Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on June 24, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 15, and 18-19 have been amended.
The previous rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 24, 2026, has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
The previous rejection of claims 10 and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants' amendments. The Examiner notes that claims 1, 9, and 15 recite an abstract idea that is a mental process. However, the Examiner further notes that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. For example, claim 1 recites providing the recommendation data including the at least one object to the computing device for presentation to the user; receiving user input from the computing device; updating the user preference data based on the user input to generate updated user preference data; generating updated recommendation data for the user based on the updated user preference data, wherein the updated recommendation data represents an updated recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one second object selected from the plurality of objects associated with the feedback data; and providing the updated recommendation data to the computing device for presentation to the user.
Claims 9 and 15 recite similar limitations.
The combination of at least these elements uses the judicial exception in a 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.
Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of 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, 7, 9, and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,423,462 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘462 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the processes performed by the systems and methods of the instant application would necessarily be performed by the systems and methods of the ‘462 patent.
For example, independent claim 1 in the instant application recites a method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device associated with a user, a query;
accessing feedback data for a plurality of entities based at least in part on the query;
generating recommendation data for the user, the recommendation data representing a recommendation for an entity of the plurality of entities and specifying at least one object selected from a plurality of objects associated with the feedback data, wherein generating the recommendation data comprises:
accessing user preference data for the user; and
selecting the at least one object from the plurality of objects based at least in part on the user preference data, the at least one object having been determined to be more likely to cause the user to interact with the recommendation than other objects in the plurality of objects;
providing the recommendation data including the at least one object to the computing device for presentation to the user;
receiving user input from the computing device;
updating the user preference data based on the user input to generate updated user preference data;
generating updated recommendation data for the user based on the updated user preference data, wherein the updated recommendation data represents an updated recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one second object selected from the plurality of objects associated with the feedback data; and
providing the updated recommendation data to the computing device for presentation to the user.
For example, independent claim 1 of the ‘462 patent recites (with emphasis on limitations that read on the limitations in claim 1 of the instant application) a method comprising:
accessing first feedback data received from a first data source and associated with a first user, the first feedback data including one or more first data elements related to a first physical entity;
accessing second feedback data received from a second data source and associated with a second user, the second feedback data including one or more second data elements related to a second physical entity;
canonicalizing the first feedback data and the second feedback data, including:
comparing the first feedback data and the second feedback data to determine whether the first physical entity corresponds to the second physical entity; and
in response to a determination that the first physical entity corresponds to the second physical entity, generating a canonical dataset for a canonical physical entity representing the first physical entity and the second physical entity, the canonical dataset including one or more canonical data elements associated with the canonical physical entity based at least in part on the one or more first data elements and the one or more second data elements;
generating recommendation data for a user of a user account, the recommendation data representing a recommendation for the canonical physical entity and specifying at least one image selected from a plurality of images associated with the one or more canonical data elements, wherein generating the recommendation data includes:
accessing user preference data for the user of the user account and relationship data representing a relationship between the user of the user account and at least one of the first user or the second user; and
selecting the at least one image from the plurality of images based on the user preference data and the relationship data, the at least one image having been determined to be more likely to cause the user to respond to the recommendation than other images in the plurality of images; and
providing the recommendation data for display on a user device associated with the user account;
receiving user input from the user device associated with the user account;
updating the user preference data associated with the user of the user account based on the user input;
generating second recommendation data for the user of the user account, the second recommendation data representing a second recommendation for the canonical physical entity and specifying at least one second image selected from the plurality of images associated with the one or more canonical data elements based on the updated user preference data and the relationship data; and
providing the second recommendation data for display on the user device associated with the user account.
Claim 1 of the ‘462 patent differs from claim 1 of the instant application in that it further recites accessing second feedback data and canonicalizing the first feedback data and second feedback data by a particular method in order to determine a canonical physical entity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the ‘462 patent by removing the limitations directed to accessing second feedback data and canonicalizing the first feedback data and second feedback data by a particular method in order to determine a canonical physical entity and resulting generally in the claims of the instant application since the claims of the instant application and the claims of the ‘462 patent perform similar functions.
Claims 9 and 15 of the instant application recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system reciting similar limitations and are similarly rejected over claims 9 and 15 of the ‘462 patent.
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, claim 7 recites wherein the feedback data comprises data related to a service experience or data related to goods available from the entity. Claim 14 of the instant application recites similar limitations. Claims 8 and 12 of the ‘462 patent also recite these limitations.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,367 B2 (hereinafter “the ‘367 patent”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the processes performed by the systems and methods of the instant application would necessarily be performed by the systems and methods of the ‘367 patent.
For example, independent claim 1 in the instant application recites a method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device associated with a user, a query;
accessing feedback data for a plurality of entities based at least in part on the query;
generating recommendation data for the user, the recommendation data representing a recommendation for an entity of the plurality of entities and specifying at least one object selected from a plurality of objects associated with the feedback data, wherein generating the recommendation data comprises:
accessing user preference data for the user; and
selecting the at least one object from the plurality of objects based at least in part on the user preference data, the at least one object having been determined to be more likely to cause the user to interact with the recommendation than other objects in the plurality of objects;
providing the recommendation data including the at least one object to the computing device for presentation to the user;
receiving user input from the computing device;
updating the user preference data based on the user input to generate updated user preference data;
generating updated recommendation data for the user based on the updated user preference data, wherein the updated recommendation data represents an updated recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one second object selected from the plurality of objects associated with the feedback data; and
providing the updated recommendation data to the computing device for presentation to the user.
For example, independent claim 1 of the ‘367 patent recites (with emphasis on limitations that read on the limitations in claim 1 of the instant application) a method comprising:
accessing feedback data for an entity, at least a portion of the feedback data being associated with a first user;
generating recommendation data for a second user, the recommendation data representing a recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one image selected from a plurality of images associated with the feedback data, wherein generating the recommendation data includes:
accessing user preference data for the second user and relationship data representing a relationship between the first user and the second user; and
selecting the at least one image from the plurality of images based on the user preference data and the relationship data, the at least one image having been determined to be more likely to cause the second user to respond to the recommendation than other images in the plurality of images; and
providing the recommendation data to a device for presentation to the second user;
receiving user input from the device;
updating the user preference data for the second user based on the user input;
generating second recommendation data for the second user, the second recommendation data representing a second recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one second image selected from the plurality of images associated with the feedback data based on the updated user preference data and the relationship data; and
providing the second recommendation data to the device for presentation to the second user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, in addition to the method recited in claim 1 of the ‘367 patent, the method recited in claim 1 of the instant application, since the omission/addition of the recited limitations would not have changed the method recited in claim 1 of the '367 Patent and since the claims of the instant application and the claims of the ‘367 patent perform similar functions.
Claims 9 and 15 of the instant application recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system reciting similar limitations and are similarly rejected over claims 8 and 15 of the ‘462 patent.
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, claim 7 recites wherein the feedback data comprises data related to a service experience or data related to goods available from the entity. Claim 14 of the instant application recites similar limitations. Claims 6 and 13 of the ‘367 patent also recite these limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a method comprising receiving, from a computing device associated with a user, a query; accessing feedback data for a plurality of entities based at least in part on the query; generating recommendation data for the user, the recommendation data representing a recommendation for an entity of the plurality of entities and specifying at least one object selected from a plurality of objects associated with the feedback data, wherein generating the recommendation data comprises: accessing user preference data for the user; and selecting the at least one object from the plurality of objects based at least in part on the user preference data, the at least one object having been determined to be more likely to cause the user to interact with the recommendation than other objects in the plurality of objects; providing the recommendation data including the at least one object to the computing device for presentation to the user; receiving user input from the computing device; updating the user preference data based on the user input to generate updated user preference data; generating updated recommendation data for the user based on the updated user preference data, wherein the updated recommendation data represents an updated recommendation for the entity and specifying at least one second object selected from the plurality of objects associated with the feedback data; and providing the updated recommendation data to the computing device for presentation to the user.
With respect to claims 9 and 15, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system reciting similar limitations
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights