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 .
This communication is Final Office Action in response to amendment and remarks filed on 2/24/2026. Claims 1-19, 21 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/24/2026 cancelled claim 20. No claims were previously cancelled. New claim 21 is added. Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 16-18 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-19, 21 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments made to claim 1, 9, 17 and arguments filed on 2/24/2026 are sufficient to overcome the 101 rejections, set forth in the previous office action. Therefore, Examiner withdraws rejections on claims 1-19, 21 under 35U.S.C.101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 9, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over current allowed co-pending independent claims 1 (method), 10 (system), of U.S. Application 18/227596 (now patent 12,175,514).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other of claim 1, 9, 17 respectively of the instant application because all the elements of the instant application claim 1, 9, 17 are to be found in patent claims 1, 10. The difference between the instant application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes more elements and is thus more specific. Thus, the invention of the claims 1, 10, of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant application claims 1, 9, 17. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since instant application claim 1, 9, 17, is anticipated by the claim 1, 10 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from the claims of the patent.
For reference, the following table matches the primary limitations of allowed claim 1 (method) of application 18227596 (now patent 12,175,514) with the similar limitations of claim 1 (method) of the instant application (differences highlighted in bold type).
Current Application 18/947934 which is a Continuation of patent Application 18/227596, (now Patent 11,175,514)
Allowed claim in Patent application 18/227596 (now Patent 12, 175,514)
Claim 1 (method)
A method comprising:
receiving, using input/output circuitry, from at least one device, a plurality of comments associated with a product listing;
generating, by a processor, a tagged version of each comment of the plurality of comments by associating a tag from a plurality of tags with words or phrases of the plurality of comments, wherein the associating is performed using at least one of: (a) a part-of-speech tagging technique, (b) a dependency parsing technique, or (c) a domain knowledge analysis technique;
storing, in a comment database, tagged versions of the plurality of comments;
receiving, by input/output circuitry, a request to access a page for viewing the product listing, wherein the request is associated with a user account;
generating, by the processor, a description for the product listing by: accessing, from a memory, a description template that comprises a plurality of modifiable fields, wherein each modifiable field of the plurality of modifiable fields is linked to a respective tag from the plurality of tags; and
identifying, for each respective modifiable field of the plurality of modifiable fields, a respective plurality of information items from the comment database associated with a tag matching the respective tag; and
automatically populating each respective modifiable field of the plurality of modifiable fields with a respective information item from the comment database by selecting, by the processor, the respective information item from the respective plurality of information items based on an engagement value of the user account associated with the product listing
generating, by input/output circuitry, for display the description for the product listing.
Claim 9, (system) and claim 17 (product)
Claim 1 (method)
A method comprising:
detecting, using input/output circuitry, a request from a device associated with a particular user account to access a page for playing a media item;
accessing, by a processor, a description template stored in a memory that comprises a plurality of fields, wherein each respective field of the plurality of fields is linked to a respective tag from a plurality of tags;
accessing, by the processor, a plurality of comments published on the page for playing the media item, wherein each respective comment of the plurality of comments was received from a respective device associated with a respective user account;
selecting, by the processor, a subset of the plurality of the comments published on the page for playing the media item based on a similarity score of each respective user account to the particular user account;
identifying, by the processor, words or phrases within the subset of plurality of the comments published on the page for playing a media item and associating a tag from the plurality of tags to each of the words or phrases, wherein the associating is performed using at least one of: (a) a part-of-speech tagging technique, (b) a dependency parsing technique, or (c) a domain knowledge analysis technique;
creating, by the processor, for each field of the plurality of fields in the description template, a list of the words and phrases from the subset of the plurality of comments published on the page that match the tag linked to the field;
selecting, by the processor, for each field of the plurality of fields in the description template, from the list of the words and phrases from the subset of the plurality of comments published on the page that match the tag linked to the field, a word or phrase to populate the field;
populating, by the processor, using the plurality of fields of the description template with respective words or phrases selected for each of the plurality of fields in the description template, wherein the populating the fields of the retrieved description template comprises selecting comment-based description data based on an input date of comment data or with an engagement value of the user account with respect to the media item of interest; and
generating, for display on the device associated with the particular user account, the description template on the page for playing the media item, after the populating.
Similar to claim 10 (system)
Therefore, as discussed above, the scope of claim 1 (method) of the present application and allowed claim 1 (method) respectively of U.S. Application No. 18/227596 (now patent 12,175,514) are practically identical.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform the same method steps, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other invention.
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to include “detecting a user request to access the template”, “creating a plurality of modifiable fields”, “selecting…based on engagement value of the user account associated with the product listing ” claimed in this application as taught or suggested by claims 1, 10 of patent “514” because instant application claims 1-19, 21 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-18 in Patent.”514”
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments presented on 2/24/2026 are deemed to be persuasive as the combination of elements, the claim as a whole, recite the specifics of generating dynamic and personalized descriptions based on opinion of similar users to the current user identified during collaborative filtering-based recommendation engines, to overcome Alice 101 rejection. As such, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
After reviewing the Applicant’s disclosure as well as the amended claimed limitations that are included in the pending claim language, it is clear to the Examiner that the steps being performed go beyond the limitations and simple implementation of an abstract idea. The claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s Specification [0011, 0068, 0069, 0072] notes the specific techniques are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus improves the relevant/targeted analysis of the product data or comment data.
Therefore, based on these findings of fact, the Examiner understands the claimed subject matter to be patent eligible. The claimed subject matter satisfies the following improvements to the computer-related technology or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), and/or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo). As such, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The instant continuation application has the allowable features presented in 18/227596 (now Patent 12,175,514) filed 7/28/2023. As to the prior art rejections, upon further search and consideration, it is found that claims 1-19, 21 are allowable subject to outstanding double patenting rejection. An approved terminal disclaimer is required.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with, and pending remedy to outstanding issues cited above. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The prior art made of record and relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Linh et al. (US 2014/0089134, teaches deriving the user tags based on user preference and social media profile page associated with a user. The list of products is created by comparing user and product tags. The list of products is selected when associated product tags match user tags),
Baid et al. (US 2017/0116658, teaches a product categorization system generates product category tags for each product listing of the merchant system product feed based on merchant system product feed data. The product categorization system assigns product listings to product categories based on the tags associated with each product listing and organizes the product listings within the product categories based on sales data and search data to create product category pages for a merchant system website),
Chatwani (US 2007/0118441, teaches managing a community-editable product catalog. The method determines whether a catalog entry associated with the product exists and when the catalog entry does not exist, prompts a user to create a new catalog entry and stores either the catalog entry or the new catalog entry in the network-based commerce system),
Chen et al. (US 2008/0147659),
Berg et al. (US 2010/0211885),
Sahu et al. (US 2016/0048698),
Ghoshal et al. (US 2018/0182001),
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 extension fee 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 SUN M LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5489. Fax is 571-270-6489. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30am--5pm
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, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached on 571-270-6702. 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.
/SUN M LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685