DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 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: A computer-implemented method for recommending entities to users on a platform for a network service, the computer-implemented method comprising: for each entity of a set of entities: obtaining user features related to a user; obtaining entity features related to the entity; obtaining current contextual features; generating a likelihood score quantifying a favorability of the entity to the user, the likelihood score based on the user features, entity features, and contextual features; generating a set of objective values related to a set of objectives for the network service, each objective value of the set of objective values generated by a different trained computer model; and generating a user recommendation score for the entity, the user recommendation score based on the likelihood score and the set of objective values; and determining an order at which to display the set of entities based on the generated user recommendation score for each entity of the set of entities; and displaying, on an interface of a client device, information about each entity following the determined order at which to display the set of entities.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to optimize recommendations (Specification ¶0002). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including a platform for a network service, a trained computer model, and an interface of a client device.
These additional 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 computers 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) apply or use 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.
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. MPEP 2106.05.
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.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 21-22 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-5 and 21-22 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-5 and 21-22 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-5 and 21-22 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 21-22 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 8-12, 15-19, and 23-25 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-5 and 21-22, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al., US PG Pub 2021/0110306 A1 (hereafter “Krishnan”).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan discloses a computer-implemented method for recommending entities to users on a platform for a network service, the computer-implemented method comprising:
for each entity of a set of entities: obtaining user features related to a user (¶¶0061, 0112, 0179-0183, and 0252);
obtaining entity features related to the entity (¶¶0061, 0162, 0179-0183, and 0252);
obtaining current contextual features (¶¶0036, 0061, 0081, 0212, and 0256);
generating a likelihood score quantifying a favorability of the entity to the user, the likelihood score based on the user features, entity features, and contextual features (¶¶0081 and 0105-0108);
generating a set of objective values related to a set of objectives for the network service, each objective value of the set of objective values generated by a different trained computer model (¶¶00139-0146 and 0217-0218);
and generating a user recommendation score for the entity, the user recommendation score based on the likelihood score and the set of objective values (¶¶0034-0038, 0044-0046, 0061-0064, 0107-0113, 0204-0207, and 0251-0264); and
determining an order at which to display the set of entities based on the generated user recommendation score for each entity of the set of entities (¶0286); and
displaying, on an interface of a client device, information about each entity following the determined order at which to display the set of entities (Figure 15 and ¶¶0284-0286).
Regarding claim 2, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein user features related to a user include at least one of past interactions of the user with the network service, past interactions of the consumer user with the entity, entity links the user has clicked on in the past, entities the user has ordered from in the past, and items the user has ordered in the past (¶¶0073 and 0183).
Regarding claim 3, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein entity features related to an entity in the network service include at least one of dishes on a menu of a restaurant, most popular dishes of the restaurant, a number of views of restaurant information for the restaurant, a number of orders the restaurant has received, a type of cuisine served by the restaurant, hours of operation of the restaurant, and location of the restaurant (¶¶0148 and 0255).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein current contextual features include at least one of current location of a user device, current time of day, current day of week, whether it is a holiday, current meal period, and a weather forecast (¶¶0033 and 0183).
Regarding claim 5, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the user recommendation score for the entity comprises applying a constrained quadratic programming algorithm to the generated set of objective values related to the set of objectives and the likelihood score related to whether the user is likely to find the entity to be favorable (¶¶0061, 0081, 0108, 0112, and 0184-0185).
Regarding claim 21, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the information about each entity promotes entities in a determined media format (¶¶0026, 0037, 0259, and 0270).
Regarding claim 22, Krishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the order at which to display the set of entities is continuously updated based on the generated user recommendation score for each entity of the set of entities (¶¶0066, 0238, and 0283-0286).
Regarding claims 8-12, 15-19, and 23-25, all of the limitations in claims 8-12, 15-19, and 23-25 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-5 and 21-22, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The 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, 8-12, 15-19, and 21-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,136,117. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated by the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanglertsampan et al., US PG Pub 2019/0042976 A1, teaches systems and methods for providing contextual recommendations for pages based on user intent.
Reese et al., US PG Pub 2014/0258270 A1, teaches context-based queryless presentation of recommendations.
Non-patent literature Peters, Kimberley, and Pr Hervé Remaud. teaches factors influencing consumer menu-item selection in a restaurant context.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights