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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,159,018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the patented claims. Specifically, the instant claims are anticipated as follows:
Instant Claim 1
12,159,018 Patent Claim 1
Examiner Notes
A computerized system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising:
A computerized system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more computer-storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising:
accessing a plurality of communications, wherein the plurality of communications include information about a primary item;
accessing a supplementary item information model, wherein the supplementary item information model is trained with a supplementation engine to support extracting each of operational compatibility features, sub-feature compatibility features, demographic-based compatibility features associated with corresponding user element interface elements that include a compatible item interface element, a sub-feature interface element, and an age-range interface element, wherein supplementary item information model is trained based on:
accessing training data comprising a plurality of communications of an item listing platform;
accessing training data comprising a plurality of communications of an item listing platform;
identifying one or more neural network algorithms for training the supplementary item information model, wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features; (2) determining a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features; (3) comparing question features and answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features, wherein comparing the question features and the answer features is based on a comparison logic of a comparison logic neural network model that generates a similarity score between question features and answer features; and (4) based on similarity scores associated with the comparison logic, identifying the communications-based compatibility features as any of the following: operational compatibility features, sub-feature compatibility features, and demographic-based compatibility features;
identifying one or more neural network algorithms for training the supplementary item information model, wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features; (2) determining a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features; (3) comparing question features and answer features to identify the communications-based compatibility features, wherein comparing the question features and the answer features is based on a comparison logic of a comparison logic neural network model that generates a similarity score between question features and answer features; and (4) based on similarity scores associated with the comparison logic, identifying the communications-based compatibility features as any of the following: operational compatibility features, sub-feature compatibility features, and demographic-based compatibility features; and
using the one or more neural network algorithms, training the supplemental item information model to determine the communications-based compatibility features for items that are not provided in standard features in feature sets of the items; and
using the one or more neural network algorithms, training the supplemental item information model to determine the communications-based compatibility features for items that are not provided in standard features in feature sets of the items;
deploying the supplemental item information model.
based on the plurality of communications and the supplementary item information model, generating supplementary item information, wherein the supplementary item information comprises a communications-based compatibility feature associated with the primary item, wherein the communications-based compatibility feature is not a standard feature in a feature set of the primary item, wherein a standard feature is a manufacturer-identified feature; and
Above limitation of 12159018 Patent Claim 1 discloses accessing the supplemental information model. Examiner is interpreting the accessing and deploying to provide the same functions of utilizing the supplemental item information model.
providing the supplementary item information generated from the plurality of communications to cause presentation of a user interface element corresponding to the communications-based compatibility feature, wherein causing presentation of the user interface element comprises presenting the user interface element proximate to one or more standard features in the feature set of the primary item, the user interface element and the one or more standard features are selectable to execute a search.
Additionally, Examiner notes that a similar analysis/comparison may be made between instant Independent Claims 8 and 15 to claims 1, 8, and 15 of the US 12,159,018 Patent.
Further, the instant dependent claims are anticipated by the US 12,159,018 patented claims as follows:
Instant Claims
12,159,018 Patent Claims
2, 9, 16
2
3, 10, 17
3, 4, 5
4, 11, 18
1
5, 12, 19
1, 7
6, 13, 19
20
7, 14, 20
6
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-4 and 6-7, is directed to the process. Additionally, the computer-storage media, as claimed in claims 8-11 and 13-14, is directed to an apparatus. Finally, the method, as claimed in claims 15-20, is directed to a process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of providing supplementary item information based on communications-based compatibility features for an item. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Accessing training data comprising a plurality of communications
Identifying one or more neural network algorithms for training a supplementary item information model, wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features; (2) determining a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features; (3) comparing question features and answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features, wherein comparing the question feature and the answer features is based on a comparison logic that generates a similarity score between question features and answer features; and (4) base don similarity scores associated with eh comparison logic, identifying the communications-based compatibility features as any of the following: operational compatibility features, sub-feature compatibility features, and demographic-based compatibility features;
Using the one or more neural network algorithms, training the supplemental information model to determine the communications-based compatibility features for items that are not provided in standard features in feature sets of the items.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because accessing training data, using questions/answer features to identify communications based compatibility features, and determine communications-based compatibility features for items that are not provided in standard features of items is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a computerized system comprising one or more computer processors and one or more computer storage media, item listing platform, supplementary item information model, comparison logic neural network model. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing item information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-7 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-4 and 6-7 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: user interfaces (claim 2), user interface element (claims 4, 6). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 7 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Supplemental to those in Claim 1, Independent Claim 8 recites the additional elements of one or more computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions. Supplemental to those in Claim 1, Independent Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a computer. The additional elements in Independent claims 1 and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-4 and 6-7. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are also ineligible.
Examiner notes that amending Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 to include the limitations of “providing the supplementary item information generated from the plurality of communications to cause presentation of a user interface element corresponding to the communications-based compatibility feature, wherein causing presentation of the user interface element comprises presenting the user interface element proximate to one or more standard features in the feature set of the primary item, the user interface element and the one or more standard features are selectable to execute a search” would overcome the current 35 USC 101 rejection.
Examiner Note
Regarding Claims 8-14 which recite “One or more computer-storage media…”. Applicant’s specification sets forth that “Computer storage media excludes signals per se.” See Specification paragraph [0066]. Therefore, Claims 8-14 are not interpreted to be signals per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koski (US 2008/0082499) in view of Hammel et al. (US 11,257,144) in view of Podgorny et al. (US 10,140,578).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Koski discloses A computerized system comprising (See paragraph [0008]): one or more processors (See paragraph [0008]); and one or more computer-storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising: (See paragraph [0008])
accessing a plurality of communications of an item listing platform; (See paragraph [0011] disclosing replies directed towards an item or product, [0012] disclosing set of one or more reviews is received, Fig. 1)
identifying the communications-based compatibility features as any of the following: operational compatibility features, sub-feature compatibility features, and demographic-based compatibility features; (See paragraph [0012] disclosing extracting information, opinions, and/or trends from the reviews, [0013] disclosing based on reviews a summary of topics, range and distribution of opinions and/or trends is presented- the distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions is presented, e.g., user and/or reviewer demographics (urban v. rural reviewer, male vs. female, etc.) – Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification discloses communications-based compatibility features to include operational compatibility feature, demographic based compatibility feature, or sub-feature compatibility, [0016] disclosing manufacturer standard features in feature set of primary item may include information such as associated features, potential uses, compatible mp3 players, price, etc., [0017] disclosing analyzing reviews to generate a themes section to provide insight into other features such as demographic information or that based on locations of reviews and the reviews themselves, drawing certain pieces of information such as that an item may have better performance in rural areas than in cities, Fig. 1, 3A-B)
determine the communications-based compatibility features for items that are not provided in standard features in feature sets of the items (See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary of information included in set of reviews is provided such as visual indication of a range and distribution of opinions expressed in the set of reviews, [0013], [0017] disclosing analyzing reviews to generate a themes section to provide insight into other features such as demographic information or that based on locations of reviews and the reviews themselves, drawing certain pieces of information such as that an item may have better performance in rural areas than in cities, Fig. 3A-B).
Koski does not expressly provide for training data, identifying one or more neural network algorithms for training the supplementary item information model, using the one or more neural network algorithms, training the supplemental item information model to determine communications-based compatibility features; and deploying the supplemental item information model.
However, Hamel discloses training data, identifying one or more neural network algorithms for training the supplementary item information model, using the one or more neural network algorithms, training the supplemental item information model to determine communications-based compatibility features; and deploying the supplemental item information model (See at least col 5 lns 1-20 disclosing item category element selection model generated according to machine learning, and training it col 11, lns 3-32 disclosing model trainers using machine learning techniques to determine user interface element types an deep neural network learning techniques to help train, col 5, lns 1-51, col 12, lns 33-55, col 14, lns 1-18, Fig. 6A & 6B, col 5, lns 22-51, , col 12, lns 33-55, col 14, lns 1-18).
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 system of Koski with the selectable elements and supplementary information model, as taught by Hamel, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including better accuracy in providing sufficient information for user to select an item that best matches or satisfies their request. See Hamel: col 3, lns 1-24.
However, Koski/Hamel does not expressly provide for wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features; (2) determining a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features; (3) comparing question feature sand answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features, wherein comparing the question features and the answer features is based on a comparison logic of a comparison logic neural network model that generates a similarity score between question features and answer features; and based on the similarity scores associated with the comparison logic, identifying communications-based compatibility features.
Podgorny discloses a model that supports: wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features; (2) determining a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features; (3) comparing question feature sand answer features to identify communications-based compatibility features, wherein comparing the question features and the answer features is based on a comparison logic of a comparison logic neural network model that generates a similarity score between question features and answer features; and based on the similarity scores associated with the comparison logic, identifying communications-based compatibility features (Podgorny: see at least Fig. 3, col 1, lines 22-38 disclosing managing questions and answers received and inputting them into model of the computing device to determine a score and use the score to help generate FAQ list, col 3, lns 48-67 disclosing determining similarity and deriving content score for each tax question and answer pairing, col 4, lns 18-32 disclosing the scoring of questions and answers and thresholds to determine features such as product and general tax components after running them through a content model, col 6-7, lns 61-67 & 1-21 disclosing using thresholds with the question and answer pairings, claim 2 disclosing separating electronic text based tax question and answer pairing based on threshold values, col 10, lines 43-64 disclosing Jaccard similarity between Q&A pairings that is used to generate FAQ list).
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 system of Koski/Hamel with the question/answer thresholds, as taught by Podgorny, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to evaluate more types of user submitted content that may be applicable to the primary item specifically when a certain topic has been questioned or asked frequently. See Podgorny: col 6-7, lns 61-67 & 1-21.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Koski, Hammel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, Koski discloses wherein the plurality of communications include descriptions provided via user interfaces associated with an item listing platform (See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary includes visual indication of information expressed in set of reviews (e.g., descriptions), Fig. 3A-B disclosing shopping listing/platform for it as well as reviews with description of item, paragraph [0011] disclosing online website or store, [0012] disclosing set of reviews being associated with item available at online store), wherein the item listing platform provides interfaces for presenting user interface elements corresponding to the communications-based compatibility features (See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary includes visual indication of information expressed in set of reviews (e.g., descriptions), Fig. 3A-B disclosing shopping listing/platform for it AND communications-based compatibility features displayed in user interface element (308 & 310), paragraph [0011] disclosing online website or store, [0012] disclosing set of reviews being associated with item available at online store).
Koski does not expressly provide for wherein the plurality of communications include questions and answers. However, Hamel discloses wherein the plurality of communications include questions and answers (Hamel: see at least col 14, lns 1-18 disclosing question and answer data).
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 system of Koski with the question and answer data to help create interface element types, as taught by Hamel, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including better accuracy in providing sufficient information for user to select an item that best matches or satisfies their request. See Hamel: col 3, lns 1-24.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Koski, Hammel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, Koski discloses wherein a communications-based compatibility feature is any of the following: an operational compatibility feature that indicates that the primary item is compatible with a secondary item; a demographic-based compatibility feature that indicates a derived demographic value associated with the primary item; (See paragraph [0012] disclosing extracting information, opinions, and/or trends from the reviews, [0013] disclosing based on reviews a summary of topics, range and distribution of opinions and/or trends is presented- the distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions is presented, e.g., user and/or reviewer demographics (urban v. rural reviewer, male vs. female, etc.), Fig. 3A-b) and a sub-feature compatibility feature that indicates a sub-feature of the primary item, wherein the sub-feature is configured to be listed as a feature of the feature set of the primary item.
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Koski, Hammel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, Koski discloses accessing a plurality of communications about a primary item; (See paragraph [0011] disclosing relies directed towards an item or product, [0012] disclosing set of one or more reviews is received, Fig. 1)
based on the plurality of communications, generating supplementary item information, wherein the supplementary item information comprises a communications-based compatibility feature associated with the primary item, wherein the communications-based compatibility feature is not a standard feature in a feature set of the primary item, wherein a standard feature is a manufacturer-identified feature; and (See paragraph [0012] disclosing extracting information, opinions, and/or trends from the reviews, [0013] disclosing based on reviews a summary of topics, range and distribution of opinions and/or trends is presented- the distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions is presented, e.g., user and/or reviewer demographics (urban v. rural reviewer, male vs. female, etc.) – Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification discloses communications-based compatibility features to include operational compatibility feature, demographic based compatibility feature, or sub-feature compatibility, [0016] disclosing manufacturer standard features in feature set of primary item may include information such as associated features, potential uses, compatible mp3 players, price, etc., [0017] disclosing analyzing reviews to generate a themes section to provide insight into other features such as demographic information or that based on locations of reviews and the reviews themselves, drawing certain pieces of information such as that an item may have better performance in rural areas than in cities, Fig. 1, 3A-B)
providing the supplementary item information generated from the plurality of communications to cause presentation of a user interface element corresponding to the communications-based compatibility feature (See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary of information included ins et of reviews is provided such as visual indication of a range and distribution of opinions expressed in the set of reviews, [0013], [0017] Fig. 3A-B).
Koski does not expressly provide for accessing a supplementary item information model, based on the supplementary item information model, generating supplementary item information.
However, Hamel discloses accessing a supplementary item information model, wherein the supplementary item information model is trained with a supplementation engine to support extracting communication-based compatibility features for communications (See at least col 5 lns 1-20 disclosing item category element selection model generated according to machine learning, col 11, lns 3-32 disclosing model trainers using machine learning techniques to determine user interface element types); based on the supplementary item information model, generating supplementary item information; (see at least col 11, lns 3-32 disclosing model trainers using machine learning techniques to determine user interface element types, col 5, lns 1-51, col 6 lns 43-64 disclosing user interface element types based on item recommendation models, item reviews, descriptive information and other item data – e.g., both user interface elements and standard features are selectable (as user interface elements) to execute a search, col 12, lns 33-55, col 14, lns 1-18).
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 system of Koski with the selectable elements and supplementary information model, as taught by Hamel, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including better accuracy in providing sufficient information for user to select an item that best matches or satisfies their request. See Hamel: col 3, lns 1-24.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Koski, Hamel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18. Additionally, Koski discloses wherein causing presentation of the user interface element comprises presenting the user interface element proximate to one or more standard features in the feature set of the primary item (See Fig. 3A-3B disclosing standard feature information being displayed at the top (304/306) and proximate below to that information displaying generated supplementary information – e.g., themes/relevancy/frequency distribution, paragraph [0010]); or wherein causing presentation of the user interface element comprises presenting the user interface element as a frequency distribution based on the communications-based compatibility feature being a demographic-based compatibility feature that indicates a derived demographic value associated with the primary item (See Fig. 2 disclosing different ways of showing frequency distribution, Fig. 3A/3B disclosing user interface element displaying frequency distribution based on communications-based compatibility feature, paragraph [0013] disclosing distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions based on things such as user/reviewer demographics, [0015] disclosing distribution graphics).
Koski does not expressly provide for the user interface element and the one or more standard features are selectable to execute a search. However, Hamel discloses the user interface element and the one or more standard features are selectable to execute a search (See at least Fig. 6A & 6B disclosing selectable UI Element types/content that is selectable to perform more detailed searches, col 5, lns 22-51, col 6 lns 43-64 disclosing user interface element types based on item recommendation models, item reviews, descriptive information and other item data – e.g., both user interface elements and standard features are selectable (as user interface elements) to execute a search, col 12, lns 33-55, col 14, lns 1-18).
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 system of Koski with the selectable elements and supplementary information model, as taught by Hamel, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including better accuracy in providing sufficient information for user to select an item that best matches or satisfies their request. See Hamel: col 3, lns 1-24.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Koski, Hamel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4 and 11. Additionally, Koski discloses wherein causing presentation of the user interface element comprises presenting the user interface element as a frequency distribution based on the communications-based compatibility feature being a demographic-based compatibility feature that indicates a derived demographic value associated with the primary item. (See Fig. 2 disclosing different ways of showing frequency distribution, Fig. 3A/3B disclosing user interface element displaying frequency distribution based on communications-based compatibility feature, paragraph [0013] disclosing distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions based on things such as user/reviewer demographics, [0015] disclosing distribution graphics).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, Koski, Hamel, and Podgorny teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18. Additionally, Koski discloses wherein generating the supplementary item information is based on determining that one or more communications in the plurality of communications indicates one or more of the following: an operational compatibility feature, a demographic-based compatibility feature, or a sub-feature compatibility feature based on a supplementary item information model (See paragraph [0012] disclosing extracting information, opinions, and/or trends from the reviews and various techniques (e.g., supplementary information models) to help generate information, [0013] disclosing based on reviews a summary of topics, range and distribution of opinions and/or trends is presented- the distribution of opinions along one or more axes or dimensions is presented, e.g., user and/or reviewer demographics (urban v. rural reviewer, male vs. female, etc.), [0017] disclosing analyzing reviews to generate a themes section to provide insight into other features such as demographic information or that based on locations of reviews and the reviews themselves, drawing certain pieces of information such as that an item may have better performance in rural areas than in cities).
However, Koski/Hamel does not expressly provide for identifying question features form the plurality of communications; identifying answer features correspond from the plurality of communications; and determining that a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features identify the communications-based compatibility feature.
Podgorny discloses a model that supports: identifying question features form the plurality of communications; identifying answer features correspond from the plurality of communications; and determining that a threshold number of question features and corresponding answer features identify the communications-based compatibility feature. (Podgorny: see at least Fig. 3, col 4, lns 18-32 disclosing the scoring of questions and answers and thresholds to determine features such as product and general tax components after running them through a content model, col 6-7, lns 61-67 & 1-21 disclosing using thresholds with the question and answer pairings, claim 2 disclosing separating electronic text based tax question and answer pairing based on threshold values).
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 system of Koski/Hamel with the question/answer thresholds, as taught by Podgorny, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to evaluate more types of user submitted content that may be applicable to the primary item specifically when a certain topic has been questioned or asked frequently. See Podgorny: col 6-7, lns 61-67 & 1-21.
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
Parent et al. (US 10,546,027) disclosing useful phrases form customer reviews to help supplement in the product user interface of an e-commerce site.
Guy et al. (US 2020/0020000) disclosing generating a description of an item to be displayed in an item listing based off of reviews of the item.
Pelleg et al. (US 2018/0129732) disclosing generating a set of tips based on user submitted content.
Fox et al. (US 9,965,470) disclosing identifying and generating list of topics based on customer comments/reviews.
Reisman et al. (US 2009/0265307) disclosing aggregating opinions, extracting features of the opinions, generating text summaries, and displaying that information to end users of a particular topic/product.
Huang et al. (US 2008/0249764) disclosing retrieving information from product reviews.
Bandaru et al. (US 2008/0133488) disclosing interface element with specific information extracted from plurality of communications.
“Analyzing user reviews in tourism with topic models” (Rossetti, M., Stella, F., Zanker, M., Analyzing user reviews in tourism with topic models, 2016, Information Technology & Tourism (2016) 16:5-21, pp. 5-21.) disclosing processing textual reviews in order to determine topics and provide decision support and recommendations to tourists in a tourism setting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688