Status of Claims
1. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on October 22, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25 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. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 21-25 are an apparatus; claims 7-8, and 10-13 are a method; and claims 15, and 17-20 is a non-transitory CRM having instructions which are executed by a processor. Thus, each claim 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of obtaining an opinion or feedback or recommendations from a shopper’s contact list prior to purchasing a product wherein the recommendations are further analyzed to generate or purchase recommendations to prospective shopper is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25 at least are electronic device comprising: at least one output device, including a display; a communication system that enables the electronic device to communicatively connect with an online purchasing portal and at least one second electronic device, memory storing a module, at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the communication system, and the memory, wherein the at least one processor executes program code of the IQI module and configures the electronic device, a second electronic device, transmitting, and automatically generating a purchase recommendation [is being interpreted as "“once initiated, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Markman ruling, slip op. at 30." CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005)] (per claims 1 and 8); a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions that when executed by a processor of an electronic device comprising a display, configure the electronic device to perform functions (in addition to claims 1 and 8, note per claim 15); AI analysis comprising natural language processing (NLP) performed by one or more AI engines (per claim 21); computerized analysis that comprises text preprocessing (per claim 22). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions to obtain recommendations from a contact and apply AI analysis on evaluating sentiment data by applying natural language processing to generate purchase and other recommendations (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Fig. 1 and its associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is a tailored content based on information about the user (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide product recommendation backed by trusted source e.g. user’s own contacts, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of obtaining an opinion or feedback or recommendations from a shopper’s contact list prior to purchasing a product wherein the recommendations are further analyzed to generate or purchase recommendations to prospective shopper is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-25, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of obtaining an opinion or feedback or recommendations from a shopper’s contact list prior to purchasing a product wherein the recommendations are further analyzed to generate or purchase recommendations to prospective shopper is certain methods of organizing human activity - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) [similarly here user's data is received and based on analysis, purchase recommendation promotions are to be transmitted over a network]; and
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution promotions are communicated or displayed to user on an interface].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson (Pub. No.: US2019/0080372) in view of Kurtz (Pub. No.: US 2017/0046760).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Richardson teaches
- as per claim 1, an electronic device comprising: at least one output device, including a display; a communication system that enables the electronic device to communicatively connect with an online purchasing portal and at least one second electronic device of a known contact (see [0015]; [0018]; [0057]); a memory having stored thereon an item query initiation (IQI) module (see [0064]); and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the communication system, and the memory, wherein the at least one processor executes program code of the IQI module and configures the electronic device to (see [0015]; [0064]):
- as per claim 8, a method comprising (see [0015]-[0016]; [0018]; [0057]):
- as per claim 15, a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions that when executed by a processor of an electronic device comprising a display, configure the electronic device to perform functions comprising (see [0017]; [0020]):
- as per claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15: (a) detect prepurchase activity for an item (see [0100]; [0104]);
(b) obtain a list of one or more reviews for the item (see Figs. 12A and its associated disclosure; [0104]-[0110]);
(c) obtain a user identifier for each review in the list of one or more reviews (see Figs. 12A and its associated disclosure; [0100]; [0102]-[0103]);
(d) determine, based on the user identifier, if one or more reviews in the list of reviews correspond to a contact in a contact list associated with the electronic device; and (e) in response to determining that a user identifier associated with at least one review corresponds to a contact in the contact list: sort the list of reviews based at least in part on user identifiers associated with reviews in the list of reviews that correspond to contacts in the contact list, to give priority to selected reviews associated with the contacts; and (f) present the sorted list of reviews on the display, wherein the selected reviews appear first in the list of reviews and/or are highlighted or otherwise indicated as originating from a contact (see Figs. 12A, 23, and their associated disclosure; [0103]-[0110]).
Richardson expressly does not teach (g) generate a query pertaining to the item for presentation to the contact; (h) transmit, via the communication subsystem, the query to a second electronic device of the contact to solicit additional feedback from the contact; and (i) in response to receiving a recommendation response from the second electronic device of the contact: analyze each received recommendation response; automatically
generate a purchase recommendation for the item, based, at least in part on the received
recommendation response; and present the purchase recommendation on the display of the
electronic device.
Kurtz teaches generate a query pertaining to the item for presentation to the contact (see [0007] "Various embodiments include unique ways for a system and related software applications to gather ratings by current or former patients on a physician through a patient engagement portal/application and report those ratings to a prospective patient. If desired, the prospective patient could see all ratings anonymously, and/or may also see which ratings belonged to former patients that also appeared in the prospective patient's contact list on their smart phone (i.e., acquaintances). In various embodiments, a prospective patient could then reveal their identity through the portal/application to an identified/anonymous acquaintance and request that the acquaintance reveal their identity to the prospective patient. If both parties revealed their identity, then the two parties could then have a conversation, email or text message about the physician in question. The parties could also agree to share text messages or other content without sharing their identity."; [0008]; [0012])
(h) Kurtz teaches transmit, via the communication subsystem, the query to a second electronic device of the contact to solicit additional feedback from the contact (see [0031]-[0035]); and
(i) Kurtz teaches in response to receiving a recommendation response from the second electronic device of the contact: analyze each received recommendation response; automatically
generate a purchase recommendation for the item, based, at least in part on the received
recommendation response; and present the purchase recommendation on the display of the
electronic device (see [0034]-[0036]; [0041] note “similar systems and methods could be utilized for other industries, including rating restaurants, general contractors, dentist, plumbers, handy men, household cleaning agencies, software services, cloud based services, hotel reviews, vacation rental reviews and other service oriented industries”).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Richardson in view of the foregoing teachings of Kurtz with motivation to not only sort reviews based on user’s contact list but actually provide one or more mechanisms to initiate a conversation that way prospective buyer can obtain information regarding their experience with product or service that they are contemplating to purchase from a reliable and trusted source and facilitating a purchase of the recommended product or service, see at least Kurtz [0004]-[0007]; [0036]; and [0041].
4. Claims 6-7, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of Kurtz, and Mawji et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0277424) referred to hereinafter as Mawji.
As per claims 6, 12, and 19, Richardson in view of Kurtz teaches the claim limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Richardson suggests, see [0103]; [0109], however Richardson expressly does not teach wherein further the at least one processor: computes a trust level score for each contact in the contact list; sorts the reviews based at least in part on the computed trust level score for each of the contacts in the contact list.
Mawji teaches wherein further the at least one processor: computes a trust level score for each contact in the contact list; sorts the reviews based at least in part on the computed trust level score for each of the contacts in the contact list (see [0044]-[0058]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Richardson further in view of the foregoing teachings of Mawji with motivation to ascertain trust score based on closeness between the contacts as determined per duration of friendship and demographics, see at least Mawji [0062] and [0066], and allowing the sorting based on user weightings, i.e. social connectivity, based on user preference, see at ;east Mawji [0052].
As per claims 7, 13, and 20, Richardson in view of Kurtz expressly does not teach the claim limitations of claims 1, 12, and 19. Richardson in view of Kurtz expressly does not teach wherein to compute the trust level score for each contact in the contact list, the at least one processor: obtains a date of creation for each contact; obtains demographics information corresponding to each contact; computes the trust level score for each contact as a function of the date of creation and the demographics information; and wherein to compute the trust level score for each contact in the contact list, the at least one processor: obtains a date of creation for each contact; obtains demographics information corresponding to each contact; computes the trust level score for each contact as a function of the date of creation and the demographics information.
Mawji teaches wherein to compute the trust level score for each contact in the contact list, the at least one processor: obtains a date of creation for each contact; obtains demographics information corresponding to each contact; computes the trust level score for each contact as a function of the date of creation and the demographics information (see [0062]; [0066]; [0073]-[0088]); and sorting the reviews based at least in part on the computed trust level score for each of the contacts in the contact list (see [0044]-[0058]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Richardson further in view of the foregoing teachings of Mawji with motivation to ascertain trust score based on closeness between the contacts as determined per duration of friendship and demographics, see at least Mawji [0062] and [0066], and allowing the sorting based on user weightings, i.e. social connectivity, based on user preference, see at ;east Mawji [0052].
Claim Objection
5. Claims 3, 5, 10-11, 17-18, and 21-22 (as a result dependent claims of claim 22, namely 23-25 are also objected to) appear to be allowable over prior art and are hereby objected to for being dependent claim of an independent claim. If the Applicant were to claim one or more of these limitations in claims 3, 5, 10-11, 17-18, and 21-22 with their base or independent claim, this objection will be withdrawn.
While updating the search in view of the filed claim amendments, the Examiner discovered the following, however they were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness based the limitations of claims 3, 5, 10-11, 17-18, and 21-22 - the closest reference appear to be as follows:
- Patent No.: US9679254 see "extrapolating trends in trust scores. A trust score may reflect the trustworthiness, reputation, membership, status, and/or influence of the entity in a particular community or in relation to another entity. An entity's trust score may be calculated based on data from a variety of data sources, and this data may be updated periodically as data is updated and new data becomes available. However, it may be difficult to update a trust score for an entity due to a scarcity of information. The trust score for such entities may be updated based on trends observed for the updated trust scores of other entities over a similar period of time. In this manner, trust scores may be updated for entities for which updated data is not available."
- WO2024142031A1 see Abstract “challenges of human-machine communication to enter feedback about the products he/she bought from an online store or the service he/she received from a platform, and we provided an appropriate solution for each of them. We hope that this invention will help the customers be satisfied with the products they have bought and not suffer any cognitive biases when buying a product. This invention will provide a suitable platform for human-machine interaction using a voice assistant. It will also intelligently check users' opinions to prevent any trend that will damage the brand's reputation and also to prevent any disputes by applying the legal laws of each country.”
- WO2006/076472A2 (copy of this provided previously) see [0043] “In one embodiment, the registration sub-module 316 also asks the user to invite individuals the user trusts to join the recommendation system 300. The user may invite these individuals by, for example, sending an email or an IM message. In another embodiment, the user may identify the trusted individuals to the registration sub-module 316 (e.g., in an email address book or an IM roster), which will then automatically send a message with an invitation to register with the recommendation system 300 to each of these individuals. In yet another embodiment, the registration sub-module 316 may automatically identify individuals that the user is likely to trust by evaluating user communications with others (e.g., email messages, phone calls, IM messages, etc.) or other parameters, and then either automatically register the identified individuals with the recommendation system 300 or invite the identified individuals to register with the recommendation system 300. The registration sub-module 316 stores data identifying trusted individuals in the user profile database 314.”; [0044] "the registration sub-module 316 also asks the user to specify his or her level of trust towards each invited individual, and then stores this information in the user profile database 314. Alternatively, the registration sub-module 316 may automatically determine the user level of trust towards each invited individual by evaluating the communications between the user and the invited individual (e.g., the frequency of communications, the nature of communications, etc.), profiles of the user and invited individuals, behavioral patterns of the user and each invited individual (e.g., whether they have visited the same web sites, purchased the same products online, responded similarly to online surveys, etc.), and various other similar factors and combinations thereof. In addition, the registration sub-module 316 may obtain various other characteristics of invited individuals (e.g., expertise in specific areas, behavioral patterns, common past, common interests, common occupation, etc.) and store these characteristics in the user profile database 314. In one embodiment, the recommendation system 300 periodically re-evaluates the user level of trust to each invited individual using the factors described above. In addition, the recommendation system 300 continues to collect characteristics of invited individuals during their usage of the system after the registration is completed."
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
6. Regarding Applicant’s Remarks against 102/103, the Examiner notes the rejection has been updated in view filed claim amendments. The Examiner respectfully asserts and request the Applicant to note the rejection as updated in view of their arguments that purchase recommendation are not taught, note “(i) Kurtz teaches in response to receiving a recommendation response from the second electronic device of the contact: analyze each received recommendation response; automatically generate a purchase recommendation for the item, based, at least in part on the received recommendation response; and present the purchase recommendation on the display of the electronic device (see [0034]-[0036]; [0041] note “similar systems and methods could be utilized for other industries, including rating restaurants, general contractors, dentist, plumbers, handy men, household cleaning agencies, software services, cloud based services, hotel reviews, vacation rental reviews and other service oriented industries”).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Richardson in view of the foregoing teachings of Kurtz with motivation to not only sort reviews based on user’s contact list but actually provide one or more mechanisms to initiate a conversation that way prospective buyer can obtain information regarding their experience with product or service that they are contemplating to purchase from a reliable and trusted source and facilitating a purchase of the recommended product or service, see at least Kurtz [0004]-[0007]; [0036]; and [0041].” Thus, the Applicant appears to underappreciate all that Kurtz teaches to a PHOSITA, and indeed Kurtz provides ability of purchase recommendation based on user’s social connection’s feedback.
Regarding Applicant’s Remarks against 101, the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that the evaluation is based on abstract recitation, not based on additional elements which are first evaluated under prong two. Thus, based on the abstract recitation, it is squarely apparent based on BRI in light of the as-filed specification that certain methods of organizing human activity is applicable (which the Applicant does not necessarily disagree with, but appears to argue in view of additional elements such as AI analyze user feedback and/or sentiment in such feedback or recommendations to generate purchase recommendations()) and the Examiner has not invoked mental processes. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that prong one analysis is proper.
Next, the Applicant argues step 2B, the Applicant is reminded that a proper evaluation under step 2B to establish a prima facie case is based on 2019 PEG. Further, the Applicant has not identified any additional elements and argued with any particularity. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains that upon evaluation of additional elements both singularly and in-combination, they fail to present any additional element that can be considered significantly more. Therefore the claims fail to overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Previously presented
- WO2006/076472A2 see Figs. 12 and their associated disclosure.
- WO2011/021202A1 see Abstract note “allowing searching and evaluating different kinds of information ( e.g. a reliable worthy service provider) based on the user's connections on a social network in which the user is a member and based on recommendations and endorsements concern -ing the sought information (e.g. a reliable worthy service provider) provided by members of the user's own social networks.”
- Pub. No.: US2018/0025010 A1 see "[0151] In one embodiment the search function is adapted based on family information (e.g., mother's maiden name, number of siblings, marital status, or the like). The family information-adapted search function may be an implicit query, an active query, a disambiguation action, a retrieval function, a filtering function, a presentation function, a routing function, or another function or action relating to the initiation, processing, or completion of a search. For example, an implicit search may be running that presents searches or results that are similar to those recently run by family members or friends of the user. A disambiguation process 210 may operate based on family information, such as resolving ambiguity in queries based on searches conducted by family members, or based on the status of the family. Similarly, results may be filtered, sorted, presented, or routed based on family information. For example, a search for the term custody might lead to results on child custody for a divorced user, while it might reveal information on trust and custody accounts for a married user.
[0159] In one embodiment the search function 142 is adapted based on friends and family information (including any of the foregoing types of information as stored in a database of mobile subscriber characteristics 112). The friend-and-family information-adapted search function 142 may be an implicit query 164, an active query, a disambiguation action, a retrieval function, a filtering function, a presentation function, a routing function, or another function or action relating to the initiation, processing, or completion of a search. For example, a user may be presented implicit query 164 results similar to those of family members or friends. A user query may be disambiguated, or search results retrieved, sorted, presented, or routed based on friends and family information. For example, a user entering “sister” in a user interface may receive results obtained by a sister's most recent searches, while a user who does not have friends and family might receive results relating to nuns.
[0167] In one embodiment the search function 142 is adapted based on family status and family information. The family-information adapted search function 142 may be an implicit query 164, an active query, a disambiguation action, a retrieval function, a filtering function, a presentation function, a routing function, or another function or action relating to the initiation, processing, or completion of a search. For example, an implicit search may present results about dating or relationships to a single user, while a married user may receive results relating to child rearing. Similarly, a disambiguation process 210 or a search function 142 that retrieves, sorts, presents, or routes results may use family status and family information. For example, a single user entering “love” may receive results relating to dating and relationships, while a married user might receive information relating to anniversaries."
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 DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621