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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been canceled.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are currently pending and rejected.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(f) Interpretation
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the previous interpretation of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(f) have been rendered moot. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive, in view of the accompanying amendments. The previous rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn, however, the amendments have necessitated a new rejection under 35 USC 101 as the claims are now directed toward a judicial exception (MPEP 2106). The new rejection under 35 USC 101 is explained in further detail below.
35 USC 102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections have been withdrawn and the claims are indicated allowable over the prior art (though the rejection under 35 USC 101 remains), as set forth below.
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 1-8 and 10-15 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 1-8 and 10-13 are directed to an apparatus. Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is a process. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is a product. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of providing product recommendations:
encode a behavior history of a user for an item to generate a first embedding for each user;
derive a weight for each user based on information on a price of the item and the behavior history, and weight the first embedding generated with the derived weight;
aggregate the first embedding weighted to generate, for a group to which the user belongs, a second embedding indicating a preference of the group for the item; and
concatenate the second embedding of the group to a third embedding that encodes the information on the price of the item, and propagate the concatenated embedding in a multi-layer neural network to predict a score of the group for the item; and
cause the list of items to be displayed based on the score of the group for the item.
The recited limitations as a whole set forth the process for providing product recommendations. 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 representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as a memory, a processor, a neural network, 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 2-8 and 10-13 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the process for providing product recommendations. Thus, each of claims 2-8 and 10-13 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13 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.
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.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claims 14 (method) and 15 (medium), the claims recite substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claims 14 and 15 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are allowable over the prior art, though the rejection under 35 USC 101 still applies. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant's invention. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are allowable as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Wadhwa et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0245700 A1) (“Wadhwa”). While the prior art teaches many of the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 15, the prior art fails to teach prediction code configured to cause the at least one processor to concatenate the second embedding of the group to a third embedding that encodes the information on the price of the item, and propagate the concatenated embedding in a multi-layer neural network to predict a score of the group for the item; and output code configured to cause the at least one processor to cause the list of items to be displayed based on the score of the group for the item.
Additionally, PTO Form 892-U, the article “Developing Algorithms for Personalized Recommendations Based on User Behavior” discloses a variety of personalized recommendation algorithms for systems of e-commerce applications. Although the article discusses the use of various techniques and innovations to enhance the relevance of recommendations provided to a user, the article fails to disclose prediction code configured to concatenate the second embedding of the group to a third embedding that encodes the information on the price of the item, and propagate the concatenated embedding in a multi-layer neural network to predict a score of the group for the item, as is required by the present claims. Therefore, PTO-Form 892-U does not render the claimed invention novel or non-obvious.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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