction is required.
Regarding claims 26, 27, 34, and 35, the phrase “and the second product activity identifying” renders the claims indefinite. Amended claims 21 and 30 each recite “a second product activity of a first customer” and require that “the second product activity includes online activity of the first customer.” Claims 26 and 34 recite “second product activity of the second customer” and claims 27 and 35 recite “the second product activity of the second customer”. It is therefore unclear whether second product activity is an activity of the first customer or the second customer. Appropriate correction is required.
Remarks
In regards to the double patenting rejection, the rejection has been withdrawn because the applicant has amended the claims and overcome the rejection.
In regards to the rejection under the prior art, the rejection has been withdrawn because the applicant has amended the claims and overcome the rejection.
In regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant first argues on page 8 that there is no judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees because at the very least, the limitation “identify a first product activity and a second product activity of a first customer, the first product activity and the second product activity identifying a first set of products of a product portfolio offering in which the first customer has expressed interest, wherein the first product activity includes at least an in-store activity of the first customer, and wherein the second product activity includes online activity of the first customer” is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because it involves commercial interactions such as marketing behaviors and/or activities. For this reason, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues on page 10 that under Step 2A Prong 2, that the claims recite an improvement to technology, namely analyze interdependence between products in a manner that allows for a product portfolio to be reduced. The examiner respectfully responds that nowhere does this limitation recite technology and therefore it cannot be an improvement to a non-recited technology. For this reason, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The applicant responds that this ignores the context of the invention which takes place on an interface to browse products via an eCommerce portal. The examiner respectfully agrees that the application does in fact recite technology, but the claims and specification are devoid of any improvement to a technology or technical field. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Additional prior art related to the invention but not relied upon includes:
Ouimet (US 2015/0206224) teaches mapping data structures with intelligent personal agents.
Fung (US 2015/0088692) teaches identifying products for performing a task.
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches predicting missing items in a user's shopping cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights