DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/09/2026 with respect to the Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Despite amendments, the claims are still anticipated by the US 12,159,018 patent. See rejection below for more detail.
35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection of 03/09/2026 has been withdrawn. The Examiner hereby asserts that the claims recite additional elements which individually and in combination integrate any judicial exception into a practical application and result in "significantly more" than any abstract idea which may be recited within the claims. The Examiner hereby asserts that the claims at issue apply the abstract idea with additional elements (including a computerized system comprising one or more computer processors and one or more computer storage media, supplementary item information model user interface elements), do not merely "apply" any judicial exception to a computer, and add meaningful limits that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Moreover, the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology to address problem specifically arising in the realm of utilizing neural network algorithms to identify and compare question and answer features to improve machine learning techniques in item information modeling.
35 USC 103 Rejection
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not disclose the newly amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Podgorny et al. discloses wherein the plurality of communications include question and answer data related to a primary item, the question and answer data are provided via user interfaces of the item listing platform and identifying question feature sand answer features form the plurality of communications related to the primary item. See 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.
Additionally, Koski discloses wherein the communications-based compatibility features are separate form a standard feature set of the primary item, and wherein the standard feature set comprises manufacturer-identified features of the primary item. Koski: 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.
Finally, Koski discloses support presentation of a user interface element corresponding to a communications-based compatibility feature, wherein the user interface is presented proximate to one or more standard feature sin the feature set of the primary item. Koski: See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary 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], Fig. 3A-B.
Applicant further argues that the combination does not teach the claimed ordered arrangement and the proposed combination relies on hindsight. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejections below, the examiner has established a prima facie case of obvious and has used the rationale as set forth in KSR v. Teleflex (i.e., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results) and the proposed modification would not change the principle operation of the prior art. Examiners judgment on obviousness takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s application.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 103 rejection.
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, wherein the plurality of communications include question and answer data related to a primary item, the question and answer data are provided via user interfaces of the item listing platform;
accessing training data comprising a plurality of communications of an item listing platform;
See also claim 2 of 12,159,018 patent.
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 from the plurality of communications related to the primary item; (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 for the primary item, wherein comparing the question features and the answer features is based on a comparison logic of a comparison logic neural network model that generates similarity scores between question features and answer features, and wherein the communications-based compatibility features are separate form a standard feature set of the primary item, and wherein the standard feature set comprises manufacturer-identified features of the primary item; 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 supplementary item information model to support presentation of a user interface element corresponding to a commun8ications-based compatibility feature, wherein the user interface element is presented proximate to one or more standard feature sin the feature set of the primary item.
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 § 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)
wherein the communications-based compatibility features are separate form a standard feature set of the primary item, and wherein the standard feature set comprises manufacturer-identified features of the primary item (Koski: 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.);
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);
support presentation of a user interface element corresponding to a communications-based compatibility feature, wherein the user interface is presented proximate to one or more standard feature sin the feature set of the primary item. (Koski: See paragraph [0010] disclosing summary 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], 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 plurality of communications include question and answer data related to a primary item, the question and answer data are provided via user interfaces of the item listing platform and identifying question feature sand answer features form the plurality of communications related to the primary item; wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features from the plurality of communications related to the primary item; (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 for the primary item, 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 plurality of communications include question and answer data related to a primary item, the question and answer data are provided via user interfaces of the item listing platform and identifying question feature sand answer features form the plurality of communications related to the primary item; wherein the one or more neural network algorithms train supplementary item information model operations comprising: (1) identifying question features and answer features from the plurality of communications related to the primary item; (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 for the primary item, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights