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 action is in reply to the claims filed on 03/22/2024.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/22/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-18 are directed to a manufacture, and claim 19 is directed to a system. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: acquires, for plurality of products, product data including a tag expressing a feature of each product; identifies a relevant product that is relevant to a user in response to a display request or an update request of a predetermined screen from the user; searches the product data and extracts the tag attached to the relevant product; extracts, based on the extracted tag, a candidate group of products to be recommended to the user; and determines whether the extracted candidate group satisfies a predetermined condition in order to identify a product to display on the predetermined screen.
These identified limitations recite an abstract idea best characterized as “identifying a relevant product to recommend a user”, which is a sales activity. Sales activities are commercial interactions classified under “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1, 11, and 19 recite additional elements including: a computer comprising: a memory storing a program; and at least one processor that executes the program; a predetermined screen; a terminal device; a first device; and a second device. The computer, screen, terminal device, and first and second devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions) such that these recitations amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 11, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 and 15-18 and do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-9 and 15-18 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 12-14 recites additional elements including: a display. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the display is described in ordinary terms and merely used as a generic tool to perform the abstract idea. This limitation does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment which does cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application, or provide amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, claim(s) 12-14, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soohoo et al. (US 2020/0250731 A1).
Claim 1 ⸺ Soohoo discloses a product recommendation method executed by a computer,
the computer (¶ [0028] “computer system”) comprising:
a memory storing a program (¶ [0027]); and
at least one processor that executes the program (¶ [0027]), wherein
the at least one processor
acquires, for plurality of products, product data including a tag expressing a feature of each product (¶ [0060] “entities 531-539 also can be entered by registered advanced users and/or learned by machine learning module 540. Exemplary entities can include a product type ...or a product attribute”);
identifies a relevant product that is relevant to a user in response to a display request or an update request of a predetermined screen from the user (¶ [0052] “In many embodiments, method 400 receives one or more product inquiries in block 410, extracts one or more attributes of each of the requested products in block 420”);
searches the product data and extracts the tag attached to the relevant product (¶ [0052] “extracts one or more attributes of each of the requested products in block 420”);
extracts, based on the extracted tag, a candidate group of products to be recommended to the user (¶ [0057] “In many embodiments, with the attributes of the requested product and the context determined, method 400 can determine one or more substitutions for the requested product in block 440, by referring to a product graph 460”); and
determines whether the extracted candidate group satisfies a predetermined condition in order to identify a product to display on the predetermined screen (¶ [0084] “filtering out certain substitutes from the list of proposed substitutes”; ¶ [0091] “In some embodiments, the substitutes can be pre-scanned in order to save time for considering product nodes that are too far from the projected requested product in the product graph” and “Block 1230 can start from the projected product node and explore the product graph by scanning the product nodes nearby so that only the nearest K product nodes in the product graph are considered as substitutes, K being a predetermined threshold, such as 10, 15, 20, or 30”).
Claim 2 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group does not satisfy the predetermined condition, the at least one processor displays at least one product other than the products included in the candidate group on the predetermined screen as a recommended product (¶ [0094] see discussion following “when method 1200 finds a missing substitute from a product graph...”; see ¶ [0058] for display of determined substitutions).
Claim 3 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group satisfies the predetermined condition, the at least one processor does not display a product other than the products included in the candidate group on the predetermined screen as a recommended product (¶ [0091] “only the nearest K product nodes in the product graph are considered as substitutes, K being a predetermined threshold, such as 10, 15, 20, or 30”).
Claim 4 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group satisfies the predetermined condition, the at least one processor displays the products included in the candidate group on the predetermined screen as recommended products (¶ [0091]) and, in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group does not satisfy the predetermined condition, the at least one processor displays a product other than the products included in the candidate group on the predetermined screen as the recommended product (¶ [0094]).
Claim 5 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group does not satisfy the predetermined condition, the at least one processor displays more products from products not included in the candidate group on the predetermined screen as recommended products than in a case in which the at least one processor determines that the extracted candidate group satisfies the predetermined condition (¶ [0091]; ¶¶ [0093]-[0094]; Examiners notes that in a case where the group does not satisfy the predetermined condition (equivalent to the missing substitute embodiment in ¶ [0094]) the method finds new matches and does not display any products from the candidate group, whereas if the condition is satisfied (¶ [0091]), K recommended products are selected from the candidate group).
Claim 6 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein the predetermined condition is a condition that a number of the products included in the candidate group is greater than or equal to a predetermined number (¶ [0091] “only the nearest K product nodes in the product graph are considered as substitutes, K being a predetermined threshold, such as 10, 15, 20, or 30”).
Claim 9 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo further discloses, wherein the at least one processor identifies at least one of a product that the user has set as a favorite and a product that the user has purchased or viewed as the relevant product (¶ [0056] “The context of the inquiry also can include information about the user giving this inquiry, including the user's purchase history, such as the other products the user previously ordered, including the styles, the price range, the types of products purchased, and so forth.”)
Claims 10-15 and 18, which are directed to a device, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 1-4, 6, and 9. Claim(s) 10-15 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-4, 6, and 9, respectively.
Claim 19 – Soohoo discloses a product recommendation system comprising:
a first device (¶ [0036] “computer system 100”); and
a second device (¶ [0038] “user devices 360”), wherein
the first device includes
a first memory that stores, for plurality of products, a first program (¶ [0037]) and product data including a tag that expresses a feature of each product (¶ [0072]),
a first communication interface capable of communicating with the second device (¶ [0038] “In some embodiments, system 300 and system 310 can be in data communication with user devices 360 through website 330 hosted by a web server that hosts one or more other websites”), and
at least one first processor that executes the first program (¶ [0038] “ the processor(s) of system 300”),
the second device includes
a second memory storing a second program (¶ [0040] “user devices 360 can be implemented with desktop computers, laptop computers, a mobile device, and/or other endpoint devices”),
a second communication interface capable of communicating with the first device (¶ [0038] “Internet 330”; ¶ [0040]),
a display (¶ [0040]), and
at least one second processor that executes the second program (¶ [0040]),
the at least one first processor of the first device
identifies a relevant product that is relevant to a user in response to receiving a display request or an update request of a predetermined screen from the user via the first communication interface (¶ [0052] “In many embodiments, method 400 receives one or more product inquiries in block 410, extracts one or more attributes of each of the requested products in block 420” and “The product inquiries can come from one or more users through the Internet”),
searches the product data and extracts the tag attached to the relevant product (¶ [0052] “extracts one or more attributes of each of the requested products in block 420”),
extracts, based on the tag, a candidate group of products to be recommended to the user (¶ [0057] “In many embodiments, with the attributes of the requested product and the context determined, method 400 can determine one or more substitutions for the requested product in block 440, by referring to a product graph 460”), and
in a case in which a determination is made that the candidate group does not satisfy a predetermined condition, sets at least one product other than the products included in the candidate group as a recommended product (¶ [0094] see discussion following “when method 1200 finds a missing substitute from a product graph...”), and sends information related to the recommended product to the second device via the first communication interface (¶ [0058] “After block 440, method 400 can transmit information regarding the one or more substitutions for the requested product to the user who transmitted the inquiry in block 410”), and the at least one second processor of the second device displays the predetermined screen on the display in response to receiving the information related to the recommended product from the second communication interface (¶ [0058] “The transmission can include facilitating a display of the information onto a graphical user interface on a screen of a device of the user”).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soohoo in view of Kobayashi (US 2021/0264494 A1).
Claim 8 – Soohoo discloses the product recommendation method according to claim 1. Soohoo does not disclose limitations associated with frequently appearing tags, however Kobayashi –which like Soohoo is directed to providing retail recommendations –further teaches, wherein the at least one processor totals the extracted tag by type, identifies a frequently appearing tag for which a total number is greater than or equal to a predetermined number, and extracts various products to which at least one of the identified frequently appearing tag is attached as the candidate group (Kobayashi ¶ [0039] “For example, in one embodiment, network node 36 counts the number of tags in each given product category, and selects a product from the category having the highest number of tags (box 76)”; ¶ [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the frequently appearing tag as taught by Kobayashi in the method of Soohoo in order to provide benefits and advantages that conventional systems to do provide, for example, personalized and accurate recommendations for a given customer (Kobayashi ¶ [0014]).
Claim 17, which is directed to a device, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 8. Claim 17is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Albadvi, Amir, and Mohammad Shahbazi (NPL Reference U) introduces a technique of recommendation in the context of online retail store which extracts user preferences in each product category separately and provides more personalized recommendations through employing product taxonomy, attributes of product categories,
Correa et al. (US 2022/0058713 A1) describes modifying a candidate group of recommended items from which a list is selected for display by adding or removing items in at least ¶ [0037].
Levy et al. (US 10,007,946 B1) is directed to methods for measuring similarity and generating recommendations for unique items.
Xiao et al. (US 2024/0214619 A1) describes an interest based content recommendation system for selecting one or more recommendation candidates for a user, where the one or more recommendation candidates may be selected from a set of content items based on interest based popularity score of the content item for the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688