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 .
1. Claims 1-20 filed 8/21/2024 are pending for examination.
2. Continuity: This application filed 08/21/2024 is a Continuation of 17870331 , filed 07/21/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 12112364 ,17870331 is a Continuation of 16590018 , filed 10/01/2019 ,now U.S. Patent # 11436655.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent# 12112364 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 364 and claims 1-7, 9-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11436655 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As an illustration, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, when comparted with the claims 1 of each of the Patent’ 364 and Patent’ 655 are covered and anticipated by the highlighted limitations of claims 1 of each of the Patent’ 364 and Patent’ 655 and are directed to the same concept of displaying two separate listings in a comparison view with each listing enabling different actions for different set of items.
Claim 1 of Patent’364:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring user interactions with previously displayed action elements displayed in association with listings of a listing platform and corresponding to actions previously selected using a machine learning model;
refining the machine learning model based on the monitored user interactions;
determining, using the machine learning model, which action of the actions to associate with a first listing and a second listing to be displayed concurrently in a comparison view;
displaying, in the comparison view, only one action element in the first listing that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and
displaying, in the comparison view, only one action element in the second listing that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing.
Claim 1 of the instant Application:
1. A method comprising:
displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform;
displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and
displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing.
Claim 1of the Patent’ 655:
1. A method implemented at least partially in hardware of a computing device, the method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, an initial set of action user-interface components that are selectable to initiate actions for an initial set of listings, the actions determined for the initial set of listings according to an initial policy for determining the actions;
refining the policy, using a machine learning model, based on user interactions with the initial set of action user-interface components monitored over a time period;
displaying, via the user interface of the listing platform, a plurality of listings concurrently in a comparison view, the plurality of listings including at least a first listing representing a first item and a second listing representing a second item;
determining which action of a plurality of actions to associate with each listing of the plurality of listings using the refined policy; and
displaying, in each listing of the plurality of listings in the comparison view and concurrently, only one respective action user-interface component including: a first respective action user-interface component selectable via the user interface to initiate a first action with respect to the first item; and a second respective action user-interface component selectable via the user interface to initiate a second action with respect to the second item, the second action being different from the first action.
The limitations of the other two independent claims 10 and 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and are rejected on the same basis based on the limitations of claim 1 of each of the Patent’ 364 and Patent’ 655..
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, 3, 4-5, 7, 8, and 9 of the instant application are disclosed and obvious in view of the limitations of the claims 1, 6, 7-8, 11-12 of the Patent’364. The limitations of dependent claims 10, 13-15, 17, from base claim 10 and the dependent claims 19-20 from base claim 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations already covered in the limitations of 2, 3, 4-5, 7, 8, and 9 of the instant application. The limitations of the dependent claims 11-12 are covered in the limitations of claim 1 Patent’ 364.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, - 7, and 9 of the instant application are disclosed and obvious in view of the limitations of the claims 1, 3, 12-14, and 20 of the Patent’655. The limitations of dependent claims 10, 13-15, 17, from base claim 10 and the dependent claim 20 from base claim 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations already covered in the limitations of 2, - 7, and 9 of the instant application. The limitations of the dependent claims 11-12 are covered in the limitations of claim 1 Patent’ 655.
Thus, all pending claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of claims 1-20 of US Paten’364 and claims 1-20 of Patent’ 655.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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—-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-9, are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 10-17 are to a system /apparatus, and claims 18-20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform;
displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and
displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1--20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the Applicant’s disclosure of the invention, see at least para 0003 [“s 0018—0019, “ By way of example, an input is received to navigate to a web page of a particular item listed by a listing platform, where the comparison view is to be included as a component of the web page. ……. The comparison view system may determine which listings to include based on one or more criteria, such as the listings being similar (e.g., to a listing being viewed currently), the listings being included in a list of listings (e.g., a watch or wish list), the listings having been added to an online shopping cart for potential purchase, the listings having been bid on in an online auction, and so forth. 0019]……..—the comparison view system determines which action of a plurality of actions, available for use in connection with the listing platform, to associate with each of the listings. In this way, the listings in the described comparison view may include action user-interface components that are selectable to initiate different actions. For instance, the action user interface component in a first listing of the comparison view may be selectable to initiate an “Add to Cart” action while the action user interface component in a second listing of the comparison view is selectable to initiate an “Add to Watch List” action, but not the “Add to Cart” action.”] relate to a commercial activity of presenting two different listing of items meant for sale like adding items to a shopping cart or an intention to bid on the items in the second listing and providing a comparison before a buyer decides to opt for which listing and item. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 and the dependent claims 2-9 fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Since the other two independent claims 10 and 18 recite limitations similar to the ones discussed for claim 1, they and their dependent claims 11--17 and 19-20 are analyzed on the same basis as reciting “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-9:
The limitations of claim 1, “ a method comprising: displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing”, as drafted, do not include any device or technology to implement the various functions recited and as such it amounts to mere mental exercise of being able to write a plan or scheme using pen and paper for execution, and as such fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including judgment, and opinion and writing the scheme using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 recite “Mental Processes”.
Since each of the claims 1-9 recite limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Accordingly, pending claims 1--20 recite abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
1-9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
Claims 1-9 do not recite any additional elements or technology or a computer to implement the recited steps and as such do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because no meaningful limits are added to limit the practice of the abstract idea.
Claims 10-11, 13-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
Claims Independent claims 10 and 18 recite the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer processors implementing the steps of displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing. The displaying steps on the user interface providing a comparison review for displayed listings for the intended actions on the items in the listing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the listings data ), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. As regards providing buttons for initiating an action on the displayed items is a generic computer function. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 10 and 18 are directed to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 13-17 and 19-20 are directed to displaying selecting data and imitating actions such as “add to cart” or “purchase”, or “bid” or “change or edit the selection” etc. which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity, as discussed above, and generic computer functions of making selections or making change to the selections . As such these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11 and 12 recite using a machine learning model to associate an action with the listings by selecting machine learning model, wherein the use of machine learning model is recited in a nominal way without providing any technical improvement in a computer function.
The limitations, “select, the different action to associate with the second listing from the plurality of actions”, and refining an initial policy as to which action to be associated with different listings based on monitored user interactions are mere extension of the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of using a machine learning model merely amounts to applying machine learning to an abstract idea and confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) but does not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, recitations of using a machine learning model fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-11-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-11, 13-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1--20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1--20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements displaying data were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements in claims 1--20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1--20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(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.
(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 1-8, 10, 13-17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajyaguru et al. [US 8,401, 924 B1], hereinafter Rajyaguru.
Reference claim 1, Rajyaguru teaches a method comprising:
displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing [See Fig.7and associated description in col. 17, lines 6-49; Fig.7 discloses displaying a plurality of item listings side by side in a comparison view and each listing [represented by separate column] displays one action element such as “add item to cart” which can be selected to initiate an action and the second listing/column display different action such as “buy both” or “Buy three” .
Regarding claim 2, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the first listing represents a first item, and the second listing represents a second item {see Fig.7 which shows that each listing representing a different items such as one listing displays a Blackberry Playbook and the other listing displays Apple iPad or Samsung Galaxy , etc.. ].
Regarding claim 3, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the one action element displayed in the first listing and the one action element displayed in the second listing are selectable to initiate different ones of: purchasing a respective item; adding the respective item to a cart; submitting a bid for an auction of the respective item; entering an offer to purchase the respective item; sharing the respective item; and adding the respective item to a watch list of items [see Fig.7 which displays in one listing an action to “Buy Both” and in the other to “Buy all 3”].
Regarding claim 4, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the action to associate with the first listing is selected from a plurality of actions based on at least one of: action elements previously leading to conversion for a user to which the comparison view is displayed; a category of items associated with the first listing; a price associated with the first listing; and a number of user interactions with an item of the first listing by other users of the listing platform [See Fig.7 wherein in the listing of the Apple iPad a category of Ranking is displayed as # 2 and a price of $499and two interactions allowed such as “add to cart” and “Buy both”.].
Regarding claim 5, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the different action to associate with the second listing is selected from a plurality of actions based on at least one of: action elements previously leading to conversion for a user to which the comparison view is displayed; a category of items associated with the second listing; a price associated with the second listing; and a number of user interactions with an item of the second listing by other users of the listing platform [See column displaying Dell product referred to second listing ] which shows that the ranking category is $3, the price is $649 and a different action from the first listing to “Buy all 3”.. ].
Regarding claim 6, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the one action element displayed in the first listing includes a first visual characteristic, and the one action element displayed in the second listing includes a second visual characteristic [See Fig.7 different action elements such as “Buy Both” in one listing and “Buy all 3” in the second listing are displayed as visual characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein a set of listings are included in the comparison view based on at least one of: similarity with a particular listing in the set of listings; inclusion within an online shopping cart of a user to which the comparison view is displayed; and inclusion within a watch list of the user to which the comparison view is displayed [See Fig7 which displays similarity with a particular listing in the set of listings and inclusion within an online shopping cart of a user to which the comparison view is displayed [[See the imitating action “add to cart” in all the displayed listings]; and inclusion within a watch list of the user to which the comparison view is displayed
Regarding claim 8, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 8 further comprising displaying, in each listing of the comparison view, a comparison explanation identifying a reason for including a respective listing in the comparison view, wherein the reason displayed in the first listing is different from the reason displayed in the second listing [Fig.7 displays a comparison explanation identifying a reason for including a respective listing in the comparison view, wherein the reason displayed in the first listing is different from the reason displayed in the second listing, for example a comparison view displays different rankings, different screen sizes, different resolutions, etc. for the items of each of the listings.
Regarding claims 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,since their limitations are similar to the claims 1, 3,4,5,6, and 7 analyzed and rejected above as anticipated by Rajyaguru, they are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claims 18-19, since their limitations are similar to the claims 1, and 8 analyzed and rejected above as anticipated by Rajyaguru, they are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6.1. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of WO 2016/164978 A1; hereinafter WO’978.
Regarding claim 9, Rajyaguru teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that that the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, in each listing of the comparison view, an editing element that is selectable to change a respective action associated with a respective listing. WO’978 , in the same field of endeavor [see paras 141 -158 and Figs 7-10, providing a plurality of listings for items , which are real estate properties as an illustration, in a comparison view] and further includes a button in each of the listings to initiate an action including an editing element to remove one of the listings or to include another listing [see paras 155 -158]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of WO’978 in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system of Rajyaguru to provide an element initiating an editing action to remove or call back a listing because that will enable a customer to reduce the number of listing for final comparison.
Regarding claim 20, since its limitations are similar to the claim 9, it is analyzed and rejected above as unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of WO’978, it is rejected on the same basis.
6.2. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of Kushman et al. [US 2011/0246881], hereinafter Kushman cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024.
Regarding claim 11, Rajyaguru teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as analyzed above and discussed for claim 1, but fails to disclose that system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: select, using a machine learning model, the action to associate with the first listing from a plurality of actions; and select, using the machine learning model, the different action to associate with the second listing from the plurality of actions. Kushman , see paras 0073-0074 [“[0073] Determining whether an action is a Commit or Update action may not be as straightforward. There are cases where this labeling is fairly simple; for example, typing in a text box or checking a check box is clearly an update action. But to handle the more complex cases, the system may approach this problem in the same way a user would, such as by taking advantage of the visual cues on the screen. For example, Commit and Abort actions typically occur when the user clicks on a button, and the text associated with such buttons comes from a small vocabulary with words like {OK, Finish, Yes, Apply}, or {Abort, Cancel, No}. [0074] The system may capture all of this information using a Support Vector Machine (SVM), which is a state-of-the-art machine learning algorithm. The system does its mapping using 2 separate SVM classifiers, one for Updates and one for Commits, where each classifier decides whether the action belongs to a particular class, i.e., is it an Update? is it a Commit? Note that a single action can be a part of both classes to account for actions like clicking the "Clear Internet Cache" button which both updates the state and immediately commits that update”] , determines from a variety of actions and machine learning to determine actions to initiate based on the machine learning. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kushman It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system of Rajyaguru to include the user of machine learning to determine the actions to take for the purposes of automating computer tasks rather than simply providing instructions on how to perform the tasks as taught by Kushman, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 12 is 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 [claims 11 and 12] and amending the independent claim 10 to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection. Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10.
The prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, “ the instructions further cause the at least one processor to refine an initial policy of the machine learning model for determining which action of the plurality of actions to associate with different listings of the comparison view based on monitored user interactions with action elements previously displayed via the listing platform in accordance with the initial policy, the action and the different action selected using the refined policy “.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Brown et al. [US Patent #11, 157, 148 B2; seecol.19, lines 9-31 and Fig.10 ]describes enabling two or more action user interface elements displayed in association with each listed communication event. Using toggle action, the system allows to transfer from one listing to another listing.
(ii) Peterson et al. [US 20190228460 A1; see claim 1 ] describes a method for offering items for sale and delivery by a computerized platform causing presentation of listings for the items corresponding to the first delivery zone via a graphical user interface, each of the listings including an all-in price for a corresponding item and other relevant details wherein two or more of the listings are concurrently presented for a first item of the items via the graphical user interface, wherein the two or more of the listings have a different all-in price for the first item, and wherein the two or more of the listings differ by at least one of the seller handling time or the shipping service level for the first item.
(iii) Schoenberg [US 20140201649 A1; see para 0008] describes that a graphical user interface includes a plurality of listings of provider networks with which the service provided is associated with and some of the controls of the plurality of controls are juxtaposed the plurality of listings in the graphical user interface and with at least a different portion of the controls of the plurality controls juxtaposed items corresponding to provider practices.
(iv) Somaiya [US Patent# 10, 169, 799 B2 with the same assignee as the instant application but different inventive entities, see Fig.8 and col. 19, line 59-col.20, line 24] describes providing a plurality of listings of products, such as cameras in response to a search query, and a listing of the camera displayed includes a button to initiate an actions, to initiate, such as “Buy it now”
(v) Negrillo et al. [US 20120159379 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024 ;See abstract and paras 0022, 0031, 0052, and 0056] describes a server presenting search results for items available for purchase to a user via a user interface and those items can be presented in a comparison view side by side with their attributes and descriptors and the descriptors could include “add items to an existing list” or “Buy Now”.
(vi) Publicover et al. [US 9823744B2 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024, See claim 17] describes providing plurality of menu items associated with different actions wherein an action associated with a first menu item is different than actions performed by other menu items.
(vii) Adika et al. [20190196932 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024; see para 0089] describes using an analysis module 222 and applying statistical algorithms which could include machine learning algorithms to analyze and recognize patterns of users’ actions and identify one or more key words such as, “ ‘New’, ‘Buy’, ‘Upgrade’, ‘Save’, ‘Download’, ‘Add to Cart’, and/or the like that are presented by the application displaying the objects and then the analysis module can compare detected displayed objects and apply one or more common analyzed and recognized patterns while tracking interactions of the users.
(viii) Ellison [US20130346232 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024; see para 0015] describes an application having a non-limiting tool automatically presenting multiple alternative for each of the items being sold and which of the alternatives is most eco-friendly such that the customer is provided with side-by-side view presentation of the items for comparing which of the item is more environmentally friendly alternative.
NPL reference:
(ix) Savetz, Dan; Gardiner, Kevin“ ehopper, Resources For Web Buying”; Computer Shopper; 124, SX2 Media Labs LLC. (Aug 1999); retrieved from Dialog on 03/20/2024 cited in the cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024 describes under “ CDW www.cdw.com” providing side by side comparison view of selected five products including their photos, specs, prices, and warranties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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.
/YOGESH C GARG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights