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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on December 31, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “a first application owner.” The word “owner” appears to be a misspelling of the word “owned.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first type of part.” This limitation is unclear. Claim 18, from which claim 20 depends, recites “selecting a first user classification from the plurality of user classifications based on the current context.” Claim 20 appears to repeat this portion of claim 18. However, it is then unclear what is meant by “is associated with the first type of part.” Is this intended to mean that the current context is associated with the first type of part? Or is this intended to recite “determining that the current context of the user is associated with the first type of part”? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 20 as reciting “wherein the first user classification is selected based on the determining that current context of the user and based on the current context of the user being associated with the first type of part.”
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.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 are directed to a computer medium, a method, and a system for providing a personalized parts experience to a user device. With respect to claim 1, claim elements accessing signal data, determining a plurality of signal classifications, determining one or more user classifications, selecting a personalized parts experience, and causing the listing platform to provide the personalized parts experience to a user device, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting that a computing device performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
With respect to claim 13, claim elements classifying signal data, processing the signal data to determine a plurality of user classifications, selecting a first user classification, selecting a personalized parts experience, and configuring one or more application servers, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
With respect to claim 18, claim elements accessing signal data, processing the signal data, processing the signal data to determine a plurality of user classifications, determining a current context of the user, selecting a first user classification, selecting a personalized parts experience, and providing the personalized parts experience to a user device, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting that a computer system performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 18 recites a processor and a computer storage medium. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. 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 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 18 recites a processor and a computer storage medium. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1, 13, and 18 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 13, and 18. Claim 2 is directed to the type of signal data and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 3 is directed to determining the signal classifications and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 4 is directed to determining the user classifications and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 5 is directed to determining the first user classification and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 8 are directed to the user classifications and selecting the personalized parts experience and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 7 is directed to selecting a second personalized parts experience and configuring user interfaces and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 17 are directed to the type of parts and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 10 is directed to employing the user classification to select content and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 11 is directed to providing user interface elements and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 12 is directed to providing access to features of the listing platform and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 14 is directed to determining a current context of the user and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are directed to the user classifications and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0130822 A1 to Raviv et al. (hereinafter “Raviv”), in view of US 2010/0153229 A1 to Bursey et al. (hereinafter “Bursey”).
Claim 1: Raviv discloses systems and methods for “generating a customized output based on account data of a user.” (See Raviv, at least Abstract). Raviv further discloses:
accessing, for a user of a… platform, signal data from a plurality of user interactions…(See Raviv, at least para. [0045], processor receives user data from one or more databases including user browser history and account data; user browser history includes user’s search history, type of articles and web pages visited by the user; includes searches performed by the user, websites visited by the user, industry sectors the user is looking to invest, financial accounts belonging to the user; stocks and other assets currently held by the user);
determining a plurality of signal classifications for the signal data to provide classified signal data for the user (See Raviv, at least para. [0045], system analyzes the user’s search history and type of articles and web pages visited by the user);
determining one or more user classifications for the user based on the classified signal data (See Raviv, at least para. [0045], system analyzes the user’s search history and type of articles and web pages visited by the user to determine a literacy level of the user);
selecting a personalized…experience for the user based on at least one user classification from the one or more user classifications (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio); and
causing one or more application servers of the listing platform to provide the personalized…experience to a user device of the user via one or more user interfaces presented on the user device (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may include a video, text, and/or audio; para. [0053], output based on the personalized output script is created including one or more graphic visuals; para. [0054], output is displayed on one or more user interfaces of a user device; one or more user interfaces may correspond to one or more mobile applications).
Raviv does not expressly disclose a listing platform; and the listing platform associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications.
However, Bursey discloses systems and methods “to supplement search results” that includes receiving “a first query from a buyer” that “includes keywords.” (See Bursey, at least Abstract). Bursey further discloses a listing platform (See Bursey, at least para. [0060], marketplace system in which sellers can list items for sale); and the listing platform associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications (See Bursey, at least para. [0052], Items may be parts or components that have an assembly (e.g., parts that fit an application).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv the ability of a listing platform; and the listing platform associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications as disclosed by Bursey since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to assist sellers to efficiently list items and buyers to efficiently to find items.” (See Bursey, at least para. [0048]).
Claim 2: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Raviv further discloses wherein the signal data comprises information identifying one or more items owned by the user and user behavior information for the user on the listing platform (See Raviv, at least para. [0045], processor receives user data from one or more databases including user browser history and account data; user browser history includes user’s search history, type of articles and web pages visited by the user; includes searches performed by the user, websites visited by the user, industry sectors the user is looking to invest, financial accounts belonging to the user; stocks and other assets currently held by the user.
Claim 10: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Raviv further discloses wherein causing the one or more application servers of the listing platform to provide the personalized parts experience to the user device of the user comprises causing the one or more application servers to employ the at least one user classification to select content for presentation on the one or more user interfaces (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio).
Claim 11: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Raviv further discloses wherein causing the one or more application servers of the listing platform to provide the personalized parts experience to the user device of the user comprises causing the one or more application servers to provide one or more user interface elements on the one or more user interfaces based on the at least one user classification (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio).
Claim 12: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Raviv further discloses wherein causing the one or more application servers of the listing platform to provide the personalized parts experience to the user device of the user comprises causing the one or more application servers to provide, via the one or more user interfaces, access to one or more features of the listing platform based on the at least one user classification (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv in view of Bursey and further in view of US 10,157,351 B1 to Rastogi et al. (hereinafter “Rastogi”).
Claim 13: Raviv discloses:
selecting a first user classification from the plurality of user classifications (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio);
selecting a personalized parts experience based on the first user classification (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio); and
configuring one or more application servers of the listing platform to provide the personalized…experience to a user device of the user (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may include a video, text, and/or audio; para. [0053], output based on the personalized output script is created including one or more graphic visuals; para. [0054], output is displayed on one or more user interfaces of a user device; one or more user interfaces may correspond to one or more mobile applications).
Raviv does not expressly disclose a listing platform; and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications.
However, Bursey discloses a listing platform (See Bursey, at least para. [0060], marketplace system in which sellers can list items for sale); and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications (See Bursey, at least para. [0052], Items may be parts or components that have an assembly (e.g., parts that fit an application).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv the ability of a listing platform; and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications as disclosed by Bursey since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to assist sellers to efficiently list items and buyers to efficiently to find items.” (See Bursey, at least para. [0048]).
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses classifying signal data from one or more user interactions of a user…to provide classified signal data…; and processing the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user.
However, Rastogi discloses systems and methods “for associating users with items based on underlying personas. The system associates each user account with one or more underlying personas that contribute to the user's interactions with different items, and predicts an active persona for a user based on the user's recent interactions with items and make item related recommendations that are oriented to the active persona.” (See Rastogi, at least Abstract). Rastogi further discloses:
classifying signal data from one or more user interactions of a user…to provide classified signal data…(See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas);
processing the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability of classifying signal data from one or more user interactions of a user…to provide classified signal data…; and processing the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 14: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 13 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses determining a current context of the user on the listing platform, wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context.
However, Rastogi discloses determining a current context of the user on the listing platform, wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability of determining a current context of the user on the listing platform, wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 15: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context corresponding to the first application.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas), wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context corresponding to the first application (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context corresponding to the first application as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 16: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 14 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context correspond to the first type of part.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas), wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context correspond to the first type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; wherein the first user classification is selected based on the current context correspond to the first type of part as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 17: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 16 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are compatible with a first application owner by the user.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are compatible with a first application owner by the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas, i.e., each set of items are associated with one another in the item set).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are compatible with a first application owner by the user as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 18: Raviv discloses:
a processor (See Raviv, at least para. [0033], system includes processor); and
a computer storage medium (See Raviv, at least para. [0033], system includes memory) storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the processor, causes the computer system to perform operations comprising:
accessing signal data from one or more user interactions of a user with a…platform (See Raviv, at least para. [0045], processor receives user data from one or more databases including user browser history and account data; user browser history includes user’s search history, type of articles and web pages visited by the user; includes searches performed by the user, websites visited by the user, industry sectors the user is looking to invest, financial accounts belonging to the user; stocks and other assets currently held by the user),
selecting a personalized parts experience based on the first user classification (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may be based on the user’s literacy level; if the user has a low literacy level, one or more words in the script may be placed with more easily understood words; script may include a video, text, and/or audio); and
providing the personalized parts experience to a user device of the user via one or more user interfaces presented on the user device (See Raviv, at least para. [0052], system generates a personalized output script; script may include a video, text, and/or audio; para. [0053], output based on the personalized output script is created including one or more graphic visuals; para. [0054], output is displayed on one or more user interfaces of a user device; one or more user interfaces may correspond to one or more mobile applications).
Raviv does not expressly disclose a listing platform; and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications.
However, Bursey discloses a listing platform (See Bursey, at least para. [0060], marketplace system in which sellers can list items for sale); and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications (See Bursey, at least para. [0052], Items may be parts or components that have an assembly (e.g., parts that fit an application).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv the ability of a listing platform; and wherein the signal data is associated with one or more parts and/or one or more applications as disclosed by Bursey since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order “to assist sellers to efficiently list items and buyers to efficiently to find items.” (See Bursey, at least para. [0048]).
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses processing the signal data using one or more signal classification rules and/or one or more signal classifier models to provide classified signal data; processing the classified signal data using one or more user classification rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user; determining a current context of the user on the listing platform; and selecting a first user classification from the plurality of user classifications based on the current context.
However, Rastogi discloses:
processing the signal data using one or more signal classification rules and/or one or more signal classifier models to provide classified signal data (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas);
processing the classified signal data using one or more user classification rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas);
determining a current context of the user on the listing platform (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona);
selecting a first user classification from the plurality of user classifications based on the current context (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability of processing the signal data using one or more signal classification rules and/or one or more signal classifier models to provide classified signal data; processing the classified signal data using one or more user classification rules and/or one or more user classifier models to determine a plurality of user classifications for the user; determining a current context of the user on the listing platform; and selecting a first user classification from the plurality of user classifications based on the current context as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 19: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 18 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first application.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas); and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first application (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first application as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 20: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 18 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first type of part.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas); and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the plurality of user classifications comprise the first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; and wherein the first user classification is selected based on determining the current context of the user is associated with the first type of part as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv in view of Bursey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rastogi.
Claim 3: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the plurality of signal classifications are determined for the signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more signal classifier models.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the plurality of signal classifications are determined for the signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more signal classifier models (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the plurality of signal classifications are determined for the signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more signal classifier models as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 4: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the one or more user classifications are determined from the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the one or more user classifications are determined from the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site; each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the one or more user classifications are determined from the classified signal data using one or more rules and/or one or more user classifier models as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 5: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein a first user classification from the one or more user classifications is determined using a first portion of the classified signal data having a first signal classification and a second portion of the classified signal data having a second signal classification.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein a first user classification from the one or more user classifications is determined using a first portion of the classified signal data having a first signal classification and a second portion of the classified signal data having a second signal classification (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site; each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein a first user classification from the one or more user classifications is determined using a first portion of the classified signal data having a first signal classification and a second portion of the classified signal data having a second signal classification as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 6: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first application.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas); and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first application (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona) .
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first application owned by the user and a second user classification for a second application owned by the user; and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first application as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 8: The combination of Raviv and Bursey discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first type of part.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 5, lines 25-50, recommendation service models user interactions with items based on personas; model may associate one or more underlying personas with each individual user and attribute each instance of the user’s interactions with an item to an underlying persona; model may be definite based on predetermined clustering or classification of items that correspond to personas; col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas); and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first type of part (See Rastogi, at least col. 15, lines 5-17, during a current browsing session, matching the user interactions with a particular persona and generating personalized content that is personalized for the particular persona).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the one or more user classifications for the user comprise a first user classification for a first type of part and a second user classification for a second type of part; and wherein the personalized parts experience for the user is selected using the first user classification based on a current context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the first type of part as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 9: The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 8 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey expressly discloses wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are associated with an application owned by the user.
However, Rastogi discloses wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are associated with an application owned by the user (See Rastogi, at least col. 14, line 60 to col. 15, line 6, a plurality of personas for each user/user account are determined from a history of user interactions performed during browsing of the content site, each persona corresponds to a different item set than another one of the personas, i.e., each set of items are associated with one another in the item set).
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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey the ability wherein the first type of part and the second type of part are associated with an application owned by the user as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “make accurate and meaningful predictions” for users that share an account. (See Rastogi, at least col. 2, lines 20-30).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv in view of Bursey and further in view of Rastogi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2011/0252014 A1 to Mital et al. (hereinafter “Mital”).
The combination of Raviv and Bursey and Rastogi discloses all the limitations of claim 6 discussed above.
Neither Raviv nor Bursey nor Rastogi discloses selecting a second personalized parts experience for the user using the second user classification based on a subsequent context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the second application; and configuring one or more additional user interfaces for display on the user device of the user based on the second personalized parts experience.
However, Mital discloses a “data search and retrieval system that, in response to a search query, applies a model to search results to generate information to be returned to a user. The model may define characteristics of a persona such that the application of the model generates information consistent with the persona. A persona may be an individual person or a group of people having shared characteristics. A user may be presented with a list of identifiers of available models of personae. When the user selects a model of a particular persona to be applied, the information generated in return to the user may be consistent with the characteristics associated with the selected persona.” (See Mital, at least Abstract). Mital further discloses:
selecting a second personalized parts experience for the user using the second user classification based on a subsequent context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the second application (See Mital, at least para. [0087], user may refine information received as a result of a query by selecting a different persona whose associated model may be applied to generate the information consistent with characteristics of the new persona); and
configuring one or more additional user interfaces for display on the user device of the user based on the second personalized parts experience (See Mital, at least para. [0087], user may refine information received as a result of a query by selecting a different persona whose associated model may be applied to generate the information consistent with characteristics of the new persona; para. [0093], user selects different persona which is applied to the search results in order to generate information returned to the 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 the customized output system and method of Raviv and the parts listing platform of Bursey and the item recommendation system and method of Rastogi the ability of selecting a second personalized parts experience for the user using the second user classification based on a subsequent context of the user on the listing platform corresponding to the second application; and configuring one or more additional user interfaces for display on the user device of the user based on the second personalized parts experience as disclosed by Rastogi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “receive information…that better corresponds with the user's current needs.” (See Mital, at least para. [0007]).
Conclusion
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