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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 101 rejection: Applicant argues that the independent claims do not recite a judicial exception. Examiner disagrees with this assessment because the independent claims recite “selecting one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second intensity value of which is closest to the first intensity value” which covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ismael fails to teach “one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to a category of a plurality of categories, each of the plurality of categories relating to a human sense”. Examiner disagrees because Ismael teaches “The taste preference model can be used to link the computationally inferred taste preferences with food providers, food items, and/or categories of food items”(column 3 lines 30-32).
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG).
• STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Claim 1 recites a process(method), claim 8 recites a manufacture (communication terminal), claim 9 recites a manufacture (communication equipment), claim 10 recites a manufacture(computer), claim 11 recites a manufacture(computer-readable medium).
• STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claim 9, 10, and 11) recites “selecting one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second value of which is closest to the first value”. Claim 8 recites “in response to the request, receive a content item comprising identification information in relation to one or more places for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second value of which is closest to the first value”. These limitations fall into the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
For example, a person could be asked if they know any restaurants that have a high spiciness level (i.e., first intensity value). Then, the person could retrieve from their memory the name of a restaurant (i.e., one or more places) that has a high spiciness level (i.e., second intensity value).
The BRI of “selecting one or more places” and “receiving a content item” covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and therefore, recites an abstract idea.
• STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial
Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a method for communication between a terminal and a communication equipment, via a communication network, during which the terminal requests to obtain a content item from said equipment, said content item relating to a place open to the public, the method comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 8 recites “a communication terminal designed to communicate, via a communication network, with a communication equipment, during which the terminal requests to obtain a content item from said equipment, said content item relating to a place open to the public, the terminal configured to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 9 recites “communication equipment designed to communicate, via a communication network, with a communication terminal, during which the terminal requests to obtain a content item from said equipment, said content item relating to a place open to the public, said equipment configured to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 10 recites “a computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having stored thereon program code instructions” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 11 recites “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “transmitting, from the terminal to said equipment, via said network, a search request for at least one place open to the public, said request comprising at least one type of place and at least one word characterizing the type of place, said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense; and in response to the request, receiving, in the terminal, from said equipment, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places” which is mere data gathering and outputting.
Claim 9 recites “receive, from the terminal, via said network, a search request for at least one place open to the public, said request comprising at least one type of place open to the public and at least one word characterizing said type of place, said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense” which is mere data gathering and outputting.
Claim 1 recites “in response to the request, receiving, in the terminal, from said equipment, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places”. Claim 8 recites “in response to the request, receive, from said equipment, via said network, a content item comprising identification information in relation to one or more places for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second value of which is closest to the first value”. Claim 9 recites “and in response to the request, transmit, to said terminal, via said network, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places open to the public”. These elements represent a final step of transmitting or receiving data, and therefore, the elements are insignificant extra-solution activity tangentially related to the judicial exception.
• Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have determined mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(f)).
Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite “mere data gathering and outputting”. The courts have determined mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea is not enough to qualify as "significantly more", as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (see MPEP § 2106.0S(g)).
Claim 1 recites “in response to the request, receiving, in the terminal, from said equipment, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places”. Claim 8 recites “in response to the request, receive, from said equipment, via said network, a content item comprising identification information in relation to one or more places for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second value of which is closest to the first value”. Claim 9 recites “and in response to the request, transmit, to said terminal, via said network, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places open to the public”. These elements represent a final step of receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined receiving or transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 2 recites a process (method)
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 2 recites “the first intensity value for said at least one human sense belongs to a profile of a user of the terminal, said profile containing sensory preferences of the user in relation to one or more human senses, and the second intensity value for said at least one human sense belongs to a profile of at least one place, said profile containing sensory characteristics specific to said place, in relation to one or more human senses” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 3 recites “wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated in one go prior to the implementation of the method or is generated in association with each search request” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 4 recites “wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from responses of the user to a digital questionnaire received by said terminal or another terminal from said communication equipment, said questionnaire interrogating the user about their preferences in relation to at least one human sense” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No . Claim 5 recites “wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from one or more messages of the user that have been published, via said communication network, the one or more messages relating to one or more places open to the public, in relation to at least one of the human senses” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 6 recites “wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from one or more digital traces left by the user, during one or more communications using said terminal, via said communication network” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 7 recites “wherein the first intensity value for said at least one human sense of the profile of the user of the terminal, respectively the second intensity value for said at least one human sense of the profile of said at least one place, are variable or invariable over time” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 12 recites “wherein the first intensity value comprises a first numerical value from the user profile corresponding to said at least one human sense and wherein the second intensity value comprises a second numerical value from the profile of at least one place corresponding to said at least one human sense” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 13 recites “wherein the first numerical value is associated with said at least one word by the terminal prior to transmission of the search request” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 14 recites “wherein the first intensity value comprises a first numerical value from the user profile corresponding to said at least one human sense and wherein the second intensity value comprises a second numerical value from the profile of at least one place corresponding to said at least one human sense” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 15
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 15 recites “wherein the profile of the at least one place is generated prior to transmission of the search request” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 16 recites “wherein the user profile comprises a plurality of numerical intensity values associated with said at least one human sense, wherein the word is associated with only one numerical intensity value of said plurality of numerical intensity values” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prone one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prone two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 17 recites “wherein the user profile further comprises a plurality of numerical intensity values associated with at least one additional human sense distinct from said at least one human sense” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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, 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ismael et al (US 11176626 B1) hereafter Ismael in view of Wine Spectator
Regarding claim 1, Ismael teaches a method for communication between a terminal (i.e., computing device 140) and a communication equipment(i.e., computing devices 110), via a communication network (column 5 lines 15-16, the system includes computing devices 110 and computing device 140, which are communicatively coupled to an electronic communications network 160), during which the terminal requests to obtain a content item from said equipment (column 6 lines 10-14, computing device 140 operates food information interface 150 to establish logical connections over network 160 with search engine 104)(“search engine” teaches “obtain a content item”), said content item relating to a place open to the public (column 10 lines 7-10, Search results 107 can include for example names of restaurants or other food providers), the method comprising: transmitting, from the terminal to said equipment, via said network, a search request for at least one place open to the public (column 6 lines 59-62, search/recommender engine 104 may 60 be configured specifically for search and retrieval of food related data stored in food provider data 116 or food order data 106, using food taxonomy 112)(“food provider data” teaches “at least one word characterizing the type of place”), said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value(column 3 lines 31-33, The taste preference model can be used to link the computationally inferred taste preferences with food providers, food items, and/or categories of food items)(“taste preference” teaches “intensity value”), and in response to the request, receiving, in the terminal, from said equipment, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places (column 13 lines 61-65, When restaurant data or menu item data matching the inferred taste preference is to be displayed in a display device, operation 254 causes the display device to display a taste preference indicator in association with the displayed restaurant or menu item data)(“taste preference indicator” teaches “identification information”).
Ismael does not appear to explicitly teach said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense, selecting, in said network, one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second intensity value of which is closest to the first intensity value.
In analogous art, Wine Spectator teaches said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense, selecting, in said network, one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second intensity value of which is closest to the first intensity value (Find a Wine Rating: Winery name only, Wine Spectator Score)(“ Wine Spectator Score” teaches “intensity value”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ismael to include the teaching of Wine Spectator. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to search a place of interest database based on a taste, as taught by Wine Spectator (Page1 , Search the largest wine database with more than 445,000 ratings).
Regarding claim 2, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein: the first intensity value for said category relating to said human sense belongs to a profile of a user of the terminal, said profile containing sensory preferences of the user in relation to one or more human senses, and the second intensity value for said category relating to said human sense belongs to a profile of at least one place, said profile containing sensory characteristics specific to said place, in relation to one or more human senses (Ismael, Para 18, using the disclosed techniques, an information search and retrieval system can automatically recommend a restaurant that matches a computationally determined taste preference of a user account when the user is in a new or unfamiliar location).
Regarding claim 3, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated in one go prior to the implementation of the method or is generated in association with each search request (Ismael, Para 23, “Account” as used in this disclosure may refer to a computer login that is accessed by a unique identifier and password, where a successful login enables operations, such as online information searching and purchases of food, to be performed by the food ordering system in connection with the account).
Regarding claim 4, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from responses of the user to a digital questionnaire received by said terminal or another terminal from said communication equipment, said questionnaire interrogating the user about their preferences in relation to at least one human sense (Ismael, Para 17, the user manually inputs specific taste preferences).
Regarding claim 5, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from one or more messages of the user that have been published, via said communication network, the one or more messages relating to one or more places open to the public, in relation to at least one of the human senses (Para 18, As described in this disclosure, algorithmic pattern detecting and inferencing techniques can be implemented on a networked computing system to automatically infer user-specific taste preferences from user interaction data including but not limited to historical order data, and can apply the inferred taste preferences in a new operational context).
Regarding claim 6, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches wherein the profile of the user of the terminal is generated from one or more digital traces left by the user, during one or more communications using said terminal, via said communication network(Ismael, Para 18, As described in this disclosure, algorithmic pattern detecting and inferencing techniques can be implemented on a networked computing system to automatically infer user-specific taste preferences from user interaction data including but not limited to historical order data, and can apply the inferred taste preferences in a new operational context).
Regarding claim 7, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches wherein the first intensity value for said category relating to said human sense of the profile of the user of the terminal, respectively the second intensity value for said category relating to said human sense of the profile of said at least one place, are variable or invariable over time (Ismael, Para 20, The technologies described in this document can ingest large volumes of longitudinal food-related data, including electronic activity data such as online order data, and apply one or more mathematical algorithms to the ingested data to detect patterns in the data, draw inferences about the user's taste preferences based on the detected patterns of data, and create a user-specific taste preference model).
Claim 8 is the communication terminal claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Ismael teaches communication equipment(i.e., computing device 140) designed to communicate, via a communication network(i.e., electronic communications network 160), with a communication terminal(i.e., computing devices 110), during which the terminal requests to obtain a content item from said equipment, said content item relating to a place open to the public(column 6 lines 10-14, computing device 140 operates food information interface 150 to establish logical connections over network 160 with search engine 104)(“search engine” teaches “obtain a content item”), said equipment configured to: receive, from the terminal, via said network, a search request for at least one place open to the public, said request comprising at least one type of place open to the public and at least one word characterizing said type of place(column 6 lines 59-62, search/recommender engine 104 may 60 be configured specifically for search and retrieval of food related data stored in food provider data 116 or food order data 106, using food taxonomy 112)(“food provider data” teaches “at least one word characterizing the type of place”), and in response to the request, transmit, to said terminal, via said network, a content item comprising identification information in relation to the selected one or more places open to the public(column 13 lines 61-65, When restaurant data or menu item data matching the inferred taste preference is to be displayed in a display device, operation 254 causes the display device to display a taste preference indicator in association with the displayed restaurant or menu item data)(“taste preference indicator” teaches “identification information”).
Ismael does not appear to explicitly teach said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense, selecting, in said network, one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second intensity value of which is closest to the first intensity value.
In analogous art, Wine Spectator teaches said at least one word being associated with a first intensity value assigned to at least one human sense, selecting, in said network, one or more places open to the public for which a second intensity value for said at least one human sense has been assigned and the second intensity value of which is closest to the first intensity value (Page 1, Find a Wine Rating: Winery name only, Wine Spectator Score)(“Wine Spectator Score” teaches “intensity value”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ismael to include the teaching of Wine Spectator. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to search a point of interest database based on a taste, as taught by Wine Spectator (Page 1 , Search the largest wine database with more than 445,000 ratings).
Claim 10 is the computer claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 11 is the medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the first intensity value comprises a first numerical value from the user profile corresponding to said human sense and wherein the second intensity value comprises a second numerical value from the profile of at least one place corresponding to said human sense (Ismael, Para 18, using the disclosed techniques, an information search and retrieval system can automatically recommend a restaurant that matches a computationally determined taste preference of a user account when the user is in a new or unfamiliar location).
Claim 13, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first numerical value is associated with said at least one word by the terminal prior to transmission of the search request (Ismael, Para 23, An account identifier is any value capable of digital storage or representation that identifies an account. Various embodiments may use computer identifiers, user identifiers and other values as substitutes for account identifiers and the term “account identifier” herein is intended to encompass other identifiers having different names or labels that function in the same manner as described herein).
Claim 14, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the first numerical value is associated with said at least one word by the communication equipment after receipt of the search request (Ismael, Para 23, An account identifier is any value capable of digital storage or representation that identifies an account. Various embodiments may use computer identifiers, user identifiers and other values as substitutes for account identifiers and the term “account identifier” herein is intended to encompass other identifiers having different names or labels that function in the same manner as described herein).
Claim 15, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the profile of the at least one place is generated prior to transmission of the search request (Ismael, Para 18, using the disclosed techniques, an information search and retrieval system can automatically recommend a restaurant that matches a computationally determined taste preference of a user account when the user is in a new or unfamiliar location).
Regarding claim 16, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the user profile comprises a plurality of numerical intensity values associated with respective categories of the plurality of categories relating to said at least one human sense, wherein the word is associated with only one numerical intensity value of said plurality of numerical intensity values (Ismael, Para 18, using the disclosed techniques, an information search and retrieval system can automatically recommend a restaurant that matches a computationally determined taste preference of a user account when the user is in a new or unfamiliar location).
Regarding claim 17, Ismael in view of Wine Spectator teaches the method of Claim 16, wherein the user profile further comprises a plurality of numerical intensity values associated with respective categories of a plurality of categories relating to at least one additional human sense distinct from said at least one human sense (Ismael, Para 18, using the disclosed techniques, an information search and retrieval system can automatically recommend a restaurant that matches a computationally determined taste preference of a user account when the user is in a new or unfamiliar location).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights