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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2023-145167 filed 9/7/2023. The certified copy was filed in current application on 12/21/2022.
Response to Amendment - Title
Applicant’s amendment to the title is acknowledged. The previous objection is withdrawn.
Claims Status
Claims 3 and 15 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 16-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-2, 4-14 and 16-20 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite configure first graphical elements representing a feature amount used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product and a set value of an importance level of the feature amount and one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount. The grammatical structure of this limitation renders it indefinite.
For example, it is unclear whether each of the feature amount used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product, the set value of an importance level of the feature amount, and the one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount are what is being “configured”, or if it is only the first graphical elements that are being configured.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the first graphical elements represent the one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field, or if the one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field are intended to recite separate graphical elements and separately configured.
As best understood by the Examiner the intended scope is the “instructions to: configure…” operation is to configure the first graphical elements, which in turn represent each of (i) a feature amount used for determining a product similar to a target product and (ii) a set value of an importance level, and are associated with (iii) user selectable elements representing a change field.
Similar interpretation is made with respect to configure second graphical elements representing the extracted product, the feature amount used by the extraction model and the updated set value of an importance level of the feature amount used by the extraction model, as well as the other “configure” operations in the dependent claims.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claim 4 specifically, claim 4 recites “configure a second user selectable graphical element”; however, the claims from which it depends (e.g., claims 1-2) do not recite a first graphical element. It is unclear whether claim 4 recites a second set of user selectable elements (as recited in claim 1), or intends to recite a specific selectable element of the user selectable elements recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-19, claims 13-19 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-12 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 13-19 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-2, 4-14 and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite configure first graphical elements representing a feature amount used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product and a set value of an importance level of the feature amount and one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount. This subject matter is new matter.
The specification as originally filed fails to provide any detail regarding the manner to “configure” or for “configuring” the first graphical elements. The term configured is defined as “to set up for operation especially in a particular way” ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/configure), or, “to design or adapt to form a specific configuration or for some specific purpose” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/configure).
It is also important to note that the limitation subsequently recites cause a terminal device to display a screen including the first graphical elements and the one or more user selectable graphical elements. That is, claim 1 recites displaying separately from the preceding “configuring” – i.e., it is not proper to interpret “configuring” as synonymous with displaying because they are separate functions in the claim.
The specification is void of any specific manner of “configuring” – i.e., “setting up” or “adapting” - the first graphical elements. At best, page 8 lines 18-27 discusses outputting the feature amounts used for similarity determination, but does not explain the operations performed to assign these values, how these values are used to configured the elements, or how to otherwise configure the first graphical elements, the set value of an importance level of the feature amount and the one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field.
For examination purposes, the claimed configuring will be understood as associating the graphical elements with a value such that they can be subsequently displayed having the value, and such that the value may be changed (e.g., by a user).
Further regarding claim 1, claim 1 also recites configure second graphical elements representing the extracted product, the feature amount used by the extraction model and the updated set value of an importance level of the feature amount used by the extraction model, and cause the terminal device to display the second graphical elements and the one or more user selectable elements.
For similar reasons discussed above with respect to configure first graphical elements, the original disclosure does not sufficiently support configure second graphical elements representing the extracted product.
Additionally, the specification (e.g., Fig. 5-7) does not appear to describe second elements, but instead describes a change value in relation to one set of elements only – e.g., brand, price, color, release date. In other words, the specification only describes one set of elements (i.e., first graphical elements) that may be changed rather than both first graphical elements and second graphical elements.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, claims 2-12 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Regarding claim 2 specifically, claim 2 now recites “configure third graphical elements representing a result of the extraction”. Similar to the above, the specification does not adequately describe how graphical elements are “configured”, let alone third graphical elements. does not appear to describe second elements, but instead describes a change value in relation to one set of elements only – e.g., brand, price, color, release date. In other words, the specification only describes one set of elements (i.e., first graphical elements) that may be changed rather than each of first graphical elements, second graphical elements and third graphical elements.
Regarding claims 4-7, 9-10 and 12, each of claims 4-7, 9-10 and 12 recites similar limitations to “configure” graphical elements (e.g., third, fourth and sixth graphical elements, an additional graphical button, and additional graphical elements) as discussed in claims 1-2 above. Claims 4-7, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under similar rationale as discussed with the analogous limitations of claims 1-2.
Regarding claims 13-19, claims 13-19 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-12 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 13-19 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
configure first graphical elements representing a feature amount used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product and a set value of an importance level of the feature amount and one or more user selectable graphical elements representing a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount,
acquire a change value for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount input to the one or more user selectable graphical elements; and
update a set value of an importance level of the feature amount in the extraction model based on the change value;
extract a product similar to the target product using the extract model based on the change value; and
configured second graphical elements representing the extracted product, the feature amount used by the extraction model and the updated set value of an importance level of the feature amount used by the extraction model.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes the process for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount in order to extract products similar to a target product. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including
an extraction system,
at least one memory storing instructions,
at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the instructions, and,
the one or more user selectable graphical elements including a graphical button for increasing and decreasing the set value of the importance level
cause a terminal device to display a screen including the first graphical elements and the one or more user selectable graphical elements;
a screen of the terminal device; and
cause the terminal device to display the second graphical elements and the one or more user selectable elements.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-12, dependent claims 2-12 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-12 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-12 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-12 rely on at least similar additional elements as addressed for claim 1. This includes additional “graphical elements” (e.gf., third, fourth, sixth), as well as training or machine learning (e.g., claims 4-5). Each of these elements are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-12 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, and generally link the exception to a technological environment. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-12 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 13-19, claims 13-19 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-12 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 13-19 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 11, 13-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki (US 2018/0218431) in view of Bazzani (US 11,829,445).
Regarding claim 1, Prendki discloses an extraction system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (see: 0043-0044, Fig. 2); and
at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the instructions (see: 0043-0044, Fig. 2) to:
configure first graphical elements (e.g., Fig. 19 (1900), Fig. 20 (2010, 2040)) representing a feature amount used by an extraction model that extracts a product and a set value of an importance level of the feature amount (e.g., Fig. 19 (1901-1908), Fig. 20 (2011-2018)) and one or more user selectable graphical elements (e.g., Fig. 20 (2041-2043; sliders relative to each of 2011-2018)) representing a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount (see: 0128, 0137-0138, Fig. 19, Fig. 20),
the one or more user selectable graphical elements including a graphical slider for increasing and decreasing the set value of the importance level and cause a terminal device to display a screen including the first graphical elements and the one or more user selectable graphical elements (see: Fig. 19-20, 0128, 0140);
acquire, from the terminal, a change value for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount input to the one or more user selectable graphical elements on a screen of the terminal device (see: Fig. 20 (2011-2018) [Wingdings font/0xE0]Fig. 21 (2111-2113), 0131 (intent weights received are explicitly provided by the first user), 0137 (allow the user to update the intent weights for the features), 0141 (adjusting the intent weight sliders for an input element (e.g., 2011-2018))); and
update a set value of an importance level of the feature amount in the extraction model based on the change value (see: 0131 (updating a weight vector for the first user based on the intent weights), 0140 (the weighting vector can be updated based on the update to the intent weights), Fig. 18 (1820); see also: 0108);
configured second graphical elements representing the extracted product, the feature amount used by the extraction model and the updated set value of an importance level of the feature amount used by the extraction model, and cause the terminal device to display the second graphical elements and the one or more user selectable elements (see: Fig. 20 (2011-2018) [Wingdings font/0xE0]Fig. 21 (2111-2113), 0131 (intent weights received are explicitly provided by the first user), 0137 (allow the user to update the intent weights for the features), 0141 (adjusting the intent weight sliders for an input element (e.g., 2011-2018))).
Note: The claimed second graphical elements are the same as the first graphical elements that are updated with different values. Fig. 20-21 shows an iterative search process using updated values, the slider elements being “configured” with the updated values corresponding to the updated results.
Though disclosing all of the above, Prendki does not expressly disclose the feature amount to be used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product, nor does Prendki expressly teach extract a product similar to the target product using the extract model based on the change value.
Additionally, though teaching user selectable graphical elements including a graphical slider for increasing and decreasing the set value of the importance level, Prendki does not disclose an element including a button. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that a button was a well-known merely an obvious alternative
Notably, identification of a similar item is at least implied by at least Fig. 14 and 0105 of Prendki (where alternative items are recommended and are similar to the target product 1416), as well as the ability of the user of Prendki to click on a specific item from a list of results extracted based on the feature criteria and weighting (e.g., Fig. 20 (2021-2023), 0139).
To this accord, Bazzani discloses an extraction system that provides an output a screen displaying a feature amount (e.g., attribute) used for similarity determination by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product (e.g., Fig. 1 (134)), a set value of an importance level of the feature amount (e.g., weight), and a change field (e.g., “sliders”) for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount (see: Fig. 7 (710, 720), col. 4 lines 23-37, Fig. 1 (134, 136, 170)). That is, a user selects a particular feature (e.g., toe shape) of target products to perform a search (“conditional similarity retrieval”) for similar products based on selected attributes (feature amounts).
Bazzani also teaches extract a product similar to the target product using the extract model based on the change value (see: Fig. 7, col. 4 lines 23-37, col. 15 lines 15-34), as well as where the attributes are also associated with weights that may be modified (see: col. 4 lines 25-27).
Lastly, Bazzani teaches that the interface element may include a button (see: col. 4 lines 30-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki to have utilized the known technique for extracting products similar to a target product as taught by Bazzani in order to have enabled users to more readily search for content of interest on the basis of aesthetic features by maintaining an overall similarity with currently-displayed content but which differs with respect to one or more attributes of the currently-displayed content (see: Bazzani: col. 2 lines 1-10).
2. The extraction system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire, from the terminal device, information of the target product (see: Bazzani: see: Fig. 7 (710, 720), col. 4 lines 23-37, Fig. 1 (134, 136, 170));
extract a product similar to the target product based on the acquired information, using the extraction model (see: Bazzani: Fig. 7, col. 4 lines 23-37, col. 15 lines 15-34); and
configure third graphical elements representing a result of the extraction and cause the terminal device to display the third graphical elements (see: Prindki: Fig. 20 (2011-2018) [Wingdings font/0xE0]Fig. 21 (2111-2113), 0131, 0137; Bazzani: Fig. 7 (740)).
6. The extraction system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
configure fourth graphical elements representing a feature amount that has contributed to similarity determination on similarity with the target product and cause the terminal device to display the fourth graphical elements (see: Prendki: Fig. 20 (2041-2043), 0138-0139).
11. The extraction system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more user selectable graphical elements include a graphical slide bar for increasing or decreasing a set value (see: Prendki: Fig. 19-21, 0093, 0128).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 18, claims 13-14 and 18 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-2 and 6 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 13-14 and 18 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claims 1-2 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Palumbo (US 2024/0281445).
Regarding claim 4 and parallel claim 16, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above as noted including supervised training (e.g., Bazzani: col. 5 lines 52-53) but does not disclose the extraction system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
configure a second user selectable graphical element for selecting a product to be used as training data from the products extracted by the extraction model and cause the terminal device to display the second user selectable graphical element;
acquire, from the terminal device, a second selection input that selects a product to be used as training data; and
update the extraction model by executing machine learning using the selected product as training data.
To this accord and in the field of item searching, Palumbo teaches a system configured to:
configure a second user selectable graphical element for selecting a product to be used as training data from the products extracted by the extraction model and cause the terminal device to display the second user selectable graphical element (see: 0059, 0078, Fig. 4A-4B (406));
acquire, from the terminal device, a second selection input that selects a product to be used as training data (see: 0066 (item that the user selected), 0078 (item selected by the fist user), Fig. 7 (706));
update the extraction model by executing machine learning using the selected product as training data (see: Fig. 7 (716), 0084, 0005 (training the classifier, using the generated training data)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique for generating training data sets as taught by Palumbo in order to have enabled the system to have generated training data by comparing search queries provided by users to metadata associated with the respective content items selected by the respective users from the search queries, thereby facilitating personalized recommendations (see: Palumbo: 0002, 0004).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claims 1-2 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Konik (US 2016/0342288).
Regarding claim 5 and parallel claim 17, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above including wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
configure a third user selectable graphical element for selecting a feature amount (see: Prendki: Fig. 20 (2012), 0137, 0146), and,
acquire a, from the terminal device, a third selection input that selects a feature amount (see: Prendki: Fig. 21 (2112), 0146, 0154)
Though disclosing the above including training (e.g., Bazzani: col. 5 lines 52-53), the combination does not teach that the feature amount is to be used also as training data from feature amounts used for training of the extraction model and update the extraction model by executing machine learning using a feature amount selected in the selection result as training data is further provided.
To this accord, Konik teaches a system configured to display item listing results having features that are to be used also as training data from feature amounts used for training of the extraction model and update the extraction model by executing machine learning using a feature amount selected in the selection result as training data is further provided (see: 0029 (update model), 0058 (model update module), 0080, Fig. 6 (Feature 1-N), Fig. 8 (824), Fig. 10 (1012-1042), Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique for generating training data sets as taught by Palumbo in order to have enabled determination of features most relevant to a user for a particular stage of the user's online experience so as to improve the retrieval of relevant search results (see: Konik: 0070, 0048).
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Biswas (US 11,403,006).
Regarding claim 7 and parallel claim 19, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above including output a screen displaying a feature amount in the extraction model selected in the selection result, a set value of an importance level of the feature amount, and a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount (see: Prendki: 0128, 0137-0138, Fig. 19, Fig. 20-21). The combination, however, does not teach:
configure a fourth user selectable graphical element selecting any extraction model among a plurality of extraction models;
acquire, from the terminal device, a fourth selection input that selects an extraction model; and
configure fifth graphical elements representing a feature amount in the selected extraction model.
To this accord, teaches configure a fourth user selectable graphical element selecting any extraction model among a plurality of extraction models and configure fifth graphical elements representing a feature amount in the selected extraction model (see: Fig. 7, col. 23 lines 3-21 & 52-64; see also: Fig. 9 (902-908)), and,
acquire a selection result of an extraction model selected on the output screen (see: Fig. 9 (912-914), col. 26 lines 51-62, Fig. 4 (410), col. 17 lines 37-45, col. 14 lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique for enabling selection of a particular extraction model as taught by Biswas in order to have provided a system which simplified the use of machine learning systems such that users of various backgrounds can use the machine learning systems (see: Biswas: col. 2 lines 39-41).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Biswas and Burke (US 2015/0134694).
Regarding claim 8, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above including a feature amount used in search by an extraction model and an importance level (see again: Prendki: 0128, 0137-0138, Fig. 19, Fig. 20 (2010, 2031)), as well as a training the extraction model (see: Bazzani: col. 2 line 66-col. 3 line 3, col. 5 lines51-62, col. 6 lines 54-64). The combination, however, does not teach that the system is configured to generate a name of the extraction model, based on at least one of a feature amount used as training data of the extraction model and an importance level of the feature amount.
To this accord, Burke teaches a search system configured to generate a name of the extraction model, based on at least one of a feature amount used as training data of the extraction model and an importance level of the feature amount (e.g., (see: Fig. 50 (Saved Query), 0503, Fig. 95, 1033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique as taught by Burk in order to have enabled users to readily access previously saved results (see: Burke: 0293, 0503).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Cohen (US 2008/0104542).
Regarding claim 9, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches an output a screen including a button and for displaying a product extracted by the extraction model (see: Prendki: Fig. 14-15, 0105) as well as a screen for displaying a change field for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount in the extraction model (see: Prendki: Fig. 20-21, 0137-0138, 0141). The combination, however, does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output a screen including a button for switching between the screens.
To this accord, Cohen teaches a search system configured to provide a screen including a button for switching between the screens (see: 0064-0065, 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique for enabling switching between screens as taught by Cohen in order to have enabled a user to readily switch between views by clicking on a control to toggle to a desired view (see: Cohen: 0065, 0171).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Shioda (US 2025/0342172).
Regarding claim 10, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above including configure sixth graphical elements representing a feature amount that has contributed to the similarity determination by the extraction model (see above: claim 6), but does not teach presenting them in descending order of contribution to the similarity determination and cause the terminal device to display the sixth graphical elements.
Initially, the Examiner asserts that the presentation of the data as claimed is little more than a mere design choice and further represents the rearrangement of parts (e.g., the data presented by Prendki in view of Bazzani). See MPEP 2144.04(I) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Even presuming this were not true, such reordering was well-known and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Shioda teaches enabling visualization of feature amounts in descending order of contribution (see: 0076, 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique for enabling switching between screens as taught by Cohen in order to have enabled users to understand the importance of features when they do not have domain knowledge or knowledge of data analysis (see: Shioda: 0004, 0072).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prendki in view of Bazzani as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Franke (US 2020/0293580).
Regarding claim 12, Prendki in view of Bazzani teaches all of the above including wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to configure additional graphical elements representing a standard feature amount (see: 0128 (e.g., neutral value), Fig. 19) but does not teach an importance level of the feature amount in an industry in which the target product is distributed and cause the terminal device to display the additional graphical elements.
To this accord, Franke teaches outputting a standard feature amount (see: Fig. 1 (102)) and an importance level of the feature amount in an industry in which the target product is distributed and cause the terminal device to display the importance amount (see: Fig. 1 (106-108 show impact on resale value), 0022, 0036, Fig. 7 (706-718), 0068, Fig. 8 (836-838), 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Prendki in view of Bazzani to have utilized the known technique as taught by Franke in order to have provided a system that analyzed unique items to determine the influence that different significant attributes or features have to the pricing and/or demand of that item (see: Franke: 0026).
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite a mental process are acknowledged but moot. The Examiner has not alleged that the claims recite a mental process, but instead found that the emphasized limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes the process for changing the set value of the importance level of the feature amount in order to extract products similar to a target product. This represents the performance of a marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Turning to Prong 2, the Examiner again disagrees. Applicant has essentially emphasized the entirety of the claim, followed by a broad comment on Alice and DDR Holdings. The Examiner finds no similarity between the claimed invention and the fact patern of DDR Holdings. The claims in DDR Holdings attempted to address the problem specific to the routine functionality of a link (i.e. a user is directed away from the current page to the site of another merchant). The claims of DDR Holdings specified how interactions with the computer/Internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine function of the link. The claims of the instant application, however, lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed to generate virtual agents, train the artificial intelligence, et al. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the claims in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (above), Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions), and Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generally linked the abstract idea to a particular technological environment).
Moreover, merely reducing repeated cycles is not tantamount to improving the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field. Applying updated values – even with the mere use of graphical interface components – relates specifically to the abstract idea itself. That is, any improvement in the claimed invention is to the abstract commercial process itself, rather than any underlying technology or technical field.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Additional examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features (Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857) and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), each of which underscores the Examiner’s finding of ineligibility.
Moreover, claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Concerning Step 2B, similar logice applied with respect to the arguments under Prong Two are applied herein. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
II. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to Prendki, the claimed second graphical elements are the same as the first graphical elements, only they are updated with different values. Fig. 20-21, 0132 and 0137 shows an iterative search process using updated values, the slider elements being “configured” with the updated values corresponding to the updated results.
The lacking elements, then, are the intended use of the model (e.g., a feature amount to be used for determining a product similar to a target product by an extraction model that extracts a product similar to a target product), as well as expressly extract a product similar to the target product using the extract model based on the change value.
Additionally, though teaching user selectable graphical elements including a graphical slider for increasing and decreasing the set value of the importance level, Prendki does not disclose an element including a button. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that a button was a well-known merely an obvious alternative
Notably, identification of a similar item is at least implied by at least Fig. 14 and 0105 of Prendki (where alternative items are recommended and are similar to the target product 1416), as well as the ability of the user of Prendki to click on a specific item from a list of results extracted based on the feature criteria and weighting (e.g., Fig. 20 (2021-2023), 0139). As cited above, Bazzani teaches these features. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection or changes to previous grounds(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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights