DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. CN2022/117594, filed 09/07/2022, which claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Application No. CN202111674085.8, filed 12/31/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 9/16/2025 have been considered.
Claims 7 and 19 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 14 and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-6 are directed towards a process. Claims 9, 12, and 14-18 are directed towards a machine. Claims 10 and 20-23 are directed towards a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 9 as representative, claim 9 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
receive, user related information input by a user, wherein the user related information comprises a preset budget, at least two types for home appliances to be customized, question information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, and requirement information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized;
create a home appliance set portrait of the user according to the user related information, wherein the home appliance set portrait comprises the at least two types for the home appliances to be customized and at least one piece of target label information corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, wherein the at least one piece of target label information is determined at least based on preference information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, and the emotion analysis grade is determined based on the question information and the requirement information;
calculate a similarity between the target label information corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized in the home appliance set portrait, and home appliance label information of each of home appliances in a preset home appliance label library, and obtain from the home appliance label library, according to the similarity, a target home appliance corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, wherein the home appliance label library comprises multiple home appliances and the home appliance label information corresponding to each of the home appliances, wherein the home appliance label information comprises budget information, function information, size information, appearance information and brand information, wherein at least one of the function information, the size information and the appearance information is customizable information;
modify, according to the requirement information, customizable information of each of target home appliances to obtain target home appliance label information, as modified, of each of the target home appliances; and
combine all of the target home appliances to obtain a home appliance set as combined, and display each of the target home appliances in the home appliance set and the corresponding target home appliance label information;
in response to the user’s operation, distribute, based on each of the target home appliances and the corresponding target home appliance label information, orders by interacting.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 9.
Claim 9, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of customizing a set of products. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 9 and 10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 9 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including An electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory and computer program instructions stored on the memory; wherein the computer program instructions, when being executed by the processor, enable the processor; information input through a visual interface; displaying information through the visual interface; and in response to the user’s click operation to a confirmation control on the visual interface, interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform and a third-party user interface. Claim 1 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 9. Claim 10 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 9, and additionally recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 9 and 10 specifying that the abstract idea of customizing a set of products is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 9 and 10 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 9 and 10 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of An electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory and computer program instructions stored on the memory; wherein the computer program instructions, when being executed by the processor, enable the processor; information input through a visual interface; displaying information through the visual interface; in response to the user’s click operation to a confirmation control on the visual interface, interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform and a third-party user interface and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-6, 14-18 and 20-23, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-6, 14-18 and 20-23, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 9 and 10. Therefore, claims 2-6, 14-18, and 20-23 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 12, this claim recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 9 and 10. Additionally, claim 12 recites the following additional limitations:
a chip, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing thereon codes and data, and being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to enable the chip to implement the processing method.
The additional element of a chip, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing thereon codes and data, and being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to enable the chip to implement the processing method is recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are ineligible.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Jeong (KR20190132095 A), in view of previously cited Jain (US 2022/0172258 A1), and further in view of newly cited U.S Patent No. 12,243,085 B1 to Soracco et al., hereinafter Soracco.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong discloses A processing method for customizing a home appliance set, implemented by an electronic device, comprising ([0016] user terminal 110 includes an input device capable of receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user, and may be a personal computer or smartphone; [0052] a method of providing a home appliance recommendation service is initiated by receiving a home appliance recommendation request, wherein the request can include user requirements and preferences):
receiving, user related information input by a user through a visual interface, wherein the user related information comprises a preset budget, at least two types for home appliances to be customized, question information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances, and requirement information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized ([0052] receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include a user’s budget, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type to be arranged in each of the preferred arrangement spaces… see [0016][Fig. 8] user terminal 110 includes an input device capable of receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user; [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances);
