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 .
Priority
This application claims priority as a continuation to US Application No. 18/328,681 filed 6/2/2023, now US Patent No. 12,008,621.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,008,621.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application sets forth a scope that is substantively similar to that of claim 1 of the ‘621 patent. The scope of the instant claims and represents an obvious variation covering the same patentable invention. For example, claim 1 of the ‘621 patent teaches a search system configured to perform searches in response to user queries, the system comprising:
a network interface (see: claim 1, col. 37 line 21);
at least one processing device operable to perform operations comprising (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 22-23)):
utilize a large language model to extract metadata from a plurality of items of content related to one or more items (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 37-42);
perform sentiment analysis to determine user sentiment regarding respective item attributes and/or items (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 43-44);
assign respective values to one or more of a given item’s attributes based at least in part on the determined user sentiment (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 45-47);
receive, via the network interface over a network from a first user device, associated with a first user, a first query (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 58-60);
perform a search for items satisfying the first query using the extracted metadata (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 61-63);
rank items identified in the search based at least in part on respective values, the values based at least in part on the determined user sentiment, assigned to respective attributes associated with the items (see: claim 1, col. 37 lines 64-67); and
transmit, using the network interface, ranked search results, to the user device, the ranked search results corresponding at least in part to the item and/or item attribute rankings, wherein the ranked search results are displayed via the user device (see: claim 1, col. 38 lines 1-6).
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under Step 2A claim 1 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
a search system configured to perform searches in response to user queries, the system for performing operations comprising:
perform sentiment analysis to determine user sentiment regarding respective item attributes and/or items;
assign respective values to one or more of a given item's attributes based at least in part on the determined user sentiment;
receive, associated with a first user, a first query;
perform a search for items satisfying the first query using the extracted metadata;
rank items identified in the search based at least in part on respective values, the values based at least in part on the determined user sentiment, assigned to respective attributes associated with the items; and
transmit ranked search results, the ranked search results corresponding at least in part to the item and/or item attribute rankings, wherein the ranked search results are displayed.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 recites a procedure by which a system utilizes sentiment to respond to a user query by providing a ranked listing of item results. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors (e.g., facilitating product investigation), which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a network interface, at least one processing device, using a large language to extract metadata from a plurality of items of content related to one or more items, and a user device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application 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 the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In addition to the above, utilizing a large language model to extract metadata represents little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giridhari (US 20190318407 A1).
Examiner Comment - Giridhari Figures
The Examiner acknowledges that the Figures as published in Giridhari are unclear. As such, the Examiner has attached clear images as Appendix A for Applicant’s reference.
Regarding claim 1, Giridhari discloses a search system configured to perform searches in response to user queries (see: abstract), the system comprising:
a network interface (see: 0043-0044);
at least one processing device operable to perform operations (see: 0044-0045) comprising:
utilize a large language model to extract metadata from a plurality of items of content related to one or more items (see: 0026, 0046, 0062-0063, 0095-0100);
Note: Various data (e.g., product information, attributes described, keywords, phrases, etc.) are extracted from sources such as reviews. The utilization of machine learning with language processing is analogous to a large language model.
perform sentiment analysis to determine user sentiment regarding respective item attributes and/or items (see: 0004, 0029, 0048, 0051, 0062-0065);
assign respective values to one or more of a given item's attributes based at least in part on the determined user sentiment (see: 0057, 0062, 0072);
receive, via the network interface over a network from a first user device, associated with a first user, a first query (see: Fig. 1-2 (click and place attributes), Fig. 3-4, 0039-0040, 0042, 0080, 0087);
Note: the user defines/assigns weights for attributes in defining the search query for products, and may change/modify the parameters of the search (e.g., using sliders, such as in Fig. 3-4).
perform a search for items satisfying the first query using the extracted metadata (see: 0056, 0058, 0077, 0086);
Note: the product search is performed in order to rank and display the sorted results.
rank items identified in the search based at least in part on respective values, the values based at least in part on the determined user sentiment, assigned to respective attributes associated with the items (see: 0056, 0058, 0077, 0086); and
transmit, using the network interface, ranked search results, to the user device, the ranked search results corresponding at least in part to the item and/or item attribute rankings, wherein the ranked search results are displayed via the user device (see: 0026 (displaying the search results), 0077, 0086).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discloses the use of machine learning in providing search personalization in search engine environments (see: abstract).
PTO form 892-V discloses the use of attention mechanisms and deep learning for personalization product search including capturing users search intentions and integrating both long- and short-term preferences (see: abstract, section 2.1 and 2.3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619