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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: accessing/providing/receiving /storing “targeted recommendation frequencies [for the goods]”.
Claim 9, 11-17, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: memory and/or instructions to access/provide/receive /store “targeted recommendation frequencies [for the goods]”.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
While it apparently is an object / goal / intent of the recited function that it “maximizes” sum(s), the independent claims do not yet include a maximizing step and/or maximize instruction per se. Thus, it is unclear as to what these number(s) and/or bound(s) relate to in this receiving-generating-recommending algorithm. And, a rejection that these new combinations fail to further limit the independent claims is being held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 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, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0006398 A1) in view of Chen (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0035379 A1).
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, Lam discloses a method, system and program, the method comprising:
-receiving, for a plurality of users, recommendation scores of a plurality of items generated using a recommender system based on one or more metrics, wherein the one or more metrics include a click through rate or an expected amount of purchase;
(Par. [0024], “For example, a particular recommender might retrieve the user’s purchase history data." The rate is not yet required; uses information about users’ purchases which would reflect the expected appetite of a particular buyer.)
-generating a binary recommendation array based on the recommendation scores;
(Par. [0027], “For instance, several recommenders may be used to recommend a particular war movie because 1) a user recently rated several war movies, 2) this is the best selling movie in the war movie category, and 3) this movie was nominated for two Academy Awards."; basing a recommendation on whether a user has recently rated similar items is considered a recommender system; a display with two parts is considered a binary array.)
-recommending, to each user of the plurality of users, one or more items of the plurality of items based on the binary recommendation array.
(Par. [0099], "Each recommender then generates a list of candidate items for the user, together with associated scores and reasons." In this example, candidate items are recommendations put forth by each individual recommender system before they are processed and put forth in the final recommendation list.)
To the extent that Lam does not fairly suggest the recited (math) function where each grade/score or value/worth is constant/steady or changeable/variable, respectively, Chen, in the field of e-commerce, teaches:
-wherein the binary recommendation array is generated based on an objective function that maximizes a sum of entries of an elementwise product of the binary recommendation array and an array containing the recommendation scores based on target recommendation frequencies for the plurality of items,
([0057]; [0067] item recommendation)
wherein the recommendation scores are treated as constants and each value in the binary recommendation array is treated as a variable
([0094-5]; [0101]; [0122] item variable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lam to use the function of Chen. One would have been motivated to make the combination to tweak the (buyer) recommendations in a meaningful way to achieve (seller) goals for volatile items which might be scarce due to market conditions, and thus merit less recurrent promotion.
Finally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim could be that the middle step generates both x) a binary array, and y) a different (non-binary and/or more generic) array—“an array” (see 2d line of underlining). To the extent that the second array is not just an intermediate step, and is persistent, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to ignore / disregard the second array in the capstone recommendation phase. Or, alternatively incorporate / use that array in view of the comprising transitional phrase, and as detailed above for the (math) function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection of record specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL FUELLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1367.
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.
/MICHAEL FUELLING/ Supervisory Patent Examiner