creating a home appliance set portrait of the user according to the user related information, wherein the home appliance set portrait comprises the at least two types for the home appliances to be customized and at least one piece of target label information corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances ([0052] the server 130 may store input information included in the home appliance recommendation request in the database 230 for each user… the recommendation request may include a user’s budget, an address, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type for each arrangement space; [0053] after receiving the recommendation request, the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing corresponding to the recommendation request; [0055] a home appliance list including at least one recommended home appliance corresponding to the preferred type may be generated… when the preferred arrangement space is a living room and the preferred appliance type is an air conditioner, the area calculation module 222 calculates the area of the living room (for example, 60m2), and determines air conditioner products having a cooling area of about 60m2 or more as products capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space, as well as products within the user’s budget… see [0039-0040] determining intermediate products in response to a recommendation request),
wherein the at least one piece of target label information is determined at least based on preference information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances ([0052] the server 130 may store input information included in the home appliance recommendation request in the database 230 for each user… the recommendation request may include a user’s budget, an address, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type for each arrangement space; [0055] a home appliance list including at least one recommended home appliance corresponding to the preferred type may be generated… when the preferred arrangement space is a living room and the preferred appliance type is an air conditioner, the area calculation module 222 calculates the area of the living room (for example, 60m2), and determines air conditioner products),
the preference information is determined for each of the types for the home appliances ([0052] the server 130 may store input information included in the home appliance recommendation request in the database 230 for each user… the recommendation request may include a user’s budget, an address, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type for each arrangement space; [0055] a home appliance list including at least one recommended home appliance corresponding to the preferred type may be generated), and
the question information and the requirement information are user inputs ([0052] receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include a user’s budget, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type to be arranged in each of the preferred arrangement spaces… see [0016][Fig. 8] user terminal 110 includes an input device capable of receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user);
calculating a relationship between the target label information corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized in the home appliance set portrait, and home appliance label information of each of home appliances in a preset home appliance label library ([0055] in response to a recommendation request specifying that a living room is the preferred arrangement space and an air conditioner is a preferred appliance type, the area for the living room is calculated (60 m2), the list generation module subsequently determines air conditioners from the home appliance DB 132 having a cooling area of about 60 m2 or more as a plurality of home appliances capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space… see [0039-0041] determining a score for the intermediate home appliances by comparing budget information from the recommendation request, as well as customer satisfaction), and
obtaining from the home appliance label library, according to the relationship, a target home appliance corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances ([0055] the list generation module determines air conditioners from the home appliance DB 132 having a cooling area of about 60 m2 or more as a plurality of home appliances capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space… see [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances),
wherein the home appliance label library comprises multiple home appliances and the home appliance label information corresponding to each of the home appliances, wherein the home appliance label information comprises budget information, function information, size information, appearance information and brand information ([0022] the database 230 includes a home appliance DB 132 configured to receive and store information on the size and price of each of the plurality of home appliances; [0026] the recommendation request may include a budget; [0055] the list generation module 224 may determine from the home appliance DB 132, air conditioner products having a cooling area of about 60 m2… see [0006] recommending according to consumer preferences, such as price and brand; [0037] the list generation module 224 may determine potential appliances from different brands (“A” brand and “B” brand) in response to the users recommendation request) (Examiner notes that the size of an appliance includes appearance information),
wherein at least one of the function information, the size information and the appearance information is product information ([0022] the database 230 includes a home appliance DB 132 configured to receive and store information on the size and price of each of the plurality of home appliances; [0026] the recommendation request may include a budget; [0055] the list generation module 224 may determine from the home appliance DB 132, air conditioner products having a cooling area of about 60 m2);
determining, according to the requirement information, product information of each of target home appliances to obtain target home appliance label information of each of the target home appliances ([0055] in response to a recommendation request specifying that a living room is the preferred arrangement space and an air conditioner is a preferred appliance type, the area for the living room is calculated (60 m2), the list generation module subsequently determines air conditioners from the home appliance DB 132 having a cooling area of about 60 m2 or more as a plurality of home appliances capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space… see [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances); and
combining all of the target home appliances to obtain a home appliance set as combined ([0057] the list generation module selects at least one intermediate home appliance having a summed score equal to or greater than a predetermined score among the plurality of intermediate home appliances… see [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances), and
displaying, through the visual interface, each of the target home appliances in the home appliance set and the corresponding target home appliance label information ([0030] the list generation module selects at least one recommended home appliance and generated a home appliance recommendation list including the at least one recommended home appliance; [0050] providing the generated home appliance recommendation list to the user terminal 110; [Fig. 8] depicts the visual interface of the user terminal);
in response to the user's click operation to a confirmation control on the visual interface, distributing, based on each of the target home appliances and the corresponding target home appliance label information, orders by interacting with a user interface ([0069] the generated home appliance recommendation list is provided to the user terminal, and upon the user inputting a purchase request, the purchase processing module 226 may provide a payment screen to the user terminal 110 and perform payment processing through the processing screen; [0075] the user may transmit a purchase request to the server by clicking on the corresponding check box 820).
Jeong further discloses wherein a home appliance is a product ([0015]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a product is a product to be customized; wherein calculating a relationship is calculating a similarity; wherein product information is customizable information; modifying customizable information to obtain information, as modified; wherein the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for products, and the emotion analysis grade is determined based on user information; and distributing orders by interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform, and a third-party user interface.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses wherein a product is a product to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI));
wherein calculating a relationship is calculating a similarity ([0039] providing a similarity index to indicate similarity between each of a set of preferred attribute recommendations and a set of existing attributes associated to the plurality of similar products; [0043] determining final attribute recommendations based on a threshold value of similarity index by comparing attribute composite scores related to the plurality of real-time potential attribute recommendations with a score threshold value, and select the plurality of real-time potential attribute recommendations as the preferred attribute recommendations if their attribute composite scores are above the score threshold value);
wherein product information is customizable information ([0042] The set of final attribute recommendations may be utilized to provide in real-time, an optimized design for the product); and
modifying customizable information to obtain information, as modified ([0043] Final attribute recommendations for the product are determined by comparing attribute composite scores of potential attribute recommendations with a threshold similarity value… Therefore, the system may provide real-time optimized design recommendations for the product based on real-time customer preferences, sentiments, and current trends; [0082] the output device 1125 may be used to display a design recommendation for a product).
wherein the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for products ([0049] The identified sentiment data may be mapped to the product and the attributes by the sentiment analyzer 320 to obtain a second set of potential attributes according to customer preferences), and
the emotion analysis grade is determined based on user inputs ([0044] Website/application data may include user feedback associated to the product. The attribute analyzer 140 may be coupled to the data pre-processor 104 to extract user feedbacks 202, 204, 206, i.e., customer reviews related the product, from the websites and applications; [0049] the sentiment analyzer 320 determines emotional tone in user feedback data to identify real-time sentiment data behind the user feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, wherein a product is a product to be customized; wherein calculating a relationship is calculating a similarity; wherein product information is customizable information; modifying customizable information to obtain information, as modified; wherein the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for products, and the emotion analysis grade is determined based on user inputs as taught by Jain, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong, to include the teachings of Jain, in order to consider real-time consumer preferences, sentiments, and current trends to provide real-time product design recommendations (Jain, [0003]).
Soracco, on the other hand, discloses distributing orders by interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform, and a third-party user interface ([Col 12 Ln 34-61] a user may select club component types to shape the golf club to his/her liking, where a software interface provides an algorithm that allows personalization features to be graphically incorporated and erased; [Col 13 Ln 23-28] parameters regarding the golf club or golf club components, e.g., design files, are output at step 137. Typically, the parameters will not be output to the user, but rather they will be retained for order fulfillment or sent to a third party, such as a fabricator, manufacturer, or assembler… see [Col 6 Ln 27-Col 7 Ln 3] design and testing of golf club components is reduced using a metal sintering process, which significantly reduces waste resulting from material that must be cut away after molding or forging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong and Jain, distributing orders by interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform, and a third-party user interface, as taught by Soracco, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong and Jain, to include the teachings of Soracco, in order to reduce manufacturing costs to meet user price points, and sell and manufacture golf clubs that allow individualized design variations while maintaining efficiency and cost effectiveness (Soracco, [Col 1 Ln 25-56]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses wherein the user related information further comprises the types for the home appliances to be customized, evaluation data of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, location information of the user, and house layout data of a residential house of the user ([0052] receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include a preferred home appliance type to be arranged in each of the preferred arrangement spaces, an address, and the preferred placement space of each space; [0053] after receiving the home appliance recommendation request, the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing corresponding to the address of the indoor place input by the user from the drawing information stored in the drawing DB 134 based on the recommendation request; [0055] the home appliance recommendation list is generated based on the calculated area information of the preferred arrangement space… see [0022] a drawing DB 1344 configured to store drawings for each type of appliance; [0030] determining corresponding home appliances according to calculated area information of the preferred arrangement spaces) (Examiner notes that calculated area information of a preferred arrangement space is evaluated in order to determine the user’s preferences);
correspondingly, creating the home appliance set portrait of the user according to the user related information, comprises: performing analysis on the question information and the requirement information for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, to obtain analysis grades for the types for the home appliances to be customized ([0053] after receiving the recommendation request, the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing corresponding to the recommendation request; [0055] a home appliance list including at least one recommended home appliance corresponding to the preferred type may be generated… when the preferred arrangement space is a living room and the preferred appliance type is an air conditioner, the area calculation module 222 calculates the area of the living room (for example, 60m2), and determines air conditioner products having a cooling area of about 60m2 or more as products capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space, as well as products within the user’s budget… see [0030] determining corresponding home appliances according to calculated area information of the preferred arrangement spaces);
obtaining, according to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized and the evaluation data, preference information of the user for the types for the home appliances to be customized ([0055] the home appliance recommendation list is generated based on the calculated area information of the preferred arrangement space… see [0022] a drawing DB 1344 configured to store drawings for each type of appliance; [0028] the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing of an indoor place from the drawing DB 134, and calculates area information about each space and a preferred arrangement space in each space based on the extracted drawing; [0030] determining corresponding home appliances according to calculated area information of the preferred arrangement spaces);
generating target label information corresponding to the types for the home appliances to be purchased, according to the preference information for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the evaluation data of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the location information of the user, and the house layout data of the residential house of the user ([0052] receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include a preferred home appliance type to be arranged in each of the preferred arrangement spaces, an address, and the preferred placement space of each space; [0053] after receiving the home appliance recommendation request, the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing corresponding to the address of the indoor place input by the user from the drawing information stored in the drawing DB 134 based on the recommendation request; [0055] the home appliance recommendation list is generated based on the calculated area information of the preferred arrangement space… see [0022] a drawing DB 1344 configured to store drawings for each type of appliance; [0030] determining corresponding home appliances according to calculated area information of the preferred arrangement spaces); and
creating, according to each of the types for the home appliances to be customized and the corresponding target label information, the home appliance set portrait of the user ([0053] after receiving the recommendation request, the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing corresponding to the recommendation request; [0055] a home appliance list including at least one recommended home appliance corresponding to the preferred type may be generated… when the preferred arrangement space is a living room and the preferred appliance type is an air conditioner, the area calculation module 222 calculates the area of the living room (for example, 60m2), and determines air conditioner products having a cooling area of about 60m2 or more as products capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space, as well as products within the user’s budget);
Jeong further discloses wherein a home appliance is a product ([0015]).
Jeong further discloses wherein a home appliance is a product ([0015]), but does not explicitly disclose a product to be customized; wherein user relation information comprises a historical order for products and a browsing record for products; obtaining, according to the emotion analysis grade regarding products, preference information of the user; and generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses a product to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI));
wherein user relation information comprises a historical order for products and a browsing record for products ([0038] The attribute modeler 150 may be coupled to the data pre-processor 104 to obtain a historical analytical record of the product from the historical data… data related to the product includes historic sales of products and click counts);
obtaining, according to the emotion analysis grade regarding products, preference information of the user ([0049] The sentiment analyzer 320 may use negation handling and stemming techniques on the clean data to determine emotional tone in the clean data associated to the user feedbacks, and determine real-time sentiment data behind the user feedback… For example, if the dean data is “Blue Comfortable Material feels”, the sentiment analyzer 320 may identify that the sentiment of the customer is positive… The identified sentiment data may be mapped to the product and the attributes by the sentiment analyzer 320 to obtain a second set of potential attributes according to customer preferences); and
generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products ([0038] The attribute modeler 150 may be coupled to the data pre-processor 104 to obtain a historical analytical record of the product from the historical data… data related to the product includes historic sales of products and click counts may be used to capture the composite variable, which is then user to create a plurality of mutually exclusive attribute batches, and provide an attribute composite score and a set of preferred attribute recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, a product to be customized; wherein user relation information comprises a historical order for products and a browsing record for products; obtaining, according to an emotion analysis grade regarding products, preference information of the user; and generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 2.
