Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/412,299 filed on 07/01/2024.
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/01/2024, claims 1-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This action is made Non Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2024, 01/11/2025, 05/25/2025, 08/25/2025, and 02/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 7; claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to a computer program per se because the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” is not stored on any non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. See Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760. The claim also recites “a computer readable storage medium;” Under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “computer readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer readable storage medium to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 35 U.S.C. 101 since it encompassed transitory media). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to either “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” or “a computer-readable storage device” to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
Regarding claims 18-20; claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dicker et al., (“Dicker,” US 2010/0191619), published on July 29, 2010, in view of Chang et al., (“Chang,” US 2022/0365740), published on November 17, 2022, and further in view of Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857.”
Regarding claim 1, Dicker discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (pars. 0170; Figs. 1 and 8; a memory, external component 40),/ the processor configured to:
store portfolio content of users of a software application (par. 0058; Fig. 1; database 38 stores a user profiles);
establish a communication channel between a host and a source device and through the software application and conduct a communication session ();
receive a portfolio associated with the source device during the communication session (par. 0058; Figs. 1 and 3; users computers 34, database 38 includes user profiles);
execution of execute [[an artificial intelligence (Al) model on]] the portfolio of the user and the portfolio content of users of the software application to identify a subset of similar users (pars. 0012, 0014-0015, 0017) and a missing item from the portfolio that is included in portfolios of the subset of similar users (par. 0006; a system will compare a user’s profile to the profiles of other users then generate a recommendation user; and also see pars. 0141, 0182-0186; Fig. 11; a recommendations 404 and Top Sellers 406); wherein generate [[image]] content which visually depicts the missing item (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, and 4-5; show steps to generate commendation content to user, which are items similar/relative with user; par. 0182; Figs. 11, 12, 14, 15 show the list of recommended items to user; for example list 402, 404, 406, 500, and a recommendations section 628)
Dicker discloses all limitations above, but does not explicitly disclose generate image content which visually depicts the missing item; generate a display window with the image content, wherein at least one of a size and a shape of the display window is dynamically determined based on a type of the missing item; and arrange the display window at a pixel location on a graphical user interface of the software application during the communication session.
However Chang discloses managing share-content session, wherein generate image content which visually depicts item (Chang: pars. 0066-0068, 0427 and 0835, 0847; Fig. 6DX and 6DY-6DZ);
generate a display window with the image content, wherein at least one of a size and a shape of the display window is dynamically determined based on a type of [[the missing]] item (Chang: pars. 0066-0068, 0427 and 0835, 0847; Fig. 6DX and 6DY-6DZ; “the change in size and/or position of the dynamic visual content includes a changes from the dynamic visual content from covering some of the user interface of the video communication application to covering none of the user interface of the video communication application. In some embodiments, the change in size and/or position of the dynamic visual content includes increasing or decreasing the amount of the user interface of the video communication application that is covered by the dynamic visual content.”); and
arrange the display window at a pixel location on a graphical user interface of the software application during the communication session (Chang: pars. 0066-0071 and 0858-0859; Fig. 6DX and 6DY-6DZ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Chang with the system/method of Dicker. One would have been motivated to void overlapping images/pictures/item.
Deck and Chang does not explicitly disclose an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Wu discloses a method for providing recommendation through conversation AI, comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) model (Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Wu with the system/method of Dicker and Chang. One would have been motivated to improve efficiency, personalize customer experiences, and provide valuable insights into shopper behavior.
Regarding claim 2, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
The combine of Dicker and Wu further disclose the processor is configured to open the software application which includes the portfolio associated with the source device, and display the display window within a page of the software application (Dicker: par. 0058-0059; Fig. 1; the recommendation Service to be configured to generate recommendations that are specific to user based on user’s profile; Figs. 8, 11-16 show steps of recommendation service component that performs to compare user’s profile and other users’ profile then generates a list recommendation to user. Wu: pars. 0050; Fig. 4; a workflow 400 shows the steps for implement a personalized product recommendations through conversational AI and displays on a personal/general computer or tablet computing device).
Regarding claim 3, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Dicker further discloses the processor is configured to determine that descriptive content included in the portfolio associated with the source device matches descriptive content included in the portfolios of the subset of users (Dicker: pars. 0038, 0042-0043, 0049-0050, 0200; Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 4, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Dicker and Wu disclose the processor is configured to identify a description of an asset to be added to the portfolio associated with the source device based on execution of the Al model on unmatched descriptive content included in the portfolios of the subset of users (Dicker: Figs. 2 and 3A-3B; steps 80-94, 106-116, 306-3046. Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 4.
The combination of Dicker and Wu disclose wherein the processor is further configured to query an external data store related to a performance of the missing item, generate a graphic illustration that represents the performance of the missing item based on the execution of the Al model, and display the graphic illustration via the display window (Dicker: pars. 0043, 0111, 0113-0115, 0175, 0182-0185, 0189-0190, Figs. 3A-3B and 7-15. Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Dicker and Wu disclose the processor is further configured to determine quantity of the missing item to be included in the portfolio associated with the source device based on the execution of the Al model (Dicker: pars. 0009, 0196; Fig. 15, a table 308A. Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Chang and Wu disclose the processor is further configured to conduct a video call via a window of the software application during the communication session and display the display window in association with the window of the video call (Chang: pars. 0066-0070, 0414-0421; Figs. 6DH-6DO. Wu: pars. 0055-0056; Figs. 7-8).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-12; claims 10-12 are directed to method associated with the apparatus claimed in claims 2-5 respectively; Claims 10-12 are similar in scope to claims 2-5 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to method associated with the apparatus claimed in claim 6; Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claims 17-20; claims 17-20 are directed to computer-readable storage medium associated with the apparatus claimed in claims 1-4 respectively; Claims 17-20 are similar in scope to claims 1-4 respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dicker et al., (“Dicker,” US 2010/0191619), published on July 29, 2010, in view of Chang et al., (“Chang,” US 2022/0365740), published on November 17, 2022, and Wu et al., (“Wu,” US 2018/0189857,” and further in view of Tata et al., (“Tata,” US 2020/0272915), published on August 20, 2020.
Regarding claim 8, Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Decker and Wu disclose the processor comprising visually depicts a status of the item and the AI module (Decker: ** .Wu: Fig. 8; a program modules 806 include a conversational AI application 820).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Dicker, Chang, and Wu disclose all limitations above, but do not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to generate one or more of a chart and a graph that visually of the item at a future time.
However, Tata discloses a method for training AI model to automatically extract features of products, wherein generate one or more of a chart and a graph that visually of the item at a future time (Tata: pars. 0055-0058 Figs 9A-11.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tata with the system/method of Decker, Chang, and Wu. One would have been motivated to allow user selects between the history and/or external data sources in a future.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to method associated with the apparatus claimed in claim 8; Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968))
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights