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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 11 / 10 / 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language (NPL Cite No. 2). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Regarding Claim 1: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of: P redict a degree of interest with respect to each data item included in the event data and an order prediction by using an attention mechanism. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process as predicting a degree of interest is analogous to evaluation and judgment, which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.). Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An order prediction device comprising: a first memory storing first instructions; and one or more first processors configured to execute the first instructions to: This limitation recites generic computer components such as generic memory and processors, which invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. A cquire event data related to an event; This limitation recites as an insignificant extra solution activity, as obtain a reference from the event, under BRI, is mere data gathering per MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). A n order prediction by using an attention mechanism based on the event data; The claim further recites the use of an attention mechanism, which is a method of neural network. However, the attention mechanism merely provides instructions to apply the mental process and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology (MPEP 2 10 6.0 5 ( f )). O utput, as a prediction result, the degree of interest and an order probability. This limitation recites an insignificant extra solution activity, as outputting the result of the prediction, under BRI, is mere data outputting per MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An order prediction device comprising: a first memory storing first instructions; and one or more first processors configured to execute the first instructions to: This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A cquire event data related to an event; This limitation is directed to receiving data, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A n order prediction by using an attention mechanism based on the event data; The additional elements, including attention mechanism, which is a method of the neural network, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An attention mechanism, which is a method of neural network, merely provides instructions to apply the mathematical concept. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology (MPEP 2016.04(d)(1)). O utput, as a prediction result, the degree of interest and an order probability. This limitation is directed to outputting/transmitting data, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II . i ] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding Claim 2: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 2 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 1. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. W herein the event data include customer information of each customer who attended the event, and the order probability is a probability of each order of the customer . This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to customer event data and customer orders, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Wherein the event data include customer information of each customer who attended the event. and the order probability is a probability of each order of the customer. This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to customer event data and customer orders, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding the claim 3: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 3 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 1 . Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. the event data include at least one of an answer of the customer with respect to a questionnaire and an action history of the customer at the event . This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to customer event data and customer orders, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the event data include at least one of an answer of the customer with respect to a questionnaire and an action history of the customer at the event. This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to customer event data and customer orders, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding the claim 4: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 4 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 1. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. T he processor is further configured to output information of each customer having the order probability higher than a predetermined reference probability as a priority customer. This limitation recites an insignificant extra solution activity, as outputting information, under BRI, is mere data outputting per MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. T he processor is further configured to output information of each customer having the order probability higher than a predetermined reference probability as a priority customer. This limitation is directed to outputting/transmitting data, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.i ] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding the claim 5: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 3 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 1. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. the processor is further configured to output each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest, as an order factor. This limitation recites an insignificant extra solution activity, as outputting information, under BRI, is mere data outputting per MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the processor is further configured to output each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest, as an order factor. This limitation is directed to outputting/transmitting data, which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity [see MPEP 2106.05(d) II.i ] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding the claim 6: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites the abstract ideas of: the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest. This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concepts, as comparing the degree of interest with the predetermined degree is analogous to a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. C.) and comparing known information which is analogous to a mental process. (see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III.A). Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest. This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to questionnaire data and degree of interest, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest. This limitation recites description of the data used for the prediction directed to questionnaire data and degree of interest data, therefore, this limitation amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment [see MPEP 2106.05(h)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding claims 7 Claims 7 recites analogous limitations to claims 1 (respectively) and therefore they are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1. Regarding the claim 8: Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 8 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 7. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform the order prediction method according to claim 7. This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform the order prediction method according to claim 7. This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool to train a model for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding claims 9 Claims 9 recites analogous limitations to claims 1 (respectively) and therefore they are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1. Regarding claims 10 Claims 10 recites analogous limitations to the combination of claim 2 and claim 3 (respectively) and therefore they are rejected on the same grounds as the combination of claim 2 and claim 3. Regarding claims 11 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes Step 2A – Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Claim 11 does not recite abstract ideas other than the ones recited at claim 9. Step 2A – Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No, there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An order prediction method performed by the order prediction device according to claim 9. This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2B – Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No, there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An order prediction method performed by the order prediction device according to claim 9. This limitation invokes a computer merely as a tool to train a model for performing an existing process [see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)] and therefore fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B: Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B. The claim is ineligible. Regarding claims 12 Claims 12 recites analogous limitations to claims 8 (respectively) and therefore they are rejected on the same grounds as claims 8. 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 9-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent Claim 9 recites: “ A second memory storing second instructions ; and O ne or more second processors configured to execute the second instructions to: acquire event data related to an event, and an order history; T rain a prediction model which predicts an order using an attention mechanism based on the event data and the order history; and O utput the prediction model being trained”, H owever, there is no previous recitation of a first memory, first instructions, and first processors, therefore, it is unclear whether there is a need of two memories, two instructions, and two processors; rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. According to the instant application specification at paragraph [0020]: “As illustrated, the order prediction device 100 includes an interface (I/F) 11, a processor 12, a memory 13, a recording medium 14, a database (DB) 15, a display section 16, and an input section 17”, therefore, it seems there is only one processor and one memory. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, and 7 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Bin et al (foreign Pub. No. CN110555112B by Bin et al - hereinafter Bin). Referring to Claim 1, Bin teaches: An order prediction device comprising: a first memory storing first instructions; and one or more first processors configured to execute the first instructions to. see Bin at [Description ,0002]:” This invention relates to the field of computer technology, and in particular to an interest point recommendation method based on learning user positive and negative preferences.” And also see [007 2 ]:” The preference memory module uses external memory components to store the user's historical positive/negative preference feature matrix and the user's current positive/negative preference feature matrix respectively.” Examiner interprets the computer technology and the memory module as equivalent as the device of this limitation. A cquire event data related to an event; see Bin at [Description ,0009]:” Collect historical evaluation values of users for visited points of interest and related attribute data of visited points of interest. Preprocess the collected data and assign a unified number to the users, points of interest and their attributes in the preprocessed data.” Examiner interprets collecting historical values and related attribute data as equivalent as acquire event data. P redict a degree of interest with respect to each data item included in the event data and an order prediction by using an attention mechanism based on the event data; see Bin at [Description ,0011]:” Using information about interest points, attribute types, and specific attribute values, a set of triples related to interest points is constructed, and a complete interest point knowledge graph is built based on triples as the basic unit. Each interest point, attribute type, and interest point attribute value in the knowledge graph is learned and represented as a unique feature vector, and interest point feature vector matrices, attribute type feature vector matrices, and interest point attribute value feature vector matrices are constructed respectively.” Examiner interprets that building the interest point feature vector matrices as equivalent as predicting a degree of interest. Also, see Bin at [Description ,0012]:” Using the user's positive and negative feedback interest point list and the interest point feature vector matrix, attribute type feature vector matrix and interest point attribute value feature vector matrix of the corresponding interest points in the positive and negative feedback interest point list, a user preference memory module based on the attention mechanism is constructed. The user preference memory module constructs a corresponding preference feature vector matrix for the user. The preference feature vector matrix includes a positive preference feature vector matrix and a negative preference feature vector matrix.” Examiner interprets corresponding preference feature vector matrix which constructed by user preference memory module based on the attention mechanism as equivalent as the order prediction as claimed. Thus, Bin teaches the whole limitation. O utput, as a prediction result, the degree of interest and an order probability . see Bin at [0012]:” Using the user's positive and negative feedback interest point list and the interest point feature vector matrix, attribute type feature vector matrix and interest point attribute value feature vector matrix of the corresponding interest points in the positive and negative feedback interest point list, a user preference memory module based on the attention mechanism is constructed. The user preference memory module constructs a corresponding preference feature vector matrix for the user. The preference feature vector matrix includes a positive preference feature vector matrix and a negative preference feature vector matrix.” Examiner interprets interest point feature vector matrices and preference feature vector matrix as equivalent as the degree of interest and the order probability. Referring to Claim 2, Bin teaches: The order prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the event data include customer information of each customer who attended the event. See Bin at [Description, 0009]:” Preprocess the collected data and assign a unified number to the users, points of interest and their attributes in the preprocessed data. Based” Examiner interprets the preprocessed data as equivalent as the event data. The order probability is a probability of each order of the customer. See Bin at [Description ,0012]:” Using the user's positive and negative feedback interest point list and the interest point feature vector matrix, attribute type feature vector matrix and interest point attribute value feature vector matrix of the corresponding interest points in the positive and negative feedback interest point list, a user preference memory module based on the attention mechanism is constructed. The user preference memory module constructs a corresponding preference feature vector matrix for the user. The preference feature vector matrix includes a positive preference feature vector matrix and a negative preference feature vector matrix.” Examiner interprets that the feature vector matrix as equivalent as the probability of each order of the customer. Referring to Claim 3, Bin teaches: The order prediction device according to claim 2, wherein the event data include at least one of an answer of the customer with respect to a questionnaire and an action history of the customer at the event. See Bin at [Description ,0049]:” Based on the user’s historical evaluation values for each visited point of interest, the user’s visited points of interest are divided into a positive feedback point of interest list and a negative feedback point of interest list.” Examiner interprets the user’s historical evaluation values as equivalent as the answer of the customer. Referring to Claim 5, Bin teaches: The order prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest, as an order factor. See Bin at [Description, 0012]: “Using the user's positive and negative feedback interest point list and the interest point feature vector matrix, attribute type feature vector matrix and interest point attribute value feature vector matrix of the corresponding interest points in the positive and negative feedback interest point list, a user preference memory module based on the attention mechanism is constructed. The user preference memory module constructs a corresponding preference feature vector matrix for the user. The preference feature vector matrix includes a positive preference feature vector matrix and a negative preference feature vector matrix.” Examiner interprets that the positive preference feature vector matrix as equivalent which compared with the negative one as equivalent as the data item having higher interest degree than the predetermined one. Referring to dependent Claims 7 – 8 , these claim(s) is/are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claims 10, this claim(s) is/are rejected on the same basis as the combination of dependent claim 2 and claim 3, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Referring to dependent Claims 9, and claim 11 - 12, these claim(s) is/are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1, mutatis mutandis, since they are analogous claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 non-obviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin in view of Ray (US20160379254A1 by Ray et al - hereinafter Ray). Referring to Claim 4, Bin teaches the device product of claim 1, however, it fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to output information of each customer having the order probability higher than a predetermined reference probability as a priority customer. Ray teaches, in an analogous system: W herein the processor is further configured to output information of each customer having the order probability higher than a predetermined reference probability as a priority customer. See Ray at [0033]:” In one embodiment, the COM 220 creates the new CR for the visitor by providing the plurality of predefined questions obtained from the customer data repository 104 to the visitor and storing the plurality of responses made by the visitor corresponding to the plurality of predefined questions in the new CR. Upon creating the new CR, the COM 220 calculates the relationship index (RI) indicative of probability of the visitor becoming a customer with the store. In one implementation, the AM 122 evaluates the plurality of visitor responses and assigns a rating to each of the plurality of visitor responses thus evaluated. The AM 122 calculates the RI using the rating and compares the calculated RI with a predetermined relationship index (RI) threshold value and determines the visitor to become a potential customer based on the comparison.” Examiner interprets calculating the relationship index indicative of probability of the visitor and comparing the index with the threshold to determine the potential customer as equivalent as configuring a priority customer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bin with the above teachings of Ray by the order prediction device, as taught by Bin, and the processor is further configured to output information of each customer having the order probability higher than a predetermined reference probability as a priority customer , as taught by Ray . The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize convenience for customers to drive transaction growth as suggested by Ray at [abstract]: “ Thus, the method and system provides personalized promotional offer based on convenience of individual customers, customers interest on different products on real-time within the establishment. Further, the method and system also provide alternate offers to customers present within store and assess the promotional effectiveness of the campaign on a real-time basis.” Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin in view of Kannan (WO2014078721A1 by Kannan et al - hereinafter Kannan). Referring to Claim 6, Bin teaches the device product of claim 1, however, it fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest. Kannan teaches, in an analogous system: The order prediction device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest. See Kannan at [claim 29]:” as a customer journey progresses, at each instance said processor configured for calculating the intent and the probability of the customer responding to a survey; once the probability of responding crosses a predetermined threshold, said processor configured for showing an appropriate survey to the customer.” Examiner interprets the intent and the probability of the responding from the customer as equivalent as the degree of interesting, the threshold as equivalent as the predetermined degree, and showing an appropriate survey as equivalent as configuring to edit questionnaire since the survey that is shown depends on the probabilities of each intent. Thus, Kannan teaches the limitation as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bin with the above teachings of Kannan by the order prediction device, as taught by Bin, and the processor is further configured to edit questionnaire items included in the questionnaire based on each data item having the degree of interest higher than a predetermined reference degree of interest , as taught by Kan n an. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to better identify customer ’s intent and provide more appropriate surveys. See Kannan at [page 10, line 25 ]: “Embodiments of the invention provide proactive customer surveys. One goal of a proactive survey based on customer interaction information is to improve the customer experience and, in turn, the survey response rate. When the appropriate context is present in the survey which is in line with the customer's intent, the response rate is higher. ” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JIAYUE MA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9658 . The examiner can normally be reached between 9 am to 5 pm . 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, David Yi can be reached at (571) 270-7519 . 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. / Jiayue Ma/ Examiner, Art Unit 2126 /DAVID YI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2126