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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 respectfully of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,210,591 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The only difference between the claims is that the US Patent includes the limitation “receiving input from one or more users manually reviewing the generated clusters for accuracy”, however, this limitation does not change the scope of the claim, and thus the claim scopes are identical and thus a statutory double patenting rejection applies.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 13-22 respectfully of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,210,591 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. There is no difference between the claim language in the current application and the US Patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art Thakur (Thakur et al., US 2012/0259882 A1) teaches automatic data mining for internet-based product classification structures from multiple merchant websites ([0015]); wherein search queries are inputted by a user in a user interface on a client computing device ([0016]); wherein search query parameters such as attribute and category are retrieved from a search query ([0019]); and one a match is received from a key word the match is further analyzed in the analysis sub-module for a contextual similarity fit relating to the structural parameters of the stored search query ([0020]). Prior art Jiang (Jiang et al., US 2021/0118036 A1) teaches systems and methods for providing product recommendations (Abstract); and a machine learning model may be trained using user feedback information associated with products recommended to users, and wherein the machine learning model is configured to predict performance associated with product recommendations ([0009]). Prior art Jones (Jones et al., US 11,386,478 B1) teaches a system and method for AI-based product recommendation generation (Abstract); retrieving at least one query submitted by a user (Abstract); extracting attributes (Abstract); determining a product category based on the extracted attributes (Abstract); and generating a list of products based on the determined product category (Abstract). However, none of the prior art, either alone or in combination, teach each and every limitations within the claim language, and thus the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J VANCHY JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/MICHAEL J VANCHY JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Michael.Vanchy@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights