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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the application filed on 12/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are previously presented.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…receiving a product dataset associated with a product comprising one or more subproducts, a first corresponding product dataset associated with a first corresponding product, and a second corresponding product dataset associated with a second corresponding product; determining a product model output corresponding to the product, wherein the product model output is a single, value-weighted indicator of the product; determining a first variability index corresponding to the first corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the first corresponding product dataset, and a second variability index corresponding to the second corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the second corresponding product dataset”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. determining the variability index of the products) but for the recitation of generic computer component. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claim of one or more processors and a graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …a product dataset associated with a product…; determining… a product model output corresponding to the product…; determining … a first variability index corresponding to the first corresponding product and a second variability index corresponding to the second corresponding product…; and displaying… a visual indicator of the first variability index and the second variability index”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the one or more processors and the graphical user interface that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …a product dataset associated with a product…; determining… a product model output corresponding to the product…; determining … a first variability index corresponding to the first corresponding product and a second variability index corresponding to the second corresponding product…; and displaying… a visual indicator of the first variability index and the second variability index”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 is rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1 and 11. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors and the exchange system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving … a variability threshold; and …transmitting … an instruction to trade the first corresponding product” (claims 3 and 13); and “receiving …a variability threshold; generating … an adjusted first corresponding product by adjusting … one or more of the plurality of first corresponding subproducts…; determining …a first corresponding product model output…; determining… an adjusted first variability index …; and transmitting… an instruction to exchange the first corresponding product with the adjusted first corresponding product” (claims 4 and 14), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the one or more processors and the exchange system included in the dependent claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “receiving … a variability threshold; and …transmitting … an instruction to trade the first corresponding product” (claims 3 and 13); and “receiving …a variability threshold; generating … an adjusted first corresponding product by adjusting … one or more of the plurality of first corresponding subproducts…; determining …a first corresponding product model output…; determining… an adjusted first variability index …; and transmitting… an instruction to exchange the first corresponding product with the adjusted first corresponding product” (claims 4 and 14), above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible.
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.
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (2023/0169565) and further in view of Stenneth (2022/0063673).
As per claims 1 and 11, Ma teaches a computer-implemented method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a product dataset associated with a product (via obtaining historical data over a threshold period for a set of product types, see at least paragraph 13) comprising one or more subproducts, a first corresponding product dataset associated with a first corresponding product, and a second corresponding product dataset associated with a second corresponding product (via product type of the set of product types and selecting a subset of product types, see at least paragraph 13);
determining, by the one or more processors, a product model output corresponding to the product (via applying a theme-aware model to the product types, see at least paragraph 13), wherein the product model output is a single, value-weighted indicator of the product (via based on the seasonality index score, see at least paragraph 13);
determining, by the one or more processors, a first variability index corresponding to the first corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the first corresponding product dataset, and a second variability index corresponding to the second corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the second corresponding product dataset (via the seasonality index determination module 428 identifies the top (for example, five) items or rather those items with the highest seasonality index scores. Those top items are then stored in the season database 128 corresponding to the season indicated in the set generation request, see at least paragraph 58).
Ma does not explicitly teach the limitations wherein displaying, by the one or more processors, a visual indicator on a graphical user interface the first variability index and the second variability index.
Stenneth teaches this limitation wherein displaying, by the one or more processors, a visual indicator on a graphical user interface the first variability index and the second variability index (via a map display of the vehicle based on the comparison between the first transition variability index for the first spatial reference point and the second transition variability index for the second spatial reference point, see at least paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Ma and Stenneth in order to provide a map display so that the first variability index and the second variability index of Ma would be displayed more accurately.
As per claims 2 and 12, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the first corresponding product comprises a plurality of first corresponding subproducts, and the second corresponding product comprises a plurality of second corresponding subproducts (via first threshold number of product types to select the subset of product types; and identify the set of items as a second threshold number of items, see at least paragraph 5).
As per claims 3 and 13, Ma teaches the limitations further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a variability threshold; and responsive to the first variability index satisfying the variability threshold and indicating less variability than the second variability index, transmitting, by the one or more processors to an exchange system, an instruction to trade the first corresponding product (via obtain historical data over a threshold period for a set of product types. The computing device is further configured to, for each product type of the set of product types, compute a seasonality index score based on the historical data over a target period and the threshold period, the target period being a portion of the threshold period, see at least paragraph 4).
