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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-12 and 20, “method," should read – computer-implemented method --
Appropriate correction is required.
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. 12,321,973 (Application No. 18/676,962) and claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,008,623 (Application No. 17/213,395).
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 12,321,973, as follows:
Instant claims
12,321,973 Patent (Claim 1)
1. A method for determining user attributes, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining user attributes, the method comprising:
accessing one or more user platforms;
accessing one or more user platforms;
identifying user-related content linked to the user via the one or more user platforms; and
identifying user-related content linked to the user via the one or more user platforms; and
extracting one or more user attributes based on the user-related content by:
extracting one or more user attributes based on the user-related content by:
receiving user data associated with the user-related content, wherein the user data includes at least one of a tag, metadata, or a contextual element;
receiving user images associated with the user-related content;
determining the one or more attributes of the user-related content, the user-related content including content of the user data determined by performing text recognition on the user data;
determining one or more image attributes of the user images, the one or more image attributes including content of the user images determined by performing image recognition on the user images;
determining context associated with the user-related content;
determining context associated with the user images;
applying the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to a first machine learning model, the first machine learning model trained to identify user attributes based on both the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to output the user attributes;
applying the one or more image attributes of the user images and the context associated with the user images to a machine-learning model, the machine-learning model trained to identify user attributes based on both the one or more image attributes of the user images and the context associated with the user images to output the user attributes;
receiving, from the first machine learning model, the outputted one or more user attributes; and
receiving, from the machine-learning model, the outputted one or more user attributes; and
storing the outputted one or more user attributes in association with the user for further processing.
storing the outputted one or more user attributes in association with the user for further processing.
Claims 2-20 are anticipated by ‘973 as follows:
Instant claims
12,321,973 Patent Claims
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 2
Claim 5
Claim 4
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 7
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 9
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 12
Claim 11
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 5
Claim 19
Claim 6
Claim 20
Claim 1
Additionally, the instant claims are also anticipated by the patented claims of 12,008,623, as follows:
Instant claims
12,008,623 Patent (Claim 1)
1. A method for determining user attributes, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining vehicle grades for a user, the method comprising:
accessing one or more user platforms;
accessing a plurality of user platforms;
identifying user-related content linked to the user via the one or more user platforms; and
identifying user-related content linked to the user via the user platforms;
extracting one or more user attributes based on the user-related content by:
extracting user attributes based on the user-related content by:
receiving user data associated with the user-related content, wherein the user data includes at least one of a tag, metadata, or a contextual element;
receiving user images associated with the user-related content;
determining the one or more attributes of the user-related content, the user-related content including content of the user data determined by performing text recognition on the user data;
determining one or more image attributes of the user images, the one or more image attributes including content of the user images determined by performing image recognition on the user images;
determining context associated with the user-related content;
determining context associated with the user images;
applying the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to a first machine learning model, the first machine learning model trained to identify user attributes based on both the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to output the user attributes;
applying the one or more image attributes of the user images and the context associated with the user images to a machine-learning model, the machine-learning model trained to identify user attributes based on both the one or more image attributes of the user images and the context associated with the user images to output the user attributes; and
receiving, from the first machine learning model, the outputted one or more user attributes; and
receiving, from the machine-learning model, the outputted user attributes;
applying weights to vehicle attributes in a vehicle grading engine, based on the outputted user attributes;
storing the outputted one or more user attributes in association with the user for further processing.
generating the vehicle grades based on the weights; and
providing the vehicle grades to the user via a vehicle grading platform.
Claims 2-20 are anticipated by ‘623 as follows:
Instant claims
12,008,623 Patent Claims
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 2
Claim 5
Claim 4
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 7
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 9
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 12
Claim 11
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 5
Claim 19
Claim 6
Claim 20
Claim 1
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. 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:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Jackson et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0166103), Balasubramanian et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0379260), Westphal (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0279193) and Stoop et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0089541). While the prior art teaches many of the limitations of claims 1, 13 and 20, the prior art fails to teach the step of applying the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to a first machine learning model, the first machine learning model trained to identify user attributes based on both the user-related content and the context associated with the user-related content to output the user attributes.
Additionally, the article “A Generic Framework for Recommendations Based on User Data Aggregation”, listed in the 5/6/2025 Information Disclosure Statement, discusses product recommendation through the use of mined and analyzed content. Although the article discusses the extraction of data from content and the use of machine learning, the article fails to teach the input of attributes of user content and associated content into a machine learning model trained to identify user attributes. Further, the article fails to use the machine learning model to output user attributes. Therefore, the NPL article does not render the claimed invention novel or non-obvious.
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