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 May 22, 2026.
Claims 6-8 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are amended. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
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, 9-11, 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 comprising: receiving a request from a first user of a plurality of users to list an item as available for borrowing and/or renting, the first user request comprising: 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 displayed; receiving a request 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 comprising: information relating to the second user comprising a location of the second user; 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 comprising a determination that similarities between the first and second user requests satisfy a similarity threshold; 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 comprise only those listings relating to items that are currently available for borrowing or renting; 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, and utilising one or more machine learning techniques to improve the optical character recognition over time based upon feedback comprising user feedback regarding an accuracy of optical recognition of particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols.
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. The limitations about letters, numbers, similarity for a similarity threshold are either a mental process because one could observe that letters and numbers are similar and then count them to rise above a threshold (using a ratio for example to normalize) or alternatively they are a mathematical relationship. The machine learning technique that is utilized to improve OCR is similar to Example 47 claim 2 as there is no technical detail as to how this is performed, and reciting improving machine learning through training, essentially what is recited here, is interpreted as an abstract idea, following that guidance. 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). Limitations such as “computer-implemented,” “processors,” “a data communications device”, are generic computer limitations covered alone and in combination and with the claims as a whole (just applying an abstract idea to computers) under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), see commonplace business practice on a computer, Alice, Versata. The limitations of utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques and utilising machine learning to improve with user feedback are instructions to apply this “ordinary machinery” (see Id.) in its ordinary capacity. This is because they are being utilized which has no technical detail as to how this occurs.
The additional elements are:
Claim 1:
computer-implemented
, by one or more processors,
a data communications device associated with
from a data communications device
identifying, utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques, letters, words, numbers and/or symbols included in
.
Claim 26:
A system including one or more processors operable to
Similar additional elements to claim 1.
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
Similar additional elements to claim 1.
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, 9-11, 17-19, 24, and 25 further define the abstract idea as well as recite generic applied technical elements 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, 9-11, 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 Chittar, US PGPUB 20100241650 A1 (“Chittar”), further in view of Forss, US PGPUB 20170270582 A1 (“Forss”).
Per claims 1, 26, and 27, which are similar in scope, Conant teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: 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 comprising: 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 and a status of the item including whether the item is currently available for borrowing and/or renting in Fig 9 Items 940, 945 where the rental offers indicate a status that the item is currently available for borrowing and or renting, see par 072: “The mobile device screen 900 of FIG. 9 includes a content portion 940 in which are displayed a number of offers 945 of other users to rent/lend an item requested by the requesting user (i.e., “borrower”) of the mobile application. The requesting user may click-on/select any of the displayed offers 945 to see the details of the selected offer, and make a reservation of the offered item, in a manner similar to/the same as when browsing listing of items for rent/to borrow, as shown in the example illustrated and described above with respect to FIG. 3.”
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 comprising: information relating to the second user comprising 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 comprise 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 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 comprising a determination that similarities between the first and second user requests satisfy a similarity threshold; identifying, utilizing [images] included in each of the first and second user requests, wherein the similarity threshold is based on the extent to which image features identified in the first user request match those identified in the second user request
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 comprising a determination that similarities between the first and second user requests satisfy a similarity threshold; identifying, utilizing [images] included in each of the first and second user requests, wherein the similarity threshold is based on the extent to which image features identified in the first user request match those identified in the second user request in par 053: “The submitted image is then processed, at block 122, to generate index data for enabling index searching of database images. Processing of the image will be described at the hand of an example image 200 illustrated in FIG. 6. First, an edge detection and normalisation operation is performed, at block 106, on the image 200, to produce a normalised edge image 202 (FIG. 6). Edge detection processing is well known in the art and any suitable edge detection algorithm may be employed in operation 106.” This is the first user listing the particular item and the second user searching with an image is taught in par 059: “The method 130 is initiated by user submission of a query, at block 132, via the image search application 59 of FIG. 2, and includes a query image on which the search is to be based. The query image is again a digital image in a standard file format. A user wishing, for instance, to search for item listings in respect of a particular device may photograph the target device, for example by use of a mobile phone with image capturing capabilities, and may submit the image to the image search application instead of or in addition to entering text in the keyword search application 57.” Then per similarity threshold is taught in par 067 where a complete overlap is needed for registering a hit: “In other embodiments, the comparison of index sets may include comparing all of the index values of query index sets with all of the values in the respective pre-compiled index sets forming database entries in the index database 37, to that a hit is registered only if there is complete overlap between the index values of, on the one hand, the query index set, and, on the other hand, the index values of the particular database entry. In yet further embodiments, the comparison of feature vectors or index sets may include matching not only the values of the query index sets to database entry index sets, but also matching the sequence of index values in the respective index sets. A hit will thus be registered only if the query index set matches a database entry's feature vector or index set 88 exactly, in other words if both the values and the sequence of the respective index sets are identical.” See par 070: “The hit counts of the images are passed by the comparison module 90 to the result module 92. The result module 92 then displays to the user, at block 152, the results of the search. The search results are provided as a list of item listings extracted from the item listing database 35, the displayed item listing being the item listings linked to the top ranked images, as identified by the comparison module 90.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the online borrowing/renting by image teaching of Conant with the image search and image listing match teaching of Chittar because Chittar teaches in pars 002-003 that:
Item listings in such network-based marketplaces typically include details of a particular item which is e.g. up for sale or auction and these details are typically stored in text format and include a description of the item together with other information, such as the price, useful to a potential buyer in assessing the item listing. In addition, item listings often include visual material related to the item, typically in the form of a photograph, drawings or video clips.
The use of images in this context has customarily been limited to the provision of information about item listings to customers, but it would be useful to employ images associated with item listings for additional purposes, such as for image-based searching or for the automatic identification of images for fraud protection purposes.
One would be motivated by this taught motivation to modify Conant with Chittar so that one would be able to use images for more than just a picture but also relevant search terms for an item. In this way one would be able to have quicker search and listing results, and therefore for these reasons one would be motivated to modify Conant with Chittar.
Conant does not teach identifying, utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques, letters, words, numbers and/or symbols included in requests; and utilising one or more machine learning techniques to improve the optical character recognition over time based upon feedback comprising user feedback regarding accuracy of optical recognition of particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols.
Forss teaches item recognition and extraction in video. See abstract.
Forss teaches identifying, utilising one or more optical character recognition techniques, letters, words, numbers and/or symbols included in requests, in par 045: “As discussed above in operation 303, the application may cause the device to send image sensor data to the system; the system in response may be configured to identify merchant products in the image using the database of information received in operation 301. The system may respond to the device with item information based on which merchant products are identified in the image in addition to causing the application on the device to perform certain functions as discussed in more detail below.” And in par 076 for OCR: “In some examples, the system may detect text within the image using optical character recognition to determine whether there are logos or text matching text and/or logos of a merchant item.”
Forss then teaches and utilising one or more machine learning techniques to improve the optical character recognition over time based upon feedback comprising user feedback regarding accuracy of optical recognition of particular letters, words, numbers and/or symbols in par 079: “At operation 607, the system may receive feedback as to which identifications were correct or incorrect. In response, the system may update the classifiers and/or training databases used at operation 606.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image item borrow rent on computer teaching of Conant, as modified by the two party image match based on similarity threshold teaching of Chittar, with the using optical character recognition and user feedback to improve optical character recognition and machine learning teaching of Forss because Forss teaches in par 017 that a user, in walking through a store, can use images to get all the information about the products they are interested in. One would be motivated to modify Conant and Chittar with this teaching because it would enable a user of Conant’s system, for example, to find items desired to be rented or borrowed from images in a store and therefore eliminate the steps of looking up items, verifying item information, then entering in a search bar, etc. This elimination of steps would motivate one ordinarily skilled to modify Conant and Chittar with Forss. Additionally, one would be motivated to combine Forss with Conant and Chittar because one would be motivated to be able to search using OCR as it would help to get the correct brand of an item, which can be very important to people. As brands are often recognized by trademark names, one would be able to use Forss’ teachings to ensure that the correct brand or model was found. For these reasons one would be motivated to modify Conant and Chittar with Forss.
Per claim 2, Conant, Chittar, and Forss 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, Chittar, and Forss 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, Chittar, and Forss teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches in the event the first user lists an item for renting, the method further comprises: 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, Chittar, and Forss teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches in the event the first user lists an item for lending, the method further comprises: 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, Chittar, and Forss 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, Chittar, and Forss 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, Chittar, and Forss teach the limitations of claim 1, above. Conant further teaches generating one or more recommendations for first users listing items for rent, comprising 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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conant II, US PGPUB 20170330274 A1 (“Conant”) in view of Chittar, US PGPUB 20100241650 A1 (“Chittar”), further in view of Forss, US PGPUB 20170270582 A1 (“Forss”), further in view of Petrou et al., US PGPUB 20110129153 A1 (“Petrou”).
Per claim 9, Conant, Chittar, and Forss teach the limitations of claim 1, 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.
Petrou teaches using OCR on a visual query to make a textual query. See abstract.
Petrou 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 par 0178: “The text evaluation engine 1710 generates a quality score for each character that is partially based on the quality scores of its neighboring characters. The text evaluation engine 1710 then generates quality scores for text segments. The text segment(s) receiving a high quality score (over a set threshold) are sent to the document generation module 1730. The document generation module retrieves a canonical source document stored in the data store 1750 by finding matches to the high quality text segment(s). The document generation module may return an image version, a text version, or both an image and text version of the canonical source document. In some embodiments, the portion of the canonical document matching the visual query is selected by the front end server or by the OCR server to be returned to the client system. In other embodiments, the entire canonical document is returned to the requesting client device.”
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image borrow request teaching of Conant as modified by Chittar and Forss with the OCR storing above a minimum threshold teaching of Petrou because one would be motivated to store above a threshold results for OCR so that fewer false positives are generated. As this would ensure better search results one would be motivated to modify Conant Chittar and Forss to deliver better results for a user.
Per claim 10, Conant, Chittar, Forss, and Petrou 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, Chittar, Forss, and Petrou teach the limitations of claim 10, above. Conant does not teach 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 comprises 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.
Therefore claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 17-19, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to remarks:
Examiner has reviewed the arguments but the bandwidth arguments are not persuasive as one ordinarily skilled in the art would not recognize how in particular bandwidth has been reduced, as there are no technical details in the claims to reduce bandwidth. Rather the opposite is happening: bandwidth is being used to send images back and forth. While a chosen process could use more bandwidth, it is not clear from a technical standpoint whether any bandwidth is being reduced. Rather one ordinarily skilled would understand the invention to use as much bandwidth as necessary to perform the task. For example, one ordinarily skilled could use craigslist, a text based search that gets html results, and use far less bandwidth than sending picture files back and forth. This would fit within the hypothetical posed in par 010. It’s unclear what particular technical (not abstract idea) element or elements reduce bandwidth, and from what. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a), one ordinarily skilled in the art must understand the technical solution to the technical problem, and this is not clear here. Therefore, as this is not persuasive, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 USC 103
As the amendments have required further search and consideration new art is applied rendering the arguments moot.
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
Prosecution Insights