As per claims 4 and 14, Ma teaches the limitations further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, a variability threshold; responsive to the first variability index not satisfying the variability threshold, generating, by the one or more processors, an adjusted first corresponding product by adjusting one or more of the plurality of first corresponding subproducts, wherein the first corresponding product is a currently owned corresponding product; determining, by the one or more processors, a first corresponding product model output corresponding to the adjusted first corresponding product; determining, by the one or more processors, an adjusted first variability index corresponding to the adjusted first corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the first corresponding product model output; and responsive to the adjusted first variability index satisfying the variability threshold, transmitting, by the one or more processors to an exchange system, an instruction to exchange the first corresponding product with the adjusted first corresponding product (via the computing device is configured to select a first threshold number of product types based on the seasonality index score and apply the theme-aware model to the selected first threshold number of product types to select the subset of product types. In another aspect, the computing device is configured to compute an item seasonality index score for each item of the subset of product types and identify the set of items as a second threshold number of items corresponding to a highest item seasonality index score. For each product type of the set of product types, computing a seasonality index score based on the historical data over a target period and the threshold period, the target period being a portion of the threshold period. The method also includes selecting a subset of product types based on the seasonality index score and by applying a theme-aware model to the product types and identifying and storing a set of items corresponding to at least one product type of the subset of product types. The method includes, in response to a user navigating to a webpage using a user device, selecting and displaying at least one item of the set of items on a user interface of the user device, see at least paragraphs 5 and 13).
As per claims 5 and 15, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the instruction to exchange of the currently owned corresponding product with the adjusted first corresponding product includes instructions to exchange one or more individual first corresponding subproducts of the first corresponding product with one or more individual subproducts of the product (via system 100 also includes a query-click database 124, a season database 128, a historical database 132, and a model database 136. The item database 112 stores items for sale on the ecommerce marketplace, and the items are categorized by product type. That is, each item may have a corresponding product type to which the item belongs, see at least paragraph 33).
As per claims 6 and 16, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the product model output is the single, value-weighted indicator of the one or more subproducts of the product (via the theme model generation module 120 includes a query and product type selection module 504 that receives a model generation request. In various implementations, the model generation request occurs at threshold intervals, for example, in anticipation of a particular season occurring, see at least paragraph 59 and Fig.5).
As per claims 7 and 17, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the product model output is a historical trend of single, value - weighted indicators of the one or more subproducts of the product over a statistically significant period of time (via the historical database 132 may store historical transactions over a plurality of past years for each of the items in the item database 112. For example, for the last three years, the historical database 132 includes a number of purchases for each item on each day of the previous number of years. In this way, the seasonal recommendation module 116 may access the historical transaction data stored in the historical database 132 to identify, for a particular season, see at least paragraph 34).
As per claims 8 and 18, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the exchange system is a clearing agency (via the seasonal recommendation system 100 may include a seasonal recommendation device 102 and user devices 104-1 and 104-2, collectively user device 104, such as a phone, tablet, laptop, mobile computing device, desktop, etc., capable of communicating with a plurality of databases and modules via a distributed communications system 108. The user device 104 may display an ecommerce marketplace via a web browser or an application for customers to view items for sale by the ecommerce marketplace that are stored in an item database 112, see at least paragraph 32).
As per claims 9 and 19, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the first variability index is a measure of variability between the product and the first corresponding product, and the second variability index is a measure of variability between the product and the second corresponding product (via the identified items are forwarded to a seasonality index determination module 428 (by item) determines the seasonality index scores for each item of the filtered product types. The seasonality index determination module 428 identifies the top (for example, five) items or rather those items with the highest seasonality index scores. Those top items are then stored in the season database 128 corresponding to the season indicated in the set generation request, see at least paragraph 58).
As per claims 10 and 20, Ma teaches the limitations wherein the first variability index and the second variability index are determined at regular time intervals (via FIGS. 6A and 6B, flowcharts of example methods of generation of seasonal item recommendations are shown. Control begins in response to receiving a request for seasonal recommendations. For example, at predetermined intervals, the seasonal recommendation system may automatically prompt the system to generate seasonal recommendations to be stored in a database for the system to access and display to customers. The predetermined intervals, see at least paragraphs 62-65 and Fig.6A-Fig.6B).
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/640,525 (filed on 4/28/2026). Both claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and claims 1 and 11 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/640,525 recites a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium of determining the variability indexes corresponding to the first and second products. However, claims 1 and 11 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/640,525 also contains additional limitations not found in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application, such as the limitations “…determining, by the one or more processors, a first variability index representing a measure of variability between the product and corresponding to the first corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the first corresponding product dataset, and a second variability index representing a measure of variability between the product and corresponding to the second corresponding product based at least on the product model output and the second corresponding product dataset; and instructing, by the one or more processors, a server to execute a transfer protocol associated with at least one of the first corresponding product or the second corresponding product based on at least one of the first variability index or the second variability index”.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/640,525 are directed to a species of claims 1 and 11 of the instant application (see MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional limitations of claims 1 and 11 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 18/640,525 so that variability indexes of the products in claims 1 and 11 of the instant application would be determined and processed more efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights