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 .
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 limitation(s) is/are: “user data acquisition module”, “item data acquisition module”, “multifaceted similarity calculation module”, “unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module” and “recommendation module” in claim 1.
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 § 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 1-5 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 identifying a payment transaction using a user intention model.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“a user data acquisition module that acquires, for each of a plurality of users, user data indicating an interest of a user;
an item data acquisition module that acquires item data indicating a feature of each item;
a multifaceted similarity calculation module that calculates a user-to-user similarity indicating a similarity between a target user and another user on a basis of the user data and calculates an item-to-item similarity indicating a similarity between items on a basis of the item data;
an unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module that calculates an unexpectedness evaluation value indicating unexpectedness of each item for the target user on a basis of the user-to-user similarity and the item-to-item similarity; and
a recommendation module that recommends, to the target user, an item selected on a basis of the unexpectedness evaluation value that has been calculated.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (user and item data), 2) analyzing the acquired data (calculating user-to-user similarity, item-to-item similarity and unexpectedness evaluation value), and 3) generating a result (recommendation item).
The above steps describe an item recommendation process. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (commercial or legal interactions – sales activities or behavior or business relations) 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 behavior or business relations, 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 cited claim recites additional elements in the form of “user data acquisition module”, “item data acquisition module”, “multifaceted similarity calculation module”, “unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module” and “recommendation module”, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The additional elements amount to 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 additional elements represent 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.
Dependent claims 2-5 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed controller is directed to “software per se” that does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 recites, a recommendation system comprising: “user data acquisition module”, “item data acquisition module”, “multifaceted similarity calculation module”, “unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module” and “recommendation module”.
Applicant’s filed specification teaches that “…the method of the present disclosure can also be applied as a program or a method. In addition, the system, the program, and the method as described above may be implemented as a single device or may be implemented by using a component shared with each unit included in a vehicle, and include various aspects. In addition, these can be changed as appropriate such that a part is software and a part is hardware…” See paragraph 0056.
Applicant’s filed specification fails to define whether the recited “user data acquisition module”, “item data acquisition module”, “multifaceted similarity calculation module”, “unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module” and “recommendation module” are hardware or software.
“Software per se” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependence, directly or indirectly, on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2008/0201287 (Takeuchi).
Referring to claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a recommendation system comprising:
a user data acquisition module that acquires, for each of a plurality of users, user data indicating an interest of a user; [See paragraph 0009]
an item data acquisition module that acquires item data indicating a feature of each item; [See paragraphs 0030, 0043, 0044]
a multifaceted similarity calculation module that calculates a user-to-user similarity indicating a similarity between a target user and another user on a basis of the user data and calculates an item-to-item similarity indicating a similarity between items on a basis of the item data; [See paragraphs 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
an unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module that calculates an unexpectedness evaluation value indicating unexpectedness of each item for the target user on a basis of the user-to-user similarity and the item-to-item similarity; and [See paragraphs 0036-0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
a recommendation module that recommends, to the target user, an item selected on a basis of the unexpectedness evaluation value that has been calculated. [See paragraphs 0057, 0058, 0068, 0069]
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 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2013/0124449 (Pinckney et al. – hereinafter Pinckney).
Referring to claim 2, Takeuchi discloses the recommendation system according to claim 1, wherein the unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module calculates an interest evaluation value indicating a level of interest of the target user in each item on a basis of the user-to-user similarity, and calculates the unexpectedness evaluation value on a basis of the interest evaluation value and the item-to-item similarity. [See paragraphs 0036-0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
Takeuchi does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the item-to-item similarity is calculated on a basis of an evaluation of each item by a random user.
Pinckney teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the item-to-item similarity is calculated on a basis of an evaluation of each item by a random user. [See paragraphs 0102-0104, 01041, 0198, 0319]
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 Takeuchi to have incorporated a random user sampling feature with the motivation of introducing random user groups to increase the sample size used in determining an item recommendation. [See Pinckney paragraphs 0198, 0319]
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Takeuchi and Pinckney discloses the recommendation system according to claim 2, wherein the unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module calculates the unexpectedness evaluation value by updating the interest evaluation value of the target item so as to decrease as the item-to-item similarity between the target item and another item increases. [See Takeuchi paragraphs 0036-0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Takeuchi and Pinckney discloses the recommendation system according to claim 1, wherein
the item-to-item similarity includes a first item-to-item similarity and a second item-to-item similarity, and [See Takeuchi paragraphs 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
the first item-to-item similarity is one of a similarity calculated on a basis of an evaluation of each item by a random user and a similarity calculated on a basis of an attribute of each item, and the second item-to-item similarity is the other; and [See Takeuchi paragraphs 0045-0056, 0062-0067; Pinckney paragraphs 0102-0104, 01041, 0198, 0319]
the unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module
calculates an interest evaluation value indicating a level of interest of the target user in each item on a basis of the user-to-user similarity and the first item-to-item similarity; and [See Takeuchi paragraphs 0036-0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
calculates the unexpectedness evaluation value on a basis of the interest evaluation value and the second item-to-item similarity. [See Takeuchi paragraphs 0036-0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0067]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Pinckney as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of JP 2005-202540 (Takayuki et al. – hereinafter Takayuki, see attachment).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Takeuchi and Pinckney discloses the recommendation system according to claim 4 above. The combination does not explicitly disclose the limitation: wherein the unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module calculates the unexpectedness evaluation value by updating the interest evaluation value of the target item so as to decrease as the second item-to-item similarity between the target item and another item increases.
Takayuki teaches a system with the limitation: wherein the unexpectedness evaluation value calculation module calculates the unexpectedness evaluation value by updating the interest evaluation value of the target item so as to decrease as the second item-to-item similarity between the target item and another item increases. [See page 5, lines 23-27; page 7, line 1-page 8, line 1]
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 the combination of Takeuchi and Pinckney to have incorporated an updated evaluation calculation feature as in Takayuki with the motivation of updating the sampling size used in determining an item recommendation. [See Takayuki page 5, lines 23-27; page 7, line 1-page 8, line 1]
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
