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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-1, in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-11 are elected.
Claim 12 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1-11 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of providing product information:
a) choosing a type of products to be compared;
b) choosing a number of attributes to be compared from a list of product attributes stored in the database, wherein said attributes are quantifiable on ordinal or cardinal scales;
c) evaluating an importance for each of product attribute on an ordinal or cardinal scale;
d) choosing at least one product of the product type chosen in the step a);
e) loading preset input data from preference elucidation module to computation and visualization module, wherein said input data comprises products to be compared along with chosen attributes and designated importance;
f) loading product comparison data by the computation and visualization module by retrieving a matrix of attribute values for each compared products from the database, wherein said matrix comprises all attribute values for chosen product and a row in the matrix comprises values of specific attribute for all compared products;
g) calculation of bars for each compared product;
wherein each bar of a product comprises a set of blocks that correspond to the attributes for which the product has best values among all compared products,
wherein each block in the bar has two dimensions: width and height;
wherein the height of the block is determined by the importance value of the corresponding attribute and wherein a smallest height value corresponds to a lowest importance of attribute and a highest height value corresponds to the highest importance of attribute; and
h) generating a visualization of product comparison in form of bars in at least one output window and presenting it to the user;
wherein each bar is a set of blocks, each drawn subsequent on top of previous block;
wherein the height of each bar consists of sum of attribute importance values.
The recited limitations as a whole set forth the process for providing product information. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as a processor, a memory, a graphical user interface, etc.
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely includes instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, while the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
When taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer device to perform the receiving and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Certain additional elements also recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-11 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the process for providing product information. Thus, each of claims 2-11 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment, and applied on a generic computer. Further, the additional limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, another technology, or a technical field. Additionally, the limitations of claims 5 and 8 also represent mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). These concepts have also been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see again: MPEP 2106).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A/2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baker (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0005045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baker teaches a computer-implemented, compensatory choice visual decision support method for comparing products or services with attributes most compelling to a user's preferences by producing a comparison of at least two products (para [0045], By (a) allowing a user (of a website, for example) to view graphically how different available items (for example, used cars) compare to one another, with respect to attributes of the available items, and (b) enabling the user to control what is shown in a displayed diagram that portrays the items, in the context of indicators of their attributes, the user can more easily and visually compare and pick products and services in terms of their attributes), each with at least one attribute, the method comprising following steps:
a) choosing a type of products to be compared deposited within database (para [0045], different available items);
b) choosing a number of attributes to be compared from a list of product attributes stored in the database, wherein said attributes are quantifiable on ordinal or cardinal scales (para [0053], users have the ability to choose the search criteria 24, 25 that are used as variables along the axes of the X/Y graph);
c) evaluating an importance for each of product attribute on an ordinal or cardinal scale (para [0050], displayed relative to one another by the variables that are important to him or her; para [0029], attributes are displayed in the diagram ordinally; para [0032] qualitative and quantitative attributes);
d) choosing at least one product from the database of the product type chosen in the step a) (para [0056], If the user wishes to view a number of selected data points, such as 64, he or she can perform a function such as a “control/click” or another user interface action upon each of the data points in order to view the full listing details of just those selected);
e) loading preset input data from preference elucidation module to computation and visualization module, wherein said input data comprises products to be compared along with chosen attributes and designated importance (para [0050], With this graphical display, the user can readily see the relationship among all of the vehicles that meet his or her search criteria, displayed relative to one another by the variables that are important to him or her);
f) loading product comparison data by the computation and visualization module by retrieving a matrix of attribute values for each compared products from the database, wherein said matrix comprises all attribute values for chosen product and a row in the matrix comprises values of specific attribute for all compared products (para [0048], user is often presented with the ability to choose from additional search criteria 25, where he has the ability to filter the site's database further, to further refine their search; para [0080], Data is accessed from the site's database, and data queries are made based upon users' input. The data set that is produced is a function of those trips that meet the search criteria specified by the user.);
g) calculation of bars for each compared product (para [0071], In a histogram display 165, vehicles' book values are normalized so that each vehicle's offering price is shown relative to its own book value);
wherein each bar of a product comprises a set of blocks that correspond to the attributes for which the product has best values among all compared products (para [0071], each bar on the histogram 162 represents an individual vehicle, and its height represents the dollar difference (or percentage difference),
wherein each block in the bar has two dimensions: width and height (para [0071]);
wherein the height of the block is determined by the importance value of the corresponding attribute and wherein a smallest height value corresponds to a lowest importance of attribute and a highest height value corresponds to the highest importance of attribute (Fig. 16; para [0071]); and
h) generating a visualization of product comparison in form of bars in at least one output window and presenting it to the user (Fig. 16; para [0071]);
wherein each bar is a set of blocks, each drawn subsequent on top of previous block (Fig. 16; para [0071]);
wherein the height of each bar consists of sum of attribute importance values (Fig. 16; para [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein said scale is an ordinal 6 points scale wherein, a value of 1 is interpreted as the lowest importance, while a value of 6 as the highest importance (para [0103]-[0104], rank-ordered variables).
Regarding claim 3, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches further comprising step c') which comprises storing the importance values for each attribute in the database (para [0155], other technologies used to maintain state and store data, and the application's involvement in the changes to these metrics).
Regarding claim 4, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein step c) the chosen importance values are visualized and presented to the user in the form of blocks of different sizes (para [0056], Those data points that have been selected or viewed can be noted by a differing appearance from those that have not been viewed, for example, the selected or viewed data points could have a different color, a different size, a different shape, or another visual characteristic that is distinct from the other data points).
Regarding claim 6, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein said blocks are drawn one on another from a bottom of the output window (para [0088], users could see their trip options displayed as either a horizontal or vertical bar chart).
Regarding claim 7, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein in step d) an additional input data is loaded to computation and visualization module, wherein said additional input data comprises width of the bars, distance between bars and width of the output window for displaying the bars (para [0056], Those data points that have been selected or viewed can be noted by a differing appearance from those that have not been viewed, for example, the selected or viewed data points could have a different color, a different size, a different shape, or another visual characteristic that is distinct from the other data points).
Regarding claim 9, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein in step h) the visualization of product comparison in the form of bars is generated in the output window further comprises additional data comprising attribute name, attribute importance level, numerical data of parameter chosen as attribute to be compared, text data describing the parameter chosen as attribute to be compared, combination thereof (para [0008], user can view an image, data, or both related to each of the items by interacting with the displayed diagram. The user can interact with the displayed diagram by pointing to identifiers of items. The interacting causes additional information about the items to be displayed on or in the vicinity of the displayed diagram).
Regarding claim 10, Baker teaches the above method of claim 9. Baker also teaches wherein said additional data are presented to the user in a table (Fig. 2; para [0048], list or gallery format).
Regarding claim 11, Baker teaches the above method of claim 1. Baker also teaches wherein the method is executed on a server-based system with a database connected via a network to a client host and browser (para [0175], components of the system can be connected by any form or medium of digital data communication such as a communication network. Examples of communication networks include, e.g., a LAN, a WAN, and the computers and networks forming the Internet).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1 and 7, but would be allowable over the prior art (though still ineligible under 35 USC 101) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND LOHARIKAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am – 5pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANAND LOHARIKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689