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 9/26/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 16/227,590 and 62/608,088, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 7, 14 and 20 of the present application require the use of “a convolutional neural network”. These elements/features were not present in the prior-filed disclosures. Therefore, the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
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. 12,321,912 (Application No. 18/356,474).
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 12,321,912, as follows:
Instant claims
12,321,912 Patent (Claim 1)
1. A method comprising:
1. A method for online ordering, the method comprising:
storing user information corresponding to a user; and
storing customer information corresponding to a customer; and
responsive to receiving a message from the user associated with a product or service:
responsive to receiving a message with text or speech and an image from the customer:
in response to the message including an image, applying, by the data processing system, an image classification operation on the image to identify the product or service from the image at least in part by comparing a portion of the image to a product knowledge database, the image classification operation configured to extract details of the product or service from images showing the product or service at any of a plurality of angles or representations;
identifying, by a data processing system comprising a hardware processor, an intent type associated with the received message;
applying, by the data processing system, an image classification operation on the image to identify a product or service from the image at least in part by comparing a portion of the image to a product knowledge database, the image classification operation configured to extract details of the product or service from images showing the product or service at any of a plurality of angles or representations;
generating, by the data processing system, a product detail message based on information associated with the product or service and transmitting the product detail message to the user, the product detail message including a description associated with the product or service; and responsive to processing a second message received from the user in response to the product detail message and determining that the message comprises an affirmative message, automatically completing, by the data processing system, an interaction between the user and the product or service with the user information and transmitting a confirmation message to the user with an interaction confirmation.
generating, by the data processing system, a product detail message based on information associated with the product or service and transmitting the product detail message to the customer, the product detail message comprising at least pricing associated with the product or service; and responsive to processing a second message received from the customer in response to the product detail message and determining that the message comprises an affirmative message, automatically completing, by the data processing system, a purchase of the product or service with the customer information and transmitting a receipt message to the customer with an order receipt.
Dependent claims 2-20 are anticipated by ‘912 as follows:
Instant claims
12,321,912 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 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claim 20
Claim 20
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, which is a machine. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Claim 1 sets forth the following limitations which recite the abstract idea of identifying a product for purchase:
storing user information corresponding to a user; and
responsive to receiving a message from the user associated with a product or service:
in response to the message including an image, applying an image classification operation on the image to identify the product or service from the image at least in part by comparing a portion of the image to a product knowledge database, the image classification operation configured to extract details of the product or service from images showing the product or service at any of a plurality of angles or representations;
generating a product detail message based on information associated with the product or service and transmitting the product detail message to the user, the product detail message including a description associated with the product or service; and responsive to processing a second message received from the user in response to the product detail message and determining that the message comprises an affirmative message, automatically completing an interaction between the user and the product or service with the user information and transmitting a confirmation message to the user with an interaction confirmation.
The recited limitations above set forth a process for identifying a product for purchase. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that although representative claim 1 recites additional elements such as a data processing system, etc.
Taken individually and as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely includes instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, while the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106).
Step 2B:
When taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer device to perform the storing, receiving, identifying, and completing a purchase amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Certain additional elements also recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-7 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the process for identifying a product for purchase. Thus, each of claims 2-7 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particularly technological environment, and applied on a generic computer. Further, the additional limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer, another technology, or a technical field.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2A/2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Regarding independent claims 8 and 15 (system and medium), the claim recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claims 8 and 15 and their dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
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