DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an evaluation information acquisition unit and degree-of-similarity calculation unit in claim 1.
a preference information acquisition unit in claim 2
a selected item acquisition unit in claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210224582 A1) in view of Basak et al. US PG-Pub(US 20030208399 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Afshar teaches a degree-of-similarity calculation system(¶[0007], FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example model for determining similarity between two images of two respective products.), wherein a plurality of evaluation items for evaluating similarity between a plurality of evaluation targets is set for each of the evaluation targets(¶[0017] discloses two products are compared for similarity based on visual features extracted.), an attribute value is set for each of the evaluation items of each of the evaluation targets(¶[0032],”the network stage 110 receives as inputs image data (e.g., pixel information) of products A and B, along with an indication of the category of products A and B. The example network stage 110 includes multiple separate feature extractors, including a color feature extractor 112, a shape feature extractor 114, a pattern feature extractor 116, and a style feature extractor 118—each of which receive the image data of products A and B”, discloses extracting features to compare from the products.), the attribute value indicating a degree of an attribute of each of the evaluation targets for each of the evaluation items(¶[0032], “Each feature extractor may be any type of dimensionality-reducing machine learning tool, such as neural networks, support vector machines (SVMs), kernel functions, feature transformations, and/or any other suitable processing structure that converts input data into one or more scalar values that quantitatively represent an aesthetic quality or qualities of the input image data.”, ¶[0032] discloses the features/attribute values are converted into scalar values that represent an aesthetic quality of the input image.), and the degree-of-similarity calculation system includes an evaluation information acquisition unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is processor disclosed in ¶[0041] of the specification and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0005] a processor performing the tasks.) configured to acquire information on the attribute value of each of the evaluation items of each of the evaluation targets([0029] “At the comparison stage 120, the classification system 100 compares the embedding 122 and the embedding 124 to determine the extent to which the image 104 and the image 106 are visually similar.”, ¶[0029] discloses comparing the embeddings of the features of the products to determine similarity.), and a degree-of-similarity calculation unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is processor disclosed in ¶[0041] of the specification and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0005] a processor performing the tasks.)configured to calculate a degree of similarity between the evaluation targets (¶[0030] “The output stage 130 may process information received from the comparison stage 120, such as a distance measurement between the embeddings 122 and 124, to determine an extent to which the image 104 of product A and the image 106 of product B are visually similar.”, ¶[0030] discloses processing the information from the comparison stage and determine a degree of similarity.)
Afshar does not explicitly teach a degree-of-similarity calculation unit configured to calculate a degree of similarity between the evaluation targets based on the attribute value of the evaluation item selected by a user or corresponding to a preference of the user.
Basak teaches a degree-of-similarity calculation unit configured to calculate a degree of similarity between the evaluation targets(¶[0097] discloses calculating a degree of similarity value) based on the attribute value of the evaluation item selected by a user or corresponding to a preference of the user. ([0067] “The nodes of a UIH 130 further store certain weights (.mu..epsilon.[0,1]), specifying the degree of the user's interest in the category represented by each node. For example, the first attribute `gift item` has the value of, say, 0.8. As previously described, the weights may be normalized across a particular level in the hierarchy. However, normalization may not always be necessary. Under `gift items`, `flowers` may have a weight of 0.6, `garments` a weight of 0.3, `toys` a weight of 0.9 and `electronics` a weight of 0.7. The weights of the nodes are used when computing the similarity between the exemplar and other products in the PG 120.”, ¶[0067] discloses computing similarity based on a user’s interest)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Afshar with Basak in order to calculate the degree of similarity based on user preference or the item selected. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Afshar in this manner in order for personalization, particularly in the context of item or product recommendation in business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce. (Basak, ¶[0001])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Afshar and Basak teach the degree-of-similarity calculation system according to claim 1, where Basak further teaches further comprising a selected item acquisition unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is processor disclosed in ¶[0041] of the specification and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0114] a processor performing the tasks.) configured to acquire information on the evaluation item selected by the user, wherein the degree-of-similarity calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of similarity between the evaluation targets based on the attribute value of the evaluation item acquired by the selected item acquisition unit.(¶[0060] “Whenever a user (customer) 140 logs onto or accesses an e-commerce site, a dynamic product hierarchy or list is generated based on the user's interest hierarchy (UIH) 130. If the user 140 clicks on a node in the UIH 130 to view all the products available under that node, the system traverses the UIH 130 from that node to the leaf nodes. After traversing the UIH 130 (a tree or directed graph) the system reaches the leaf nodes and records the nodes corresponding to exemplar product-ids (stored at the leaf nodes) in the PG 120 as well as a list of attributes defined by the traversal of the user's UIH 130 from the root node to the node where the user 140 clicked to view the products. This information is used to retrieve similar products from the PG 120.”, ¶[0060] discloses a user clicks a node viewing all products and from the user selection a list of similar products is displayed to the user. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Afshar with Basak in order to calculate the degree of similarity based on user preference or the item selected. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Afshar in this manner in order for personalization, particularly in the context of item or product recommendation in business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce. (Basak, ¶[0001])
Regarding Claim 4, claim 4 is considered a method claim substantially corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for a discussion of similar limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, claim 5 is considered an storage medium claim substantially corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for a discussion of similar limitations. Furthermore,
Afshar teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program (See, ¶[0076])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210224582 A1) in view of Basak et al. US PG-Pub(US 20030208399 A1) in view of Mullakkara Azhuvath et al. US PG-Pub(US 20160275594 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, while the combination of Afshar and Basak teach the degree-of-similarity calculation system according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach further comprising a preference information acquisition unit configured to acquire preference information of the user, wherein the degree-of-similarity calculation unit is configured to select the evaluation item based on the preference information of the user acquired by the preference information acquisition unit and calculate the degree of similarity between the evaluation targets based on the attribute value of the selected evaluation item.
Mullakkara Azhuvath teaches a preference information acquisition unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is processor disclosed in ¶[0041] of the specification and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0036] a processor performing the tasks.) configured to acquire preference information of the user ([0026] “According to embodiments of present disclosure, the user persona may refer to a particular facet of the customer/person defined by a predominant individual preference, likes and dislikes status, behavioral tendencies and associations. The User persona may be created from the user's current and historic data usage and other related data.”, ¶[0026] discloses user persona is data such as a predominant individual preference, likes and dislikes status, behavioral tendencies and associations), wherein the degree-of-similarity calculation unit(this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is processor disclosed in ¶[0041] of the specification and the cited prior art discloses in ¶[0036] a processor performing the tasks.) is configured to select the evaluation item based on the preference information of the user acquired by the preference information acquisition unit(¶[0073], “a single product attribute may be mapped to a set of user preferences, similarly, a single user preference may be mapped to a set of product attributes.” , discloses a product is selected based on user preference.) and calculate the degree of similarity between the evaluation targets based on the attribute value of the selected evaluation item. ([0077] “Further, the Similarity measure for Continuous attributes may be determined using a customized similarity score based on Euclidean distance measure. For example, Consider a SET A wherein set A comprises certain items 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 that needs to be compared to a user vector [1, 200, 3]. This comparison is done by the data processing module 216 in which the user-vector and the product-vector are compared to generate a similarity score (i.e., a first similarity score)”, ¶[0077] discloses calculating similarity score with user selected item.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Afshar and Basak with Mullakkara Azhuvath in order to acquire user preference data and select evaluation items based on preference. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Afshar and Basak in this manner in order for providing context driven hyper-personalized recommendation. (Mullakkara Azhuvath, ¶[0002])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/HAN HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights