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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received February 5, 2024.
Claims 13-16 are canceled. Claims 1, 26, and 27 are amended. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are 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, 2, 4, 6-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, recite(s)
A method including: receiving a request from a data communications device associated with a first user of a plurality of users to list an item as available for borrowing and/or renting, the first user request including: information relating to the item including a description of the item and a location of the item, and a status of the item including whether the item is currently available for borrowing and/or renting; generating, a listing in which the item description is [presented]; receiving a request from a data communications device associated with a second user of the plurality of users to search for a particular item or a particular category of items in respect of which the second user has an interest, the second user request including: information relating to the second user including a location of the second user; based on the item requested to be listed by the first user being determined as a match for the particular item or the particular category of items included in the second user request, and further based on the location of the item residing within one or more predetermined geographical regions of the second user, including the generated listing in search results presented to the second user, wherein the search results include only those listing relating to items that are currently available for borrowing or renting.
This is an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activity – commercial interactions. Presenting items that are available for borrowing or renting is a commercial interaction because it is an agreement between two people that something can be used. The limitations amount to classified ads or a library card catalog where one can find information about something that is available to rent. Therefore, the above limitations are an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer, alone or in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1-2). The additional elements are:
Claim 1:
computer-implemented method
by one or more processors
displayed
Claim 26:
A system including one or more processors operable to
Displaying information
Claim 27:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having a plurality of computer instructions stored thereon executable by one or more processors that, when executed, causes the one or more processors to
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reasons as there is no practical application, there is not significantly more. The reasoning is carried over here: the combination of elements amount to apply it instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Per the dependent claims:
Claims 2, 4, 6-11, 17-19, 24, and 25 further define the abstract idea as well as recite generic applied technical elements such as “software” which is “enabled” to perform the abstract idea and OCR, which is recited at a high level and performing the abstract idea of receiving data and is therefore an apply it element. Therefore the dependent claims also do not recite elements over 101.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 17-19, and 24- 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conant II, US PGPUB 20170330274 A1 (“Conant”) in view of Bruch et al., US PGPUB 20030120509 A1 ("Bruch").
Per claims 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, Conant teaches A computer-implemented method including: receiving, by one or more processors, a request from a data communications device associated with a first user of a plurality of users to list an item as available for borrowing and/or renting, the first user request including: information relating to the item including a description of the item and a location of the item in par 70: “To make an offer, the user wishing to rent their item then enters details of the item they wish to lend/rent into the various fields of the example mobile device screen 700 of FIG. 7. For example, the user wishing to lend/rent an item in response to a rental request may use the image capture (e.g., camera) capability of their mobile device to include one or more images 711 of the item being offered for rental. The responding user may also select a category of the item 712, and a brief description of the item 713. A more detailed description 714 may be entered, along with information identifying the name and Zip code of the location of the user making the offer. The offering user may also provide a fee for the rental 716 and the time period of the rental 717.” See also Fig 7.
Conant then teaches generating, by one or more processors, a listing in which the item description is displayed in par 70: “The offering user may then submit the offer to a system of the present disclosure using the “Submit Offer” button 751. A message communicating the details of the offer to lend/rent the requested item may then be communicated to the user that issued the rental request, using the form of communication indicated by the user that issued the rental request. The elements of the mobile device screen 700 and the process of submitting the details of an offer to lend/rent an item may be the same as/similar to that employed when a user chooses to submit items for which the user has not actually received a rental request.”
See also par 065: “FIG. 3 is an example mobile device screen 300 that may be displayed on a user device by a mobile application (“app”), in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The mobile device screen 300 of FIG. 3 includes a number of user interface elements such as, for example, an “Activity” tab 310, a “Browse” tab 320, and a “Requests” tab 330. In addition, the mobile device screen 300 includes a message area 335, and a content portion 340. In the example of FIG. 3, the user has selected the “Browse” tab 320, which enables a user to browse a listing of items 341 that have been offered for rental by other users, which is shown in the content portion 340. The user may enter terms describing the thing or item that they are seeking to rent in the “Search Terms” box 301, and may center the search for renters of the desired device about a Zip code provided by the user in “Zip code” box 302.”
Conant then teaches receiving, by one or more processors, a request from a data communications device associated with a second user of the plurality of users to search for a particular item or a particular category of items in respect of which the second user has an interest, the second user request including: information relating to the second user including a location of the second user in par 65: “FIG. 3 is an example mobile device screen 300 that may be displayed on a user device by a mobile application (“app”), in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The mobile device screen 300 of FIG. 3 includes a number of user interface elements such as, for example, an “Activity” tab 310, a “Browse” tab 320, and a “Requests” tab 330. In addition, the mobile device screen 300 includes a message area 335, and a content portion 340. In the example of FIG. 3, the user has selected the “Browse” tab 320, which enables a user to browse a listing of items 341 that have been offered for rental by other users, which is shown in the content portion 340. The user may enter terms describing the thing or item that they are seeking to rent in the “Search Terms” box 301, and may center the search for renters of the desired device about a Zip code provided by the user in “Zip code” box 302.”
Conant then teaches based on the item requested to be listed by the first user being determined as a match for the particular item or the particular category of items included in the second user request, and further based on the location of the item residing within one or more predetermined geographical regions of the second user, including the generated listing in search results presented to the second user, wherein the search results include only those listings relating to items that are currently available for borrowing or renting in par 065: “FIG. 3 is an example mobile device screen 300 that may be displayed on a user device by a mobile application (“app”), in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The mobile device screen 300 of FIG. 3 includes a number of user interface elements such as, for example, an “Activity” tab 310, a “Browse” tab 320, and a “Requests” tab 330. In addition, the mobile device screen 300 includes a message area 335, and a content portion 340. In the example of FIG. 3, the user has selected the “Browse” tab 320, which enables a user to browse a listing of items 341 that have been offered for rental by other users, which is shown in the content portion 340. The user may enter terms describing the thing or item that they are seeking to rent in the “Search Terms” box 301, and may center the search for renters of the desired device about a Zip code provided by the user in “Zip code” box 302.”
Conant teaches wherein the search results include only those listings relating to items that are currently available for borrowing or renting in par 49: “At block 220, the method of FIGS. 2A-2B determines whether a sufficient number of product items were found that match the product item that the first user wants to rent/borrow. In accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure, a system performing the method of FIGS. 2A-2B may attempt to identify a certain minimum number of matching product items for rent such as, for example, 10, or 100, or 1000, from which the first user may choose product items for which the first user will submit a rental request. If, at block 220, it is determined that the search has identified at least the minimum number of matching product items, the method continues at block 235 discussed below.” See also par 050: “The list sent to the first user may contain a subset of a certain number of the product items found during the search such as, for example, 25 product items, although other numbers of matching product items may be displayed in the list. Next, at block 240, the method directs a system according to aspects of the present disclosure to determine whether the system has received a request from the first user to reserve a product item on the list of products items matching the product item requested by the first user. If, at block 240, it is determined that the first user did not request to reserve one of the matching product items identified by the search, the method of FIGS. 2A-2B continues at block 255 of FIG. 2B, discussed below. If, however, it is determined, at block 240, that the first user has selected one of the product items identified by the search, the method then, at block 245, directs the system to reserve the product item(s) selected by the first user, and at block 250, notifies the user/lender of the request by the first user to reserve the selected product item.”
Conant does not teach and a status of the item including whether the item is currently available for borrowing and/or renting;
Bruch teaches a system for processing rental transactions. See abstract.
Bruch teaches maintaining a status of the item, including whether the item is currently borrowed or rented, or alternatively, whether the item is currently available for borrowing or renting in par 30: “The clerk may enter details of the request into computer 114 and the request would then be reflected on planning board display 112. Alternatively, a customer may make an electronic request, for example, via a web site. The electronic request may then be processed by computer 114 and reflected on planning board display 112. For example, planning board display 112 may list the equipment requested by the customer, as well as the date and/or time the equipment is needed. If any status information about the equipment is available in computer 114, that information may also be represented on planning board display 112. For example, the equipment may be currently rented to a second customer and is due back before the first customer expects to pick up the equipment. Planning board display 112 may indicate the equipment's status via additional text (e.g., "rented until Tuesday"), color-coded text (e.g., red text means the equipment is off-site or rented), icon (e.g., a stop sign indicated that the equipment is not currently available), or some other visual means, such as flashing text, indicating the current status of the equipment.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rental borrowing teaching of Conant with the status teaching of Bruch because one would be motivated to combine this information with Conant so that a buyer could make a more informed decision. One would, from Conant, be able to determine whether it was worthwhile to wait for an item that is in a closer geographical search radius to be returned, or whether a larger geographical radius for something available now is more worthwhile. One would therefore be motivated to combine Conant with Bruch for this reason.
Per claim 2, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches providing a search facility enabling the second user to conduct a search for a particular item or a particular category of items of interest, wherein in response to a search conducted by the second user using the search facility, the second user is presented with only those listings that match the particular item or particular category of items specified in the first user request, and only those listings within the predetermined geographical region of the second user in par 65: “FIG. 3 is an example mobile device screen 300 that may be displayed on a user device by a mobile application (“app”), in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The mobile device screen 300 of FIG. 3 includes a number of user interface elements such as, for example, an “Activity” tab 310, a “Browse” tab 320, and a “Requests” tab 330. In addition, the mobile device screen 300 includes a message area 335, and a content portion 340. In the example of FIG. 3, the user has selected the “Browse” tab 320, which enables a user to browse a listing of items 341 that have been offered for rental by other users, which is shown in the content portion 340. The user may enter terms describing the thing or item that they are seeking to rent in the “Search Terms” box 301, and may center the search for renters of the desired device about a Zip code provided by the user in “Zip code” box 302.”
Per claim 4, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches wherein the software application enables the second user to define the predetermined geographical region of the second user in par 65: “FIG. 3 is an example mobile device screen 300 that may be displayed on a user device by a mobile application (“app”), in accordance with various aspects of the present disclosure. The mobile device screen 300 of FIG. 3 includes a number of user interface elements such as, for example, an “Activity” tab 310, a “Browse” tab 320, and a “Requests” tab 330. In addition, the mobile device screen 300 includes a message area 335, and a content portion 340. In the example of FIG. 3, the user has selected the “Browse” tab 320, which enables a user to browse a listing of items 341 that have been offered for rental by other users, which is shown in the content portion 340. The user may enter terms describing the thing or item that they are seeking to rent in the “Search Terms” box 301, and may center the search for renters of the desired device about a Zip code provided by the user in “Zip code” box 302.”
Per claim 17, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches in the event the first user lists an item for renting, the method further includes: prompting the first user to include one or more periods of time for which the item may be rented, and a rental fee in par 70: “The offering user may also provide a fee for the rental 716 and the time period of the rental 717.”
Per claim 18, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches in the event the first user lists an item for lending, the method further includes: prompting the first user to include one or more periods of time for which the item may be borrowed, and wherein the item listing is automatically updated to confirm that no fee is payable to the first user for borrowing the item in par 70: “The offering user may also provide a fee for the rental 716 and the time period of the rental 717.”
Per claim 19, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches based upon the second user selecting an item listing from the search results, wherein the item is available for rent, prompting the second user to confirm their intention to rent the item and to confirm the rental period in the event of multiple rental period options in par 51-52: "Next, at block 265, the method directs the system to determine a number or quantity of the potential lenders to be contacted by the system in regard to the availability for rental of the product item desired by the first user. The system then, at block 270, sends a notification to the determined number of potential lenders, informing them of the request of the first user to rent the product item of interest.
Next, at block 275, the system determines whether a response has been received from any of the potential lenders, accepting the request of the first user to rent the product item of interest. If the system determines that one of the potential lenders has acceptance the rental request of the first user, the system then, at block 280, completes the remaining detail of the transaction for lending the requested product item by the accepting potential lender to the first user, and the method of FIGS. 2A-2B then ends. "
Per claim 24, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches maintaining any search conducted by a second user active until such time that an item of interest is located, such that if a match is not immediately identified, the search will remain active and undergo automatic updates according to new items listed by first users in par 52: “If, however, it is determined that the defined time period for accepting the rental request of the first user is not expired, the method of FIGS. 2A-2B then loops back to block 275, to again check for receipt of any acceptances by the potential lenders notified of the rental request of the first user.”
Conant then teaches and notifying the second user seeking to borrow or rent an item of interest of matching newly listed item(s) in par 51: “The system then, at block 270, sends a notification to the determined number of potential lenders, informing them of the request of the first user to rent the product item of interest.”
Per claim 25, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches generating one or more recommendations for first users listing items for rent, including recommendations regarding a suitable rental fee for the particular item being listed as compared with market value in par 228-229 "In the example in FIG. 18, a user interface screen 1800 displays the optimal rent for different start dates of tenancies in a list or a chart format. It also displays for each property unit type (e.g. 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms with balconies) the optimised rent to charge at varying duration of lease length. In some examples, the system may allow a user to click on the “Competitors” bar, which will display the competitor's pricing page.
In FIG. 19, a competitive market intelligence screen 1900 displays the rent prices for surrounding properties. In some examples, the system may filter the properties by the number of bedrooms, amenities, and display the rent distributions, average rents and number of other properties available to rent at the price levels that are being suggested. The system may concurrently display a map of the neighborhood (e.g., in 1902) with the properties overlaid on the map." Note as this is an “or” limitation (and/or scope is “or”) the first limitation is taught which teaches the scope of the claims.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conant II, US PGPUB 20170330274 A1 (“Conant”), in view of Bruch et al., US PGPUB 20030120509 A1 ("Bruch"), further in view of Bailey et al., US Pat No 7395259 B2 ("Bailey").
Per claim 6, Conant and Bruch teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant does not teach determining a match between the item requested to be listed by the first user with the particular item or the particular category of item included in the second user request includes determining that similarities between the first and second user requests satisfy a similarity threshold.
Bailey teaches a search engine system for helping users locate products. See Abstract.
Bailey teaches determining a match between the item requested to be listed by the first user with the particular item or the particular category of item included in the second user request includes determining that similarities between the first and second user requests satisfy a similarity threshold in col 15 ln 1-20: “The Related Products search results page 400 (FIG. 4) displays search results using TFIDF prioritization as applied to the entire Product Spider database 147. That is, the results consist of a single list drawn from all of the web pages satisfying the filtering steps 530, 580 of FIG. 5 (e.g., all web pages having product scores at or above 30). In another embodiment, the search results are presented as a number of lists, with each list having an independent TFIDF prioritization. In this embodiment, each of the multiple lists consists of pages satisfying different product score criteria. In one embodiment, these multiple lists are displayed separately. In an alternative embodiment, the lists are concatenated into one long list. This latter embodiment is illustrated in Table III, where an All Products search of the host web site 130 generates two Product Spider results lists, an "A" list for web pages having product scores at or above eighty, and a "B" list for web pages having product scores below eighty but at or above thirty. The A List is presented first (on multiple pages if it is long), and the B List is concatenated onto the end of the A List.” That this is for finding categories of listed products is taught in col 6 ln 47 – col 7 ln 7: “The Product Spider database 147 may include information beyond that shown in FIG. 1. Other types of information that may be stored include, for example, a product category (e.g., books, music, video, etc.) ascertained from parsing the web page (or a collection of pages), an age appropriateness indicator (e.g., products appropriate for adults only), a language indicator for the web site (English, Spanish, etc.), product reviews, whether the offers are for new or used products, and whether the products are available on-line, off-line, or both. Furthermore, in embodiments in which the web site 130 provides users an option to rate the located merchants (e.g., on a scale of 1-5), and to view the ratings entered by other users, the Product Spider Database 147 may store the merchant ratings data.
The web server 132, query server 140, category ranking process 150, and database software run on one or more UNIX-based servers and workstations (not shown) of the web site 130, although other platforms could be used. To accommodate a large number of users, the query server 140 and the databases 141-147 may be replicated across multiple machines. The web site components invoked during the searching process are collectively referred to herein as a "search engine." The web crawler 160 is preferably running continuously on one or more platforms (not shown) separate from the platforms used for the search engine. The product score generator 162 and indexer 164 preferably run on one or more platforms (not shown) separate from those used for the search engine and web crawler 160.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the borrowing teaching of Conant with the similarity matching teaching of Bailey because Bailey teaches in col 2 ln 52-55 that: “The method increases the likelihood that the categories that are of most interest to the user will be presented near the top of the search results listing, or otherwise called to the attention of the user.” One would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey to show categories of most interest to the user so that the user would be more likely to find the item being looked for. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey. Per claim 7, Conant, Bruch and Bailey teach the limitations of claim 6, above. Conant does not teach identifying, utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques, letters, words, numbers and/or symbols included in each of the first and second user requests, wherein the similarity threshold is based upon an extent to which particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols identified in the first user request match those identified in the second user request.
Bailey teaches identifying, utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques, letters, words, numbers and/or symbols included in each of the first and second user requests, wherein the similarity threshold is based upon an extent to which particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols identified in the first user request match those identified in the second user request in col 9 ln 61 - col 10 ln 14: “As noted previously, the search tool 154 assesses the relevance of a multiple-term query to the Product Spider database 147 through inverse document frequency. That is, the weight given to a query term is inversely proportional to the frequency with which it appears in the database. For example, if a user enters the multiple-term query "Mark Twain" into the search engine query field 230, the term "Twain" is likely to appear far less than the term "Mark" in the Product Spider database 147. As such, when searching the database 147 the search tool 154 will give far greater weight to the term "Twain" when prioritizing the results for display to the user. The search tool 154 further prioritizes the results according to each query term's number of appearances, and location of appearance, within the web page. Appearances in the web page title are given the greatest priority; appearances in the first eight words of the body are given secondary priority; appearances in the subsequent thirty-two words of the body are given tertiary priority; and appearances in the remainder of the body are given lowest priority. This priority scheme, which is included with the search tool software developer's kit, is adjustable as needed.” Here words are taught as being matched.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the borrowing teaching of Conant with the similarity matching teaching of Bailey because Bailey teaches in col 2 ln 52-55 that: “The method increases the likelihood that the categories that are of most interest to the user will be presented near the top of the search results listing, or otherwise called to the attention of the user.” One would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey to show categories of most interest to the user so that the user would be more likely to find the item being looked for. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey. Per claim 9, Conant, Bruch and Bailey teach the limitations of claim 7, above. Conant does not teach storing, in a pre-defined location, similarity scores for various combinations of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols, determining, based upon the stored similarity scores, similarity score(s) for particular combinations of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols compared for determining whether the respective user requests satisfy the similarity threshold, and determining that the similarity threshold is satisfied in respect of the first and second user requests when the determined similarity score(s) exceed(s) a predetermined minimum.
Bailey teaches storing, in a pre-defined location, similarity scores for various combinations of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols, determining, based upon the stored similarity scores, similarity score(s) for particular combinations of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols compared for determining whether the respective user requests satisfy the similarity threshold, and determining that the similarity threshold is satisfied in respect of the first and second user requests when the determined similarity score(s) exceed(s) a predetermined minimum in col 10 ln 15-20: “Furthermore, as discussed below, the search tool 154 may use the product score values 170 (indicative of the likelihood that the corresponding web pages contain products available for purchase) stored in the Product Spider Database 147 to assist in the prioritization of the results generated from the Product Spider Database 147.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the borrowing teaching of Conant with the similarity matching teaching of Bailey because Bailey teaches in col 2 ln 52-55 that: “The method increases the likelihood that the categories that are of most interest to the user will be presented near the top of the search results listing, or otherwise called to the attention of the user.” One would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey to show categories of most interest to the user so that the user would be more likely to find the item being looked for. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Conant with Bailey. Per claim 10, Conant, Bruch and Bailey teach the limitations of claim 9, above. Conant does not teach determining similarity scores for any remaining combinations of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols in the respective user requests, and where more than one similarity score is determined, determining a combined similarity score and whether the combined similarity score exceeds the predetermined minimum.
However, this is an optional limitation dependent on “any remaining combinations…” This is optional as remaining combinations are not required from the previous limitations. This does not require this limitation to be performed as there is no requirement for there to be remaining combinations from the search. Moreover, as the “any remaining” is a prerequisite to find more than one similarity score, the subsequent limitations are also optional. MPEP 2111.04. Therefore Conant and Bailey teach what is required for claim 10. As the entire claim is optional, Conant and Bailey are not required to teach any element of claim 10.
Per claim 11, Conant, Bruch and Bailey teach the limitations of claim 9, above. Conant does not teach A method according to claim 9, wherein, in the event a similarity score for a particular pair of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols is not located in the pre-defined location, the method further includes one or more of determining the similarity score(s) based upon any remaining letters, words, numbers and/or symbols in the respective user requests
and prompting the second user to add additional search terms to the second user request to enable the determination of similarity score(s) pertaining to letters, words, numbers and/or symbols added by the second user.
Similar to claim 10, this claim requires steps only “in the event a similarity score for a particular pair of letters, words, numbers and/or symbols is not located in the pre-defined location” This is optional and therefore not required to be found as the scope includes no event for a similarity score not being located. Therefore under MPEP 2111.04 no art is required to teach this as this is only an option for the claim scope.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conant II, US PGPUB 20170330274 A1 (“Conant”), in view of Bruch et al., US PGPUB 20030120509 A1 ("Bruch"), further in view of Bailey et al., US Pat No 7395259 B2 ("Bailey"), further in view of Brandt, US PGPUB 20200327352 A1 (“Brandt”).
Per claim 8, Conant, Bruch, and Bailey teach the limitations of claim 7, above. Conant does not teach utilising one or more machine learning techniques to improve the optical character recognition over time based upon feedback including user feedback regarding an accuracy of optical recognition of particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols.
Brandt teaches reading a code and using machine learning / neural network to improve a code reading. See abstract.
Brandt teaches utilising one or more machine learning techniques to improve the optical character recognition over time based upon feedback including user feedback regarding an accuracy of optical recognition of particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols in par 025: “The image data may include one or more image segments of the imaged code 308. In an embodiment, the software 316 may be configured to determine sub-areas of the imaged code 308 in which respective characters are positioned. It should be understood that additional information may be included with the rewards data 324, such as mobile ID, lighting information, color information, and/or any other information associated with the imaged code, cap, or otherwise that may be used in processing the imaged code 308. Moreover, correction data and/or training data in the form of character(s) entered by a user may be communicated with the rewards data 324 so that a neural network executed by the server 328 may be trained in an active learning mode to improve future image processing.” See also par 024.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the borrowing teaching of Conant with the OCR improvement teaching of Brandt because Brandt teaches in par 003 that OCR reading has been unreliable with smartphones and that using active learning as taught in par 004 with a neural network can improve OCR. Because one would want to incorporate OCR into the teachings of Conant and Bailey for search, one would be motivated to modify Conant and Bailey to include OCR and techniques for improving OCR. One would be motivated because of the particular problem to be solves in Conant and Bailey, which is searching for products, which is often done with OCR. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Bailey with Conant.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that the technical problem of par 010 is addressed. However Examiner disagrees as there is no technical solution to the alleged technical problem. The technical problem is “existing functionality of a mobile device to search for a website and/or engage in related communications for the above purposes has the effect of consumer substantial data communications and hence results in significant computer and network resource usage.” However there are no technical solutions described in the specification or the claims to using fewer communications. Applicant’s solution is, in the best light possible, to send less data, however Applicant is not in fact sending less data. Applicant is sending the amount of data requested by the user, which will use as much data communications and network resources as would be expected. There are no limitations specific to how data is communicated or network resources are managed, in a technical sense. One ordinarily skilled would not see a technical solution here, and this is required under MPEP 2106.05(a):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
One ordinarily skilled in the art would not recognize sending search results and status as a technical solution to the problems described. Rather one ordinarily skilled would identify the problem and solution as part of the abstract idea, and the use of the computer benefitting the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, for these reasons the 101 rejection is maintained.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant argues that Conant does not teach that items are currently available. This is not persuasive. Conant’s search results show items that are only available for rent, which teaches currently available. Applicant failed to show that Conant taught anything else and tries to argue that the “only” has not been given weight. But, by Conant delivering what is available to rent (and clearly if it has to expand the search if zero items are available, to show what is available), Conant also teaches “only” available to rent. Applicant argues that Conant is not concerned with “the problems that can arise if too many search results are returned.” That may be, but this is not reflected in Applicant’s claims, nor is it clear what too many search results means. Nowhere in Applicant’s independent claims is there a threshold or other limit to the amount of search results. If, stepping through the claims, “too many” search results are found that meet the search criteria (item being searched, item is available), then “too many” search results would be delivered, whatever too many means. If Applicant wishes to narrow the claim scope to curtail the number of results, then Applicant would have to amend the claims to include that limitation. Because the argument is based on narrowing the claim scope in arguments beyond what the claims say, it is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained. Put another way, Conant teaches nothing except returning results for items that are available for renting or borrowing and therefore teaches “only” as there is nothing else returned except those results.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619