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 .
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed3/23/2025. Claim 14 was cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “query date” is spelled incorrectly, Examiner suggests it should be -- query data --. For remainder of the action the word will be reviewed as “query data”.
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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for product price prediction.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 9 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “a price prediction, comprising: receiving price query data for a product from a customer; generating multiple product condition data from the price query data based on predetermined multiple features for the product; predicting sales prices by purchase date by inputting the multiple product condition data into a price prediction model trained to predict product sales prices by purchase date using product condition data as input; and providing the customer with a price prediction that visualizes the product's sales prices graphically by purchase date” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-16 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9). The processor, server, device, communication interface, model, service interface screen in claim 1; communication interface, memory, processor, device, model, service interface screen in claim 9, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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 claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 16 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the processor in claim 11; server in claims 10-13 and 15-16; model in claims 8 and 16; service interface screen in claim 4-6 and 12-13, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 7-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240104613 - hereinafter Nagar) in view of Balasubramanian et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230135683 - hereinafter Bala) in view of Tanaka et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230351643 - hereinafter Tanaka).
Re. claim 1, Nagar teaches:
A product price prediction method performed by a processor of a price prediction server, comprising:
receiving price query data for a product from a customer device through a communication interface operatively connected to the processor; [Nagar; ¶3 and ¶43 shows receiving of ordering data for an item looked up by a user utilizing their user device as it states “receiving, by one or more processors, ordering data associated with an item from a user using an electronic shopping platform accessed via a user device”].
Nagar doesn’t teach, Bala teaches:
generating multiple product condition data from the price query data based on predetermined multiple features for the product; [Bala; ¶20 and ¶34-¶35 shows generation of data which can be different for every user and shows it based on features of the product, with ¶20 providing the utilization of price to the model as one of characteristics used to build the model].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Nagar by including limitation(s) as taught by Bala to include the above features in the invention of Nagar. One would be motivated to modify Nagar with the teachings of Bala since “algorithmic descriptions and representations are commonly used by those skilled in the data processing arts to convey the substance of their work effectively to others skilled in the art”. [Bala; ¶53].
Nagar doesn’t teach, Tanaka teaches:
predicting sales prices by purchase date by inputting the multiple product condition data into a price prediction model trained to predict product sales prices by purchase date using product condition data as input; and [Tanaka; ¶133 shows estimated result of price of an item based on condition of item and date as it states the following “discloses a technique of acquiring information regarding the product 810 (such as purchase price, purchase date and time, and period of use), estimating the quality conditions of the product 810, and reflecting the estimation result in the price of the product 810. By using such a technology, the purchaser can be provided with a price reflecting detailed conditions of the product 810 that cannot be obvious from the image, and thus can feel safe with the purchase. This will result in promotion of use of secondary distribution through the secondary distribution platform”].
providing the customer device with a price prediction service interface screen that visualizes the product's sales prices graphically by purchase date. [Tanaka; ¶126 shows elements communicated to user terminal used in the invention. While ¶133 shows estimation of price that is shared with user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tanaka in the system of Nagar, 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.
Re. claim 2, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka teaches method of claim 1.
Nagar teaches:
wherein the price query data includes at least one of: product identification information, product purchasable dates, usage start date, usage end date, usage time, and product type-specific options. [Nagar; ¶43 shows product type-specific option such as “included in the search criteria (e.g., user 212 searches for “smartwatches with a price less than $200”)”].
Re. claim 7, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka teaches method of claim 1.
Nagar teaches:
wherein the multiple features include at least one data among: customer inquiry date, usage date/time, usage location, product type, seller type, and customer rating data. [Nagar; ¶55 shows date information associated with customer and shows customer inquiry date as well].
Re. claim 8, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka teaches method of claim 1.
Nagar doesn’t teach, Tanaka teaches:
wherein when one type of product condition data includes at least two options, the price prediction model is separately learned into first, second, and third price prediction models using: a first product condition dataset containing only one option, a second product condition dataset containing only the other option, and a third product condition dataset containing none of the options. [Tanaka; ¶106, ¶126 and ¶133 shows various conditions such as “in the conditional VAE, it is possible to obtain output data closer to a target data by adding conditions (in the present embodiment, a category of the article 810). For example, when the conditional VAE is trained to learn images of a “dog” and a “cat”, the condition of the “dog” is applied to the image of the “dog” while the condition of the “cat” is applied to the image of the “cat”, with the condition of the “dog” or the “cat” applied when the conditional VAE is caused to output an image. In this manner, output data more suitable for the given conditions can be obtained”, ¶109-¶111 shows additional conditions such as “encoding unit 342 can extract a feature amount from sensing data (for example, an image) of a real object (user 800, article 810) under a condition of a category output from a category acquisition unit 348 to be described below, and convolve the feature amount into a latent variable having a predetermined dimension”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Tanaka in the system of Nagar, 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.
Re. claim 9,
Server of claim 9 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 10,
Server of claim 10 substantially mirrors the method of claim 2.
Re. claim 15,
Server of claim 15 substantially mirrors the method of claim 7.
Re. claim 16,
Server of claim 16 substantially mirrors the method of claim 8.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka in view of Walker et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20070156529 - hereinafter Walker).
Re. claim 3, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka teaches method of claim 2.
Nagar doesn’t teach, Walker teaches:
wherein the generating step further includes:
converting the query date and usage start date included in the price query data into data including usage year, usage week number of the year, usage day of week, day before holiday, holiday duration, day after holiday, and advance purchase days, according to the product type. [Walker; ¶71 shows the query data and usage with the following elements included such as year, week, day, holidays].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Walker in the system of Nagar, 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.
Re. claim 11,
Server of claim 11 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka in view of Doi et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170140402 - hereinafter Doi).
Re. claim 4, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka teaches method of claim 2.
Nagar doesn’t teach, Doi teaches:
wherein the price prediction service interface screen is configured to display changes in sales prices by purchase date as a line graph for the period from the current time when the price query data was received until before the purchasable time. [Doi; ¶42 shows graph that shows changes for change rate in sales and daily average sales between each month with its previous month].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Doi in the system of Nagar, 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.
Re. claim 5, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka in view of Doi teaches method of claim 4.
Nagar doesn’t teach, Doi teaches:
wherein the price prediction service interface screen is configured to:
display the case of purchasing the product at the current time as a reference point for the sales price, and display the range of predicted future sales prices by date until the usage start time as a bar graph on the reference point. [Doi; ¶42 shows graph that shows changes for change rate in sales and daily average sales between each month with its previous month].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Doi in the system of Nagar, 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.
Re. claim 12,
Server of claim 12 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 13,
Server of claim 13 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka in view of Doi in view of Delurgio et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20020165834 - hereinafter Delurgio).
Re. claim 6, Nagar in view of Bala in view of Tanaka in view of Doi teaches method of claim 4.
Nagar doesn’t teach, Delurgio teaches:
[Claim 6] (Original) The method of claim 4, wherein the price prediction service interface screen is configured to display price changes with multiple product condition data selectively applied according to the product type. [Delurgio; ¶57 shows different product condition such as product item points with levels of net profitability per unit as one example].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Delurgio in the system of Nagar, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628