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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 31 and 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 14 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12067607. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes more elements (e.g., determining a plurality of user-item pairs, each user-item pair relating the user with one of the items of the plurality of items) and is thus more specific.
Instant claims 21, 31 and 40 fully “read-on” or are anticipated by reference claims 1, 14 and 20 of U.S. Patent No.12067607. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1).
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 21-40, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites a method. Claim 31 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media. Claim 40 recites a system.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 21 recites the abstract idea of providing item recommendations to a user using feedback in connection with the recommendation. This idea is described by the following steps:
determining user representation using information about a user;
determining item representation using information about an item;
determining a distance between the item representation and the user representation (“measure of the relationship (e.g., similarity or dissimilarity) between the user and the item; “a similarity measure (e.g., a distance metric) determined in accordance with user feedback associated with each item”; Specification, paragraphs 098, 0130); and
determining whether or not to select the item for inclusion in an item recommendation for the user based on the determined distance between the item representation and the user representation.
Claims 31 and 40 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., selecting items for recommendation).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 21, 31, and 40 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 21, 31 and 40 recite a computing device, a processor and a non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph [0160]) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 21, 31 and 40 also recite the limitation “feature vector”. They are not "additional elements" to be analyzed under this part of the framework, and merely serve to add a general link to a technological environment in which the abstract idea/commercial interaction is carried out, and instructions to apply (execute) it. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., that they merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to "apply it").
Step 2B: Claims 21, 31 and 40 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 21, 31 and 40 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24, 28-34, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muhlstein et al. (US 12118464).
Claim 21. Muhlstein et al. (Muhlstein) teaches a computer-implemented method of recommending content to a user, the method comprising:
determining, via a computing device, a feature vector user representation using information about a user (col. 11, lines 1-16);
determining, via the computing device, a feature vector item representation using information about an item (col. 11, lines 50-55);
determining, via the computing device, a distance between the feature vector item representation and the feature vector user representation (col. 16, lines 27-35); and
determining, via the computing device, whether or not to select the item for inclusion in an item recommendation for the user based on the determined distance between the feature vector item representation and the feature vector user representation (col. 16, lines 27-35).
Claim 22. Muhlstein teaches said method wherein the item is an item of content and the item recommendation comprises a content item recommendation (col. 18, lines 18-20).
Claim 23. Muhlstein teaches said method, further comprising: identifying, via the computing device, feedback from the user in connection with items previously recommended to the user; and using, via the computing device, the identified feedback in determining the distance between the feature vector item representation and the feature vector user representation (col. 17, lines 1-12; col. 19, lines 10-23).
Claim 24. Muhlstein teaches said method, wherein the feedback is one or more of express feedback and observed behavior (col. 17, lines 1-12).
Claim 28. Muhlstein teaches said method, determining a feature vector user representation further comprising: identifying, via the computing device, a social relationship of the user with a number of users using social networking data; and determining, via a computing device, the feature vector user representation using information about the user and information about each identified user of the number of users (col. 7, lines 13-17).
Claim 29. Muhlstein teaches said method, determining a feature vector item representation further comprising: identifying, via the computing device, a relationship between the item and a number of other items; and determining, via a computing device, the feature vector item representation using information about the item and information about each identified item of the number of items (col. 17, lines 1-13; col. 17, lines 22-25).
Claim 30. Muhlstein teaches said method, wherein the relationship between the item and a number of other items comprises an item category relationship (col. 16, lines 15-26; col. 19, lines 10-23).
Claim 31 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 21.
Claim 32 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claims 22.
Claim 33 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claims 23.
Claim 34 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claims 24.
Claim 38 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 28
Claim 39 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 29.
System claim 40 repeats the subject matter of method claim 21, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claim 21 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Muhlstein in the above rejections of claim 21, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by Muhlstein includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claim 21, and incorporated herein.
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.
Claims 25, 26, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Muhlstein.
Claim 25. Muhlstein teaches all the limitations of claim 25 except selecting one of three item groups for the item. However, Muhlstein does teach that the user was presented with the story but did not interact (e.g., click, read) with the story, as opposed to a “positive” story in which the user positively interacted with the data by reading to completion, viewing it for a long duration of time, bookmarking or saving it, and so on. In some example embodiments, the story data used for training is pre-partitioned into positive and negatives sets, and two-story items are used per training iteration to train the model. the story data used for training is pre-partitioned into positive and negatives sets, and two-story items are used per training iteration to train the model. During training, respective embeddings (e.g., positive story embedding S.sub.E, user embedding U.sub.E, and negative story embedding N.sub.E) are input into the training layers for application of the training Siamese distance based objective function (via gradient descent) as discussed above (col. 17, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muhlstein to include selecting one of three item groups for the item, as suggested in Muhlstein, because it would advantageously enable recommendation accuracy by allowing models to map and predict user preferences more precisely.
Claim 35 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 25.
Claim 26 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 25.
Claim 36 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190362220 to Yap et al. discloses attentive neural collaborative filtering for modeling implicit feedback. Providing a user vector including a plurality of user attributes, each user attribute having a value assigned thereto, the user vector being representative of a user, determining a user latent vector by processing the user vector through an attribute embedding look-up, and an attention layer, and for each item in a set of items: providing an item vector including a plurality of item attributes, each item attribute having a value assigned thereto, the item vector being specific to an item in the set of items, determining an item latent vector by processing the item vector through the attribute embedding look-up, and the attention layer, and processing the user latent vector, and the item latent vector through multiple fully connected layers to extract higher order features, and learn relationships between the user, and the item, and to provide a user-item score that represents a compatibility between the user and the item. User- or item-based CF can also be performed independently of one another. Given some metadata about a user or item (e.g., user or item attributes), a feature vector representing a single user or item can be constructed. Several similarity measures (e.g., cosine similarity, Euclidean distance) can be applied to the vectors to find similar users or items.
US 20190205965 to Li et al. discloses a method and system for recommending customer item based on visual information. Customer item recommending apparatus obtains customer feature vectors. For example, the customer item recommending apparatus determines feature vectors output from a hidden layer disposed before an output layer of the fashion item recommendation model to be the customer feature vectors. the customer item recommending apparatus retrieves item information. The customer item recommending apparatus retrieves the item information corresponding to the category determined in operation from an item database. The item information stored in the item database includes feature vectors that abstractly describe attributes of corresponding items. The server determines the item having the relatively high fitting store to be the recommended item and transmits information associated with the recommended item to the customer terminal.
US 20210125098 to Peran et al. discloses a computer-implemented method and system for determining when to retrain an individual-item model within a recommendation engine. The computer-implemented method includes defining a consumer feature vector having attributes of historical consumers that impact an individual-item model. The method includes defining a consumer feature vector based on attributes of consumers that impact an individual-item model. The historical feature vector is based on attribute values of the historical consumers. The method further includes determining a distance between the historical feature vector and the new feature vector and retraining the individual-item model upon determining that the distance between the historical feature vector and the new feature vector exceeds the retraining threshold.
US 20190188770 to Zhou discloses an intelligent recommendation system. The iterative processes provide product vectors and customer vectors. The product vectors may be provided as an input for the recommendation process, where recommendation criteria is defined. The recommendation criteria may define a threshold distance which may be used while evaluating distance between vectors from the final determined product vectors. Based on evaluation of the product vectors and the customer vectors, recommendations may be provided to existing customer. The recommendation may include an identification of a closest product in relation to a customer, based on evaluation of distances between the vectors defined in the final result provided by the fitting process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688