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 .
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 12/02/2024. Currently, claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 9 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for evaluating an item recommendation.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…generating a question or a hypothesis appropriate to a recommendation target which has been determined to be a target to be recommended to a target person; and
…presenting an answer to the question generated in the generation process or a result of verification of the hypothesis generated in the generation means process.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) generating a question or hypothesis about a recommendation item, and 2) displaying an answer to the generated question or hypothesis.
The above steps describe the process of evaluating an item recommendation. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Mental Processes" (A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claim recites additional elements in the form of an information processing apparatus having a processor, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The information processing apparatus represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The information processing apparatus represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-7 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP -2014-149780 A (Hiroichi et al. – hereinafter Hiroichi), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2010/0324985 (Kumar et al. – hereinafter Kumar).
Referring to claim 1, Hiroichi discloses an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
a presentation means process for presenting an answer to the question generated by in the generation means process or a result of verification of the hypothesis generated by in the generation means process. [See page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14; page 6, lines 17-41; page 8, lines 18-26; page 8, line 41- page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 26-41]
Hiroichi does not explicitly disclose the limitation: a generation means process for generating a question or a hypothesis appropriate to a recommendation target which has been determined to be a target to be recommended to a target person.
Kumar teaches a method with the limitation: a generation means process for generating a question or a hypothesis appropriate to a recommendation target which has been determined to be a target to be recommended to a target person. [See paragraphs 0500-0509, 0520]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Hiroichi to have incorporated a question-based recommendation propensity feature as in Kumar with the motivation of providing product recommendations based on customer purchase propensity. [See Kumar paragraphs 0500-0509; Hiroichi page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14]
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further carries out a recommendation reason generation process for generating a recommendation reason for recommendation of the recommendation target, and in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the question or the hypothesis on a basis of the recommendation reason. [See Kumar paragraphs 0500-0509, 0520]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further carries out a recommendation process for determining the recommendation target appropriate to an attribute of the target person with use of a prediction model that has been generated by learning a relationship between an attribute of a person and a result of recommendation of a recommendation target to the person who has the attribute or a relationship between an attribute of a person and a recommendation target to be recommended to the person who has the attribute, and [See Hiroichi page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14; page 6, lines 17-41; page 8, lines 18-26; page 8, line 41- page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 26-41]
in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the question or the hypothesis appropriate to a degree of likelihood of a prediction result obtained by the prediction model. [See Kumar paragraphs 0500-0509, 0520]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the question or the hypothesis on a basis of an attribute of the target person. [See Kumar paragraphs 0160-0162, 0175, 0497, 0498, 0512; Hiroichi page 7, lines 29-38]
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the question or the hypothesis on a basis of an attribute of a recommender who recommends the recommendation target to the target person. [See Hiroichi page 6, lines 4-11; page 7, line 44 – page 8, line 8]
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the generation process, the at least one processor generates the question or the hypothesis with use of a generation model that has been generated by learning a relationship between a recommendation target and a question or a hypothesis appropriate to the recommendation target. [See Kumar paragraphs 0160-0162, 0175, 0497, 0498, 0500-0509; 0512, 0520]
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Hiroichi and Kumar discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor further carries out a responding process for generating an answer to the question generated in the generation process or a result of verification of the hypothesis generated in the generation means process, [See Hiroichi page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14; page 6, lines 17-41; page 8, lines 18-26; page 8, line 41- page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 26-41]
in the responding process, in a case where a question about the answer presented in the presentation process or about the result of verification presented in the presentation process has been input, the at least one processor generates an answer to the input question, and [See Hiroichi page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14; page 6, lines 17-41; page 8, lines 18-26; page 8, line 41- page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 26-41]
the at least one processor presents the answer, generated in the responding process, to the input question. [See Hiroichi page 3, line 44- page 4, line 14; page 6, lines 17-41; page 8, lines 18-26; page 8, line 41- page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 26-41]
Referring to claim 8, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Referring to claim 9, it recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights