CTNF 19/026,201 CTNF 85075 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite method, system and computer program product for cohesive product recommendation. Exemplary claim 1 recites in part, “ obtain historical customer data associated with a customer, receive an indication of the customer's selection of a first product, parse and extract first product description data of the first product from catalog description data, generate summary data of the first product description data, the summary data being a subset of the first product description data, and generate a plurality of recommended products based on the summary data, the historical customer data, and at least one business rule. ” The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (historical customer data and product interaction data), 2) retrieve detail product description data, 3) extract product description data summary, and 4) provide product recommendation. The above steps describe the process providing product recommendation based on user data (historical and product interaction data), rules and product description data summary. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interactions - sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions - sales activities or behaviors, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of a computing device, having a processor and memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The recited computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 11 and 19 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18 and 20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. For example, claims 2-4, 12-14 and 20 are directed to generating and displaying product recommendation encompassed by the abstract idea. Claims 5, 6 and 15 describe model/algorithm, implemented by the recited computing device, for generating the product description summary data. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f) . Claims 7-10 and 16-18 simply describe customer historical data and recommended products, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities ( see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2021/0342914 (Dalal et al. – hereinafter Dalal), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0112253 (Suprasadachandran Pillai et al. – hereinafter Pillai) . Referring to claim 1 , Dalal discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and [See paragraphs 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089] a non-transitory memory storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to: [See paragraphs 0083, 0084, 0087, 0089] obtain historical customer data associated with a customer, [See paragraphs 0019, 0037, 0040, 0049, 0051] receive an indication of the customer's selection of a first product, [See paragraphs 0018, 0025, 0027, 0064] parse and extract first product description data of the first product from catalog description data, and [See paragraphs 0029-0031, 0043, 0062] generate a plurality of recommended products based on the summary data, the historical customer data, and at least one business rule. [See paragraphs 0016, 0027, 0032-0037, 0041, 0042, 0065, 0069, 0095] Dalal does not explicitly disclose the limitation: generate summary data of the first product description data, the summary data being a subset of the first product description data. Pillai teaches a system with the limitation: generate summary data of the first product description data, the summary data being a subset of the first product description data. [See paragraphs 0014, 0018, 0024, 0025, 0046-0055, 0059] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system executing the method of Dalal to have incorporated a product summary description feature as in Pillai with the motivation of providing concise, easily-accessible information to a user relating to different attributes of the product that are deemed most relevant to the user. [See Pillai paragraphs 0011-0013] Referring to claim 2 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: generate recommended product description data associated with the plurality of recommended products; [See Dalal paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0030-0034, 0049, 0050, 0056, 0065-0067, 0078, 0095] query a catalog based on the recommended product description data; and [See Dalal paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0030-0034, 0049, 0050, 0056, 0065-0067, 0078, 0095] based on the query, generate the plurality of recommended products. [See Dalal paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0030-0034, 0049, 0050, 0056, 0065-0067, 0078, 0095] Referring to claim 3 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: group the plurality of recommended products by product types; [See Dalal paragraphs 0040, 0051, 0052, 0089, 0093] apply one or more weights to each of the plurality of recommended products within each product type, the one or more weights being applied based on the historical customer data; and [See Dalal paragraphs 0036, 0037, 0040, 0050-0053] prioritize, within each product type, the plurality of recommended products based on the applied one or more weights. [See Dalal paragraph 0093] Referring to claim 4 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: cause a user interface to display a visual representation of the plurality of recommended products, the visual representation of the plurality of recommend products being displayed proximate a visual representation of the first product. [See Dalal paragraphs 0016, 0027, 0032-0037, 0041, 0042, 0065, 0069, 0095] Referring to claim 5 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the summary data is generated using a generative artificial intelligence model. [See Pillai paragraphs 0004, 0039-0044, 0080, 0104] Referring to claim 6 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the summary data is generated using a large language model. [See Pillai paragraphs 0004, 0039-0044, 0080, 0104] Referring to claim 7 , the combination of Dala and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of recommended products is visually cohesive with the first product. [See Dalal paragraphs 0016, 0027, 0032-0037, 0041, 0042, 0065, 0069, 0095] Referring to claim 8 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the historical customer data includes interaction data associated with the customer's interactions with one or more retail products provided on an e-commerce platform. [See Dalal paragraphs 0019, 0037, 0040, 0049, 0051] Referring to claim 9 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of recommended products has a different product type, respectively. [See Dalal paragraphs 0040, 0051, 0052, 0089, 0093] Referring to claim 10 , the combination of Dalal and Pillai discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first product has a different product type than each of the plurality of recommended products. [See Dalal paragraphs 0040, 0051, 0052, 0089, 0093] Referring to claims 11-18 , they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1-8 and 10, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale. Referring to claims 19 and 20 , they recite similar limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 2, and therefore are rejected based on the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST. 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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. /OLUSEGUN GOYEA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 2 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 3 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 4 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 5 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 6 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 7 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 8 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 9 Art Unit: 3627 Application/Control Number: 19/026,201 Page 10 Art Unit: 3627
Prosecution Insights