Jeong further discloses wherein generating the target label information corresponding to the types for the home appliances to be purchased, according to the preference information for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the evaluation data of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the location information of the user, and the house layout data of the residential house of the user, comprises ([0022][0030][0052][0053]):
generating initial label information corresponding to the types for the home appliances to be purchased, according to the preference information for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the evaluation data of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, the location information of the user, and the house layout data of the residential house of the user ([0037] discloses a situation in which the preferred home appliance types are an air purifier and an air conditioner; [0039] when the budget of the recommendation request is 600,000 won, only appliances that meet the criteria of the recommendation request are selected as intermediate home appliances… see [0022] a drawing DB 1344 configured to store drawings for each type of appliance; [0028] the area calculation module 222 extracts a drawing of an indoor place from the drawing DB 134, and calculates area information about each space and a preferred arrangement space in each space based on the extracted drawing; [0052] a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include an address);
obtaining, according to historical sales data of individual home appliances of each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased and the initial label information, a selling popularity index corresponding to each piece of sub-label information (sales volume for each brand) in each piece of initial label information ([0037] discloses a situation in which the preferred home appliance types are an air purifier and an air conditioner; [0039] when the budget of the recommendation request is 600,000 won, only appliances that meet the criteria of the recommendation request are selected as intermediate home appliances; [0041] the list generation module 224 sums a score for sales amounts of the intermediate home appliances; [0042] Table 3 shows sales volume of different home appliances of different given brands; [0047] combining sales volume and customer satisfaction regarding home appliances in order to determine a score for each home appliance); and
processing the initial label information according to the selling popularity index corresponding to each piece of sub-label information in each piece of initial label information, to generate the target label information ([0039] when the budget of the recommendation request is 600,000 won, only appliances that meet the criteria of the recommendation request are selected as intermediate home appliances; [0041] the list generation module 224 sums a score for sales amounts of the intermediate home appliances; [0042] Table 3 shows sales volume of different home appliances of different given brands… see [0039-0041] determining a score for the intermediate home appliances by comparing budget information from the recommendation request, as well as customer satisfaction);
But does not explicitly disclose a product to be customized; and generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses a product to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI));
generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products ([0038] The attribute modeler 150 may be coupled to the data pre-processor 104 to obtain a historical analytical record of the product from the historical data… data related to the product includes historic sales of products and click counts may be used to capture the composite variable, which is then user to create a plurality of mutually exclusive attribute batches, and provide an attribute composite score and a set of preferred attribute recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, a product to be customized; and generating target label information according to the historical order for products and the browsing record for products, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses wherein obtaining from the home appliance label library, according to the similarity, the target home appliance corresponding to each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased, comprises: determining a home appliance corresponding to the home appliance label information to be the target home appliance ([0055] in response to a recommendation request specifying that a living room is the preferred arrangement space and an air conditioner is a preferred appliance type, the area for the living room is calculated (60 m2), the list generation module subsequently determines air conditioners from the home appliance DB 132 having a cooling area of about 60 m2 or more as a plurality of home appliances capable of being arranged in the preferred arrangement space);
Jeong further discloses wherein a home appliance is a product ([0015]), but does not explicitly disclose the product to be customized; and determining a product with the similarity exceeding a preset similarity to be the target product.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses the product to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI)); and
determining a product with the similarity exceeding a preset similarity to be the target product ([0043] determining final attribute recommendations based on a threshold value of similarity index by comparing attribute composite scores related to the plurality of real-time potential attribute recommendations with a score threshold value, and select the plurality of real-time potential attribute recommendations as the preferred attribute recommendations if their attribute composite scores are above the score threshold value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, the product to be customized; and determining a product with the similarity exceeding a preset similarity to be the target product, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses wherein, when a number of the target home appliances is greater than or equal to 2, combining all of the target home appliances to obtain the home appliance set as combined, comprises ([0057] the list generation module selects at least one intermediate home appliance having a summed score equal to or greater than a predetermined score among the plurality of intermediate home appliances… see [0037] discusses a situation in which the preferred home appliance types include both an air purifier and an air conditioner [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances):
for the types for the home appliances to be purchased that are different, determining any one target home appliance in each of the types for the home appliances to be purchased to be a home appliance to be combined ([0057] the list generation module selects at least one intermediate home appliance having a summed score equal to or greater than a predetermined score among the plurality of intermediate home appliances; [0058] a home appliance recommendation list may be generated based on the selected at least one intermediate price… see [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances); and
combining all of home appliances to be combined to obtain multiple home appliance sets as combined ([0037] when the preferred home appliance types include both an air purifier and an air conditioner, multiple air conditioners from multiple brands (“A” brand, “B” brand) are determined as a plurality of home appliances, and multiple air purifiers multiple air purifiers from multiple brands (“A” brand, “B” brand) are additionally determined as a plurality of home appliances; [0057] the list generation module selects at least one intermediate home appliance having a summed score equal to or greater than a predetermined score among the plurality of intermediate home appliances);
Jeong further discloses wherein the home appliance is the product ([0015]), but does not explicitly disclose the product to be customized.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses the product to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, the product to be customized, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses wherein, before obtaining the user related information, the method further comprises: obtaining question information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances and requirement information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances ([0052] receiving a home appliance recommendation request from a user may include a user’s budget, a preferred arrangement space in each space of the indoor place, and a preferred home appliance type to be arranged in each of the preferred arrangement spaces… see [0040] a home appliance recommendation request can include two or more types of preferred home appliances); and
performing data cleaning and data normalization to obtain the question information and the requirement information ([0027] a user may request a home appliance recommendation via an input device… see [0059] an artificial neural network 400 may repeatedly adjust weights in order to reduce the error between a correct output corresponding to a specific input and an inferred output; [0075] the user device may output the home appliance recommendation list 800).
Jeong further discloses wherein a home appliance is a product ([0015]) and wherein the question information and the requirement information are second information ([0052]), but does not explicitly disclose products to be customized; and before obtaining the user related information, obtaining initial information of the user for products; and performing data cleaning and data normalization on the initial information to obtain second information.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses products to be customized ([0017] a system and method for providing optimized product designs based on artificial intelligence (AI)); and
before obtaining the user related information, obtaining initial information of the user for products ([0033] In order to understand real-time market insights and identify real-time customer preferences and trends related to the product, the system 110 collects real-time data related to the product from a plurality of data sources 102); and
performing data cleaning and data normalization on the initial information to obtain second information ([0033] The collected real-time data is pre-processed by a data pre-processor 104 to obtain pre-processed data related to the product that may be used by the system 110 to provide an optimized design for the product; [0034] cleaning and transforming raw collected data into a useful and understandable format to obtain pre-processed data… The system 110 may use the pre-processed data to identify real-time customer preferences and trends related to the product to provide an optimized design of the product… see [0045] analyzing user feedback in order to obtain segmented words includes performing word correction, as well as text tokenization to tag different parts of speech to obtain tokenized data, and removing stop words).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, products to be customized; and before obtaining the user related information, obtaining initial information of the user for products; and performing data cleaning and data normalization on the initial information to obtain second information, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9 is directed to an electronic device. Claim 9 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The combination of Jeong/Jain/Soracco teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Jeong further discloses An electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory and computer program instructions stored on the memory; wherein the computer program instructions, when being executed by the processor, enable the processor (Jeong: [0016-0019]). Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 10 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. The combination of Jeong/Jain/Soracco teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Jeong does not explicitly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps. Jain, on the other hand, discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps (Jain: [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 14 recites an electronic device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 15 recites an electronic device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 16 recites an electronic device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 17 recites an electronic device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 18 recites an electronic device comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 6. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 6.
Claim 20 recites a storage medium comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Claim 21 recites a storage medium comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 3.
Claim 22 recites a storage medium comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 4.
Claim 23 recites a storage medium comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Jain in view of Soracco, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2020/0302500 A1 to Pinel et al., hereinafter Pinel.
Regarding Claim 12, Jeong, Jain and Soracco teach the limitations of claim 1.
Jeong further discloses a processor, wherein the processor implements the processing method for customizing a home appliance set according to claim 1 ([0019][0021]);
But does not explicitly disclose a chip, comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing thereon codes and data, and being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to enable the chip to implement the processing method.
Jain, on the other hand, discloses a memory and a processor, the memory storing thereon codes and data, and being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to implement a method ([0080] the computer system 1100 executes, by a processor, methods for providing real-time optimized product design, which may be embodied as machine-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium such as hardware storage device… the processor executes software instructions or code including instructions to perform the methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, a memory and a processor, the memory storing thereon codes and data, and being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to implement a method, as taught by Jain, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Pinel, on the other hand, discloses a chip, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to enable the chip to implement the processing method ([0098] Data processing system 902 may be a microprocessor-based system; [0099] each of the internal components 902 includes one or more processors and one or more computer-readable RAMs… the software program may be stored on one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices 916 for execution via one or more RAMs 908).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Jeong, Jain and Soracco, a chip, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor runs a program in the memory to enable the chip to implement the processing method, as taught by Pinel, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong, Jain and Soracco, to include the teachings of Pinel, in order to provide modifications to an environment based on design and implementation requirements (Pinel, [0097]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, do not recite an abstract idea, and are integrated into a practical application, because “through the interaction among the user, the electronic device and the platform to which the orders are distributed, the accuracy and the order efficiency for the home appliance set can be improved, and it makes the personalized customization possible for the user,” and “[the amended claims] solve a problem of how to improve the accuracy and the order efficiency for the customized home appliance set” (Remarks Page 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited improvements are not technical improvements. Although the claims include computer technology such as an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory and computer program instructions stored on the memory; wherein the computer program instructions, when being executed by the processor, enable the processor; information input through a visual interface; displaying information through the visual interface; in response to the user’s click operation to a confirmation control on the visual interface, interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer platform and a third-party user interface; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing thereon, computer executable instructions which are configured to, when being executed by a processor, implement the steps, such elements are peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Aside from these additional elements, the claims further recite limitations that further define the abstract idea of customizing a set of products, as shown in the Office Action, above. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more efficient customization and ordering process, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field, and utilizes the additional elements to improve product customization and ordering. While the additional elements are used, it is the customization and ordering process that is an improvement. Furthermore, an argument has not been provided as to how the claims provide an improvement to the claimed technology outside of these cited improvements to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed invention recites a number of technical solutions to a technical problem, such as “improving the accuracy of the customized home appliance set…, ensuring the accuracy of the customized home appliance set…, a progressive determination manner is adopted, ensuring the accuracy of the target label information, thereby further ensuring the accuracy of the customized home appliance set… customizing a home appliance set that can meet the personalized requirement of the user…, and the order efficiency for the customized home appliance set can be improved” (Remarks Pages 14 and 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. These improvements cited by Applicant (improving accuracy and order efficiency) are improvements further directed towards the abstract idea of product customization, rather than providing an improvement to any technology or other technological field, as discussed in the above paragraph. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that claims 2-6, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are patent eligible at least for the reasons set forth with regards to claim 1 (Remarks Pages 15 and 16), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the 101 rejection of independent claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs, as well as those set forth in the Office Action, above. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, overcome the currently cited prior art because “in the disclosure of Jeong, the recommended home appliance is determined from the home appliance DB… By contrast, in the present application…, the home appliance set is based on the personalized customization information of the user. In other words, the design intention of the present application is different from that of Jeong” (Remarks pages 16 and 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jain was relied upon to teach wherein the user related information comprises a preset budget, at least two types for home appliance, question information of a user for each of the types for home appliances, and requirement information of the user for each of the types for the home appliance, at (Jain, [0052]), which discloses that a user may submit a home appliance recommendation request including a user’s budget, a preferred arrangement space, and a preferred home appliance type. Jain was further relied upon to teach creating a home appliance set portrait of the user according to the user related information (see at least Jain [0039-0040][0052-0053][0055]), disclosing that a home appliance list is recommended to the user according to a preferred type, preferred arrangement space, and the user’s budget. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation, Jeong disclosing that a home appliance list is recommended to the user based on the user’s input, including several criteria regarding the recommendation request, as discussed above, teaches these particular limitations. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the amended claims, as the meaning of a “design intention” is unclear in the context of the currently amended claims. If this is in referral to the customization of the product, Examiner notes that Jain was relied upon to teach the individual product customization aspect of the claims. Accordingly, the combination of Jeong/Jain has been relied upon to teach this aspect of the claim. This argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that Jeong is deficient because “[in the amended claims] the home appliance set portrait of the user is created through the aforementioned progressive determination manner [including the emotion analysis grade]” (Remarks Pages 17 and 18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the currently amended limitations, Jeong has been further relied upon to teach wherein the at least one piece of target label information is determined at least based on preference information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances, and the preference information is determined for each of the types for the home appliances at (Jeong, [0039-0040][0052-0053][0055]) which disclose that a list of intermediate products is generated in response to a recommendation request from a user, and additionally that the recommendation request includes information including a user’s budget, a preferred arrangement space, and a preferred home appliance type. The recommended products correspond to the requirements set forth in the user’s recommendation request, such as the preferred type of appliance for each arrangement space within the user’s home. Jeong has been further relied upon herein to teach wherein the question information and the requirement information are user inputs, at (Jeong, [0052][0016][Fig. 8]), describing that the home appliance recommendation request is input by the user through an input device of the user terminal. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Jeong has not been relied upon, in the previous Non-Final Rejection, nor the Final Rejection, above, to disclose limitations regarding the emotion analysis grade, and that previously cited Jain was relied upon for such limitations (see at least Jain [0049]). Jain, on the other hand, was relied upon in combination with Jeong to teach wherein the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade, at (Jain, [0049]), disclosing that sentiment data from user feedback is mapped to a product and the product’s attributes in order to obtain a second set of potential attributes according to customer preferences. Jain has been further relied upon to teach wherein the emotion analysis grade is determined based on user inputs, at (Jain, [0044][0049]) which disclose that a sentiment analyzer 320 analyzes user feedback associated with a product in order to determine an emotional tone and subsequently identify real-time sentiment data behind the user feedback. Neither Jeong nor Jain is solely relied upon to teach the cited limitations, but rather it is the combination of references that has been relied upon. While Applicant cites “a progressive determination manner” and “a determination principle,” the cited portions of Jeong and Jain, in combination, teach the limitations of the amended claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims overcome the currently cited prior art because “Jain… says nothing about modifying the attributes by the user” (Remarks Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the previous Non-Final Rejection, as well as in the current Final Rejection, above, Jain has not been relied upon to teach modifying the attributes by the user. Rather, Jain has been relied upon to teach modifying customizable information to obtain information, as modified, at (Jain, [0043][0082]), disclosing that customer preferences and sentiments are analyzed to provide real-time design recommendations for a product. Examiner notes that nothing in this limitation requires the customizable information to be modified by a user, but rather that the customizable information is modified in some way, according to the requirement information. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that “Jain fails to mention the progressive determination manner for the home appliance set portrait as defined in claim 1” (Remarks Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that, as discussed in the above paragraphs, the combination of Jeong/Jain, rather than solely Jain, has been relied upon to teach the amended limitations of wherein the at least one piece of target label information is determined at least based on preference information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for each of the types for the home appliances to be customized, and the emotion analysis grade is determined based on the question information and the requirement information. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims overcome the currently cited prior art because “the emotion analysis grade is used to indicate the personalized requirement of the user. In other words, the role of the emotion analysis grade in the present application is different from that of the sentiment data in Jain” (Remarks Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jeong has been relied upon to teach wherein the at least one piece of target label information is determined at least based on preference information of the user for each of the types for the home appliances, the preference information is determined for each of the types for the home appliances, and the question information and the requirement information are user inputs (see at least Jeong [0016][0052][0055][Fig. 8]). Jeong teaches that user input comprising a home appliance recommendation request may be submitted by a user, where the user’s preferences and requirements for home appliances may be determined based on the request. Jain has been further relied upon to teach wherein the preference information is determined at least based on an emotion analysis grade for products, and the emotion analysis grade is determined based on user inputs (see at least Jain [0044][0049]). In other words, Jeong teaches that user inputs (home appliance recommendation requests) are analyzed in order to identify requirements and preferences of the user. On the other hand, Jain teaches that preferences may be determined based on a sentiment score, and that the sentiment score is determined based on analysis of user feedback (user inputs). It is the combination of these references that has been cited to teach the amended claims, rather than either reference individually. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the references individually. MPEP 2145. While Applicant has provided arguments regarding Jeong and Jain individually in light of the amended claims, Examiner notes that the arguments do not address the combined teaching of Jeong and Jain. Accordingly, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
With regards to the newly amended limitations not cited by Applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes that newly cited Soracco has been further relied upon to teach distributing orders by interacting with a customization platform, an ecological manufacturer, and a third-party user interface. Accordingly, a new grounds of rejection is additionally present with regards to independent claim 1.
Applicant further argues that previously cited Pinel is silent regarding the technical concept of the customized home appliance set as defined in amended claim 1 (Remarks Page 19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the 103 rejection of amended claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs, as well as those set forth in the Office Action, above. Pinel has not been relied upon to teach the limitations regarding claim 1, and has only been relied upon to teach limitations regarding claim 12. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 9, 10 and 12 overcome the currently cited prior art at least for reciting similar elements as claim 1, and additionally that dependent claims 2-6, 14-18, and 20-23 overcome the prior art at least by virtue of their dependencies to the independent claims (Remarks Pages 19 and 20). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the 103 rejection of independent claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed above, as well as those set forth in the Office Action, above. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection has been maintained.
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 ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights