DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 11/14/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. JP2024036033, filed on 03/08/2024 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 11/14/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “specifying component…”; “acquisition component…”; “first presentation component…”; “derivation component…”; “second presentation component…”; “extraction component…” (claims 1-7 and 15-20) with the functional language “configured to,” which are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The examiner notes that in light of Specification paragraphs [0019], [0024-0026], and Figs. 2 and 3, the components are interpreted to be hardware operating software.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The 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.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-8 and 15-20 are directed to a machine, and claims 8-14 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
configured to specify a customer visiting a store;
acquire information about an action of the customer specified;
present, to the customer, event information indicating an event correlated with the action of the customer, based on the information about the action of the customer acquired;
derive a merchandise item to be suggested to the customer, based on event information selected by the customer from among the event information presented; and
present the merchandise item derived to the customer.
The above limitations recite the concept of presenting merchandise to a user based on an event. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the presentation of merchandise to a user is a shopping activity. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis and determination are observations, evaluations, and judgements. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and as such, claims 8 and 15 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 15 recite additional elements, such as an information processing device; a specifying component; an acquisition component; a first presentation component; a derivation component; a second presentation component; and a shopping assistant device. Independent claim 8 is silent regarding any additional elements. In fact, claim 8 is completely silent regarding any implementation via a computer. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1 and 15 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing suggestions for merchandise based on an event) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1 and 15 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1 and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of providing suggestions for merchandise based on an event is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 8, and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1 and 9-10, these claims recite additional elements, such as an information processing device; a specifying component; an acquisition component; a first presentation component; a derivation component; a second presentation component; and a shopping assistant device. Independent claim 8 is silent regarding any additional elements. In fact, as noted above, claim 8 is completely silent regarding any implementation via a computer. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims specifying that the abstract idea of providing suggestions for merchandise based on an event is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-8 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Further, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19 further identify additional elements, such as an extraction component; a display device; an SNS; and a generative AI model. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
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 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. 102 that forms 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 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Fraser et al. (US 20210217070 A1), hereafter Fraser.
In regards to claim 1, Fraser discloses an information processing device, comprising (Fraser: [0014]):
a specifying component configured to specify a customer visiting a store (Fraser: [0015] and Fig. 3 – “A consumer may begin a greeting card search by initiating interaction with the kiosk's touch screen 10A. In one embodiment, shown in FIG. 3, the user will be prompted to select between ‘using the card finder tool’ 14 or ‘describing the perfect card’ 16”; [0003] – “a greeting card finder tool which includes a touch screen device located in a greeting card department of a retail store”);
an acquisition component configured to acquire information about an action of the customer specified by the specifying component (Fraser: [0015] – “In one embodiment, shown in FIG. 3, the user will be prompted to select between ‘using the card finder tool’ 14 or ‘describing the perfect card’ 16. If the user selects the ‘using the card finder tool’ 14 option”);
a first presentation component configured to present, to the customer, event information indicating an event correlated with the action of the customer, based on the information about the action of the customer acquired by the acquisition component (Fraser: [0015] – “If the user selects the ‘using the card finder tool’ 14 option, he/she will be prompted to indicate his/her relationship to the card recipient 18 and select the occasion for the greeting card 20”; [0016] – “a list of occasion categories, such as, for example, Birthday, Anniversary, New Baby, etc.”);
a derivation component configured to derive a merchandise item to be suggested to the customer, based on event information selected by the customer from among the event information presented by the first presentation component (Fraser: [0015-0016] – “This information is used in a quantitative sorting process to determine a list of greeting cards that are appropriate given the user's input…The user inputs/preferences are translated into data inputs for use in a quantitative sorting process. The quantitative sorting process uses the user input data to rank and ultimately display greeting card products to the user that closely match their preferences”; [0004] – “using a quantitative sorting process to determine a list of appropriate greeting cards for the user”); and
a second presentation component configured to present the merchandise item derived by the derivation component to the customer (Fraser: [0015-0016] and Fig. 4 – “The ‘using the card finder tool’ 14 and ‘describe the perfect card’ 16 options each result in a list of ‘best matched’ or ‘recommended’ greeting cards 30, as shown, for example, in FIG. 4… The quantitative sorting process uses the user input data to rank and ultimately display greeting card products to the user that closely match their preferences.”).
In regards to claim 2, Fraser discloses the device of claim 1. Fraser further discloses an extraction component configured to extract preference information about a preference of the customer, based on the information about the action of the customer acquired by the acquisition component, wherein the derivation component derives the merchandise item to be suggested to the customer, based on the event information and the preference information (Fraser: [0015] – “If the user selects the “using the card finder tool” 14 option, he/she will be prompted to indicate his/her relationship to the card recipient 18 and select the occasion for the greeting card 20. The user may also be asked to select the tone of the greeting card 22, degree of intimacy with the recipient 24, the copy length 26 and greeting card price 28. The greeting card finder tool may also assist the user by offering interactive drop-downs or menu options to narrow the field of cards. This information is used in a quantitative sorting process to determine a list of greeting cards that are appropriate given the user's input”).
In regards to claim 3, Fraser discloses the device of claim 1. Fraser further discloses wherein the first presentation component and the second presentation component perform a presentation via a display device configured to be operated by the customer at the store (Fraser: [0014-0015] – “The application may be loaded on and permanently displayed at a kiosk 10 with a touch screen 10A in the greeting card department of a brick and mortar retail establishment…A consumer may begin a greeting card search by initiating interaction with the kiosk's touch screen 10A.”).
In regards to claim 4, Fraser discloses the device of claim 1. Fraser further discloses wherein the derivation component derives a merchandise item to be suggested to the customer, from among merchandise items available for sale at the store (Fraser: [0015] – “match the user's preferences to all available greeting cards to determine a subgroup of all greeting cards (available in-store) which are most appropriate for the user (given the user's entered information)”).
In regards to claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a method. Claim 8 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a device. The device of Fraser discloses the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Fraser further discloses an information processing method (Fraser: [0015]). Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 9-11, all the limitations in method claims 9-11 are closely parallel to the limitations of device claims 2-4 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claim 15, claim 8 is directed to a device. Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a device. The device of Fraser discloses the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Fraser further discloses a shopping assistant device; and a customer shopping (Fraser: [0015]). Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 16-18, all the limitations in device claims 16-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 2-4 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser, in view of Sipe et al. (US 20250022027 A1), hereinafter Sipe.
In regards to claim 5, Fraser discloses the device of claim 3, yet Fraser does not explicitly disclose wherein the acquisition component includes at least one of a purchase history about merchandise items of the customer, a posting content posted on an SNS by the customer, and an event content registered with a schedule of the customer, as the information about the action of the customer.
However, Sipe teaches a similar recommendation method (Sipe: [0023]), including
wherein the acquisition component includes at least one of a purchase history about merchandise items of the customer, a posting content posted on an SNS by the customer, and an event content registered with a schedule of the customer, as the information about the action of the customer (Sipe: [0023] – “generative AI personalization engine can be built on different types of automotive data associated with the item listing to support both inspirational and personalized generative AI recommendations…Purchase history including previous upgrades, accessories, or products purchased for the vehicles”; the examiner notes that the items are listed in the alternate and thus only one need be taught or disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the purchase history of Sipe in the device of Fraser because Fraser already discloses purchasing information and Sipe is merely demonstrating what that information may be. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the acquisition component includes at least one of a purchase history about merchandise items of the customer, a posting content posted on an SNS by the customer, and an event content registered with a schedule of the customer, as the information about the action of the customer as taught by Sipe because histories are well-known and the use of it in a recommender system would have improved guidance (Sipe: [0023]).
In regards to claim 6, Fraser discloses the device of claim 1, yet Fraser does not explicitly disclose wherein the second presentation component presents the merchandise item having at least one of a same or similar brand name, size, or color with respect to a testing merchandise item the customer is in possession of.
However, Sipe teaches a similar recommendation method (Sipe: [0023]), including
wherein the second presentation component presents the merchandise item having at least one of a same or similar brand name, size, or color with respect to a testing merchandise item the customer is in possession of (Sipe: [0023] – “generative AI personalization engine can be built on different types of automotive data associated with the item listing to support both inspirational and personalized generative AI recommendations to improve automotive upgrade guidance in an item listing system….Purchase history including previous upgrades, accessories, or products purchased for the vehicles. User preferences including individual preferences such as brands, styles, and types of upgrades”; [0042] – “Historical behavior reflection prompts encourage the AI to consider the user's past upgrades and interactions, aligning recommendations with evolving preferences”; [0045] – “understanding complex patterns in user behavior and vehicle data, leading to highly personalized recommendations that align with individual preferences”; see also [0051]; the examiner notes that the items are listed in the alternate and thus only one need be taught or disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the brands of Sipe in the device of Fraser because Fraser already discloses purchasing information and Sipe is merely demonstrating what that information may be. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the second presentation component presents the merchandise item having at least one of a same or similar brand name, size, or color with respect to a testing merchandise item the customer is in possession of as taught by Sipe because histories are well-known and the use of it in a recommender system would have improved guidance (Sipe: [0023]).
In regards to claim 7, Fraser discloses the device of claim 1, yet Fraser does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivation component employs a generative AI model to derive the merchandise item to the customer.
However, Sipe teaches a similar recommendation method (Sipe: [0023]), including
wherein the derivation component employs a generative AI model to derive the merchandise item to the customer (Sipe: [0023] – “generative AI personalization engine can be built on different types of automotive data associated with the item listing to support both inspirational and personalized generative AI recommendations to improve automotive upgrade guidance in an item listing system….Purchase history including previous upgrades, accessories, or products purchased for the vehicles. User preferences including individual preferences such as brands, styles, and types of upgrades”; [0042] – “Historical behavior reflection prompts encourage the AI to consider the user's past upgrades and interactions, aligning recommendations with evolving preferences”; [0045] – “understanding complex patterns in user behavior and vehicle data, leading to highly personalized recommendations that align with individual preferences”; see also [0051]; the examiner notes that the items are listed in the alternate and thus only one need be taught or disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the AI of Sipe in the device of Fraser because Fraser already discloses machine learning and Sipe is merely demonstrating AI. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included wherein the derivation component employs a generative AI model to derive the merchandise item to the customer of as taught by Sipe because generative AI models are well-known and the use of it in a recommender system would have improved guidance (Sipe: [0023]).
In regards to claims 12-14, all the limitations in method claim 12-14 are closely parallel to the limitations of device claims 5-7 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
In regards to claims 19-20, all the limitations in device claim 19-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of device claims 6-6 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference U teaches a smart store solution. A kiosk may be signed into by a customer in a store. The customer may interact with the kiosk and the kiosk may provide personalized recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689