DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 14 May 2025, claiming benefit back to 7 March 2013.
Claims 2 – 21 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 May 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/426,200 filed on 29 January 2024, now U.S. Patent 12,326,910 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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/patent/patents-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:
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 – 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 1 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 2 of the instant Application.
U.S. 12,326,910
1. A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
logging, by a computer system, interactions of users with a plurality of unique items via a user interface, wherein the logging interactions of users via the user interface comprises electronically monitoring, substantially in real time, actions of the users interacting with one or more unique item listing systems presenting for sale the plurality of unique items via the user interface;
generating, by the computer system, a driver model by applying one or more model specifications to data relating to the logged interactions of the users with the plurality of unique items;
receiving, by the computer system, electronic data indicating a selected unique item;
applying, by the computer system, the driver model to a plurality of attributes of the selected unique item to identify which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes; and
presenting electronically via the user interface the identification of which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes,
wherein the computer system comprises a computer processor and electronic memory.
Instant
2. A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
logging, by a computer system, interactions of users with a plurality of unique items via a user interface, by electronically monitoring, substantially in real time, actions of the users interacting with
generating, by the computer system, a driver model by applying one or more model specifications to data relating to the logged interactions of the users with the plurality of unique items;
receiving, by the computer system, electronic data indicating a selected unique item;
applying, by the computer system, the driver model to a plurality of attributes of the selected unique item to identify which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes; and
presenting electronically via the user interface the identification of which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes,
wherein the computer system comprises a computer processor and electronic memory.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 3 of the instant Application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 4 of the instant Application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 5 of the instant Application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 6 of the instant Application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 7 of the instant Application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 8 of the instant Application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the ‘910 patent would anticipate claim 9 of the instant Application.
Claims 10 – 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 – 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent), using the same rationale as discussed in respect to claims 2 – 9.
Claims 16 – 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,910 (‘910 patent), using the same rationale as discussed in respect to claims 2 – 9.
Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the comparison of the claims below, claim 1 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 2 of the instant Application.
U.S. 11,886,518
1. A computer-implemented method for identifying and presenting identifications of significant attributes of unique items, the computer-implemented method comprising:
logging, using a computer system, interactions of users with a plurality of unique items, wherein the logging comprises electronically monitoring, substantially in real time, actions of the users interacting with one or more item listing systems presenting for sale the plurality of unique items;
generating, using the computer system, one or more driver models by applying one or more model specifications to data relating to the logged interactions of the users with the plurality of unique items;
storing the one or more driver models in an electronic driver models database;
receiving, using the computer system, electronic item data relating to a plurality of attributes of a selected item;
applying, using the computer system, the one or more driver models stored in the electronic driver models database to the plurality of attributes of the selected item to identify which of the plurality of attributes of the selected item are driver attributes; and
presenting electronically the identification of which of the plurality of attributes of the selected item are driver attributes;
wherein the computer system comprises a computer processor and electronic memory.
Instant Application
2. A computer-implemented method fperformed by a computer system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
logging, by a computer system, interactions of users with a plurality of unique itemsvia a user interface by electronically monitoring, substantially in real time, actions of the users interacting with the user interface;
generating, by the computer system, a driver model by applying one or more model specifications to data relating to the logged interactions of the users with the plurality of unique items;
receiving, by the computer system, electronic indicating a selected unique item;
applying, by the computer system, the model to a plurality of attributes of the selected unique item to identify which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes; and
presenting electronically via the user interface the identification of which of the plurality of attributes of the selected unique item are driver attributes;
wherein the computer system comprises a computer processor and electronic memory.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 3 of the instant Application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 4 of the instant Application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 6 of the instant Application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 7 of the instant Application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the ‘518 patent would anticipate claim 8 of the instant Application.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,518 (‘518 patent), using the same rationale as discussed in respect to claims 2 and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Keil, Sev K.H. et al. US 20030088457 A1 Preference information-based metrics
Dong; Anlei et al. US 20130179252 A1 Method Or System For Content Recommendations
Hudak; William N. et al. US 20080222010 A1 System and Method for Enabling Online Research, Publication, Promotion And Management Of User Goods
Etzioni; Oren et al. US 20120303412 A1 Price And Model Prediction System And Method
Keil; Sev K. H. et al. US 20060026081 A1 System to quantify consumer preferences
Marchisio; Giovanni B. et al. US 7398201 B2 Method and system for enhanced data searching
Rebane; George J. US 6539392 B1 System and method for data collection, evaluation, information generation, and presentation
Herz; Frederick S. M. US 6029195 A System for customized electronic identification of desirable objects
Lazarus; Michael A. et al. US 6430539 B1 Predictive modeling of consumer financial behavior
Dean; Jeffrey A. et al. US 7716225 B1 Ranking documents based on user behavior and/or feature data
Linden; Gregory D. et al. US 6266649 B1 Collaborative recommendations using item-to-item similarity mappings
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights