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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-14, 18-21 and 24 in the amendment filed on 1/14/2026. Claims 1-25 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/14/2026 with respect to the claims 1-25 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1, 9 and 18; the claims recite “present a similar listing of the set of listings based on the affinity score between a first listing and the similar listing” which the underlined feature contains subject matter which was not described in the specification (i.e., with respect to the Applicant’s instant specification: “upon determination of a set of listings, that set, or list, can be presented to a consumer” in paragraph [0024], “for a particular listing, other listings having a high affinity, or similarity, to that listing can be presented to the user” in paragraph [0062], “After a set of similar listings has been identified, the set can be presented to a user” in paragraph [0070], and “At 410, the processing device 305A may present a set of listings to a consumer” in paragraph [0086] and Figure 4). Clarification or correction is respectfully required.
Note, the dependent claims are also rejected because they depend on and/or do not remedy the deficiencies inherited by their parent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection as set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After further consideration of the prior arts of record and conducting different searches in PE2E - SEARCH, Similarity Search, Google Scholar, and ACM Digital Library, it appears that the prior arts discloses, teaches or fairly suggests the limitations as a whole in the independent claims 1, 9 and 18.
The cited prior art, Mandayam Comar et al. (US 11,494,686 B1) involves in at an artificial intelligence-based service, an indication of a similarity group of items of a data stream is obtained. A subset of the stream items is to be included in an ordered collection and presented via an interface which allows one or more types of interactions. Using a first data set which includes interaction records of items in the similarity group, one or more machine learning models are trained to predict a relevance metric associated with a particular type of interaction. A predicted value of the relevance metric is obtained from a trained version of a model and stored.
Another cited prior art, Chittar et al. (US 2011/0314031 A1) involves in a weighted combination of attributes including but not limited to color, shape, pattern, brand, style, size, and material may be used to rank items when searching for similar items of a given category on an ecommerce system website. The weights on each attribute may be optimized by using feedback from users, the feedback indicating the importance of each attribute to a purchaser when searching for similar items of various categories. Alternatively, click-through patterns from the ecommerce system website can be mined and used to optimize the importance of each attribute to users by item category. The optimum attribute weights for that items category are used to rank the results in a search for similar items in that category.
Another cited prior art, Sullivan et al. (US 2022/0270119 A1) involves in identifying consumer items more likely to be bought by an individual user. In some embodiments, a collaborative filter may be used to rank items based on the degree to which they match user preferences. The collaborative filter may be hierarchical and may take various factors into consideration. Example factors may include the similarity among items based on observable features, a summary of aggregate online search behavior across multiple users, the item features determined to be most important to the individual user, and a baseline item against which a conditional probability of another item being selected is measured.
However, none of the prior arts, singular and any order combination, discloses the claimed limitations: “determine a set of affinity characteristics for a set of listings, a listing comprising data to be shared through a data exchange, wherein the set of affinity characteristics comprises at least one of: operations performed against at least one listing from the set of listings; account details and characteristics specific to the at least one listing; static characteristics; or dynamic characteristics; for each pair of listings of the set of listings, using the processing device, calculate an affinity score using the set of affinity characteristics, the affinity score indicating a similarity between the each pair of listings of the set of listings; and present a similar listing of the set of listings based on the affinity score between a first listing and the similar listing”, as recited in the independent claims 1, 9 and 18. Theses claimed limitations when consider as a whole are allowable over the prior arts of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0218430 A1 by Prendki teaches sending to a first user an input form comprising an input element for an intent weight for each of a plurality of features. The plurality of features can represent purchasing criteria that are common to each item in a category of items. The method also can include receiving from the first user the intent weights for the plurality of features. Each of the intent weights can represent a level of importance of a different feature of the plurality of features to the first user. The method additionally can include selecting one or more first items from among a plurality of items in the category of items based at least in part on: (a) the intent weights for the plurality of features for the first user, and (b) sentiment data comprising a sentiment score for each feature for each of the plurality of items. The sentiment scores for the plurality of features for each of the plurality of items can be derived from user-generated post-purchase content about the plurality of items. The method further can include displaying the one or more first items to the first user in real-time after receiving the intent weights.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bai D. Vu whose telephone number is (571)270-1751. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at (571) 272-4078. 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.
/BAI D VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163 3/19/2026