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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,288,236 (Application No. 17/674,229).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the patented claims.
Specifically, the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims of 12,288,236, as follows:
Instant claims
12,288,236 Patent (Claim 1)
1. A system for scoring an item for recommendation to a user, comprising:
1. A system for scoring an item for recommendation to a user, comprising:
a processor that executes instructions;
a processor that executes instructions;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions executable by the processor for:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions executable by the processor for:
determining a neighbor-aware user embedding representing the user in a multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space; and
determining a neighbor-aware user embedding representing the user in a multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space;
determining a neighbor-aware item embedding representing the item in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the item embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the item and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space; and
determining a recommendation score of the item for the user based on a distance in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space between the neighbor-aware user embedding and an item embedding representing the item.
determining a recommendation score of the item for the user based on a distance in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space between the neighbor-aware user embedding and the neighbor-aware item embedding.
Claims 2-20 are anticipated by ‘236 as follows:
Instant claims
12,288,236 Patent Claims
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 1
Claim 12
Claim 2
Claim 13
Claim 3
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 15
Claim 5
Claim 16
Claim 6
Claim 17
Claim 7
Claim 18
Claim 8
Claim 19
Claim 9
Claim 20
Claim 10
These claims fully anticipate the independent claims of the instant application. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, the scope of the above noted claims in the instant application, if patented, would extend the grant/monopoly and are thereby properly rejected.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art though the Double Patenting rejection still applies. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant's invention. Claims 1-20 are allowable as follows:
Claims 1 and 6:
determining a neighbor-aware user embedding representing the user in a multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space;
determining a neighbor-aware item embedding representing the item in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the item embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the item and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space;
Claims 11 and 16:
determining a neighbor-aware item embedding representing the item in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the item embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the item and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space;
The most germane prior art made of record includes PTO 892-U (Chamberlain, B.P. et al., Scalable Hyperbolic Recommender Systems) (“Chamberlain”), in view of PTO 892-V (Chami, I. et al., Hyperbolic Graph Convolutional Neural Networks) (“Chami”).
While Chamberlain and Chami disclose many of the limitations as claimed in claims 1, 6, 11 and 16, Chamberlain and Chami do not disclose determining a neighbor-aware user embedding representing the user in a multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space; or determining a neighbor-aware item embedding representing the item in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space by combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the item embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the item and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space.
Chamberlain teaches a large scale hyperbolic recommender system including determining a user embedding representing the user, an item embedding representing the item in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space and determining a recommendation score of the item for the user based on distance in the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space (see at least Chamberlain; Sec. 3.1.3, Sec. 5, Sec. 5.2, Sec. 6.1). However, Chamberlain fails to incorporate neighbor-aware embedding and combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space.
Chami teaches graph convolutional neural networks and hyperbolic embedding techniques including neighbor-aware embedding (see at least Chami; pg. 6, Sec. 4.4). However, Chami also fails to incorporate combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space.
Furthermore, the combination of Chamberlain and Chami also fail to contemplate combining a plurality of intermediate tangent representations of the user embedding output from a respective plurality of sequential neighbor graph convolutions to a neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user and transforming the neighbor-aware tangent representation for the user to the multi-dimensional hyperbolic space.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND LOHARIKAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am – 5pm.
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 at 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.
/ANAND LOHARIKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights