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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejections made under § 103(a). The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims are directed to a practical application that provides a specific technical solution to a technical problem in the domain of item-listing system technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The practical application that transforms a generic computer into a special-purpose machine for solving the technical problem of inefficient, low-satisfaction item-listing is not a technical problem, but rather a business problem.
Applicant argues that the “claims improve computer capabilities by defining a guide-to-guide comparison architecture that transforms review data into structured recommendation-guide features and uses those features to identify corresponding items, citing Enfish.
However, no improvements to a computer's ability to communicate, compare, or identify items are described in the claims or the Specification. Although Applicant cites eligible claims in Enfish, that case is distinguishable in that it specifically dealt with configuring computer memory. The instant claims relate to purely business concerns and implement the data processing with merely generic hardware.
Applicant also argues that the claims fall within the scope of the holding articulated by the court in McRo. Examiner notes that in McRo the claim was focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation. The Federal Circuit found that improvements in computer-related technology can be an improvement to the computer itself (like DDR or Enfish) or steps/functions that allow a computer to perform a function it could not perform before the claimed invention (like McRo). Examiner respectfully argues that McRo is not appropriate for the current claims because none of the currently claimed set of functions allow a computer to perform functions it could not otherwise perform prior to the claimed invention. As noted above, similar to Fairwarning vs. Iatric Systems, it is the use of the computer itself, not the claimed set of steps that purportedly improve the existing technological process. The technical abilities of the underlying system (e.g., allowing for the computer to perform mapping, matching, comparing and identifying are unchanged from its generic, conventional state.
Applicant argues that the claims "improve a graphical user interface by surfacing review-based evidence with the recommended item." While this may make the interface more useful to the person using the device, it does not solve any technological problem or improve the device itself. "[I]mproving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (the purported improvement in user experience from an interface did not "improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.").
Examiner has altered the rejection made under § 101 and added a more in-depth analysis that is believed to address the rest of the Applicant’s arguments.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-10, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1, taken as representative, recites the abstract idea of providing review-based recommendations. This idea is described by the following steps:
accessing review data associated with a first user for a first item in an item listing system;
based on the review data, identifying a review-based recommendation guide feature for the first item, wherein the review-based recommendation guide feature is associated with a review-based recommendation guide that identifies user preferences for item features of a corresponding item;
mapping the review-based recommendation guide feature of the first item to a review-based recommendation guide feature of a second item, wherein the review-based recommendation guide feature of the second item is associated with a review-based recommendation guide of one or more second users, wherein mapping is based on a review-based recommendation that compares the review-based recommendation guide of the first item to a plurality of review-based recommendation to match based on the review-based recommendation guide feature;
communicating the second item as a review-based recommended item associated with the review data; and
presenting the second item and review-based insight associated with the second item, wherein the review-based insight comprises one or more excerpts of review data corresponding to the one or more second users.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite item recommendation, i.e., commercial interactions.
Additionally, the above recited limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ides, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind. The BRI of these limitations includes a human mentally, or by use of pen and paper, collecting information, mapping features, analyzing information.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 1 recites additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claim 1 recites one or more processors; computer memory storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These additional computer-related elements merely invoke such additional elements as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 additionally recites using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model. However, the machine-learned models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., generating review-based recommendation guides) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 also recites the limitations “causing presentation on a graphical user interface display…”. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. receiving review data) and data output (i.e. displaying items and review-based insight associated with the items) (see2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 does not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: accessing review data associated with a first user for a first item in an item listing system; based on the review data, identifying a review-based recommendation guide feature for the first item, wherein the review-based recommendation guide feature is associated with a review-based recommendation guide that identifies user preferences for item features of a corresponding item, wherein the review-based recommendation guides are generated using a generative artificial intelligence (AI) model and review data of users; mapping the review-based recommendation guide feature of the first item to a review-based recommendation guide feature of a second item, wherein the review-based recommendation guide feature of the second item is associated with a review-based recommendation guide of one or more second users, wherein mapping is based on a review-based recommendation logic that compares the review-based recommendation guide of the first item to a plurality of review-based recommendation to match based on the review-based recommendation guide feature; communicating the second item as a review-based recommended item associated with the review data; and causing presentation, on a graphical user interface display, of the second item and a generative AI review-based insight associated with the second item, wherein the generative AI review-based insight comprises one or more excerpts of review data corresponding to the one or more second users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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, 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights