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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3.8-11, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US9,342,559 B1 to Jedrzejowicz et al. and US 20220020056 A1 to Larner et al.
As to claim 1, Jedrzejowicz teaches the method for information interaction, comprising: in response to detecting an information entry request for a target service, presenting a service information entry interface corresponding to the target service, the service information entry interface comprising a plurality of entry items respectively corresponding to a plurality of types of service information (Col. 13 Ln. 57-66, process 400 may include receiving a search query from a user device (block 405). In some implementations, a user, of a user device 230, may use a browser to navigate to a web page or portal associated with interactive session system 240. The web page or portal may provide a user interface with which the user may interact to find a service in which the user is interested. For example, the web page or portal may provide a search box via which the user may enter one or more search terms, of a search query, that describe the service in which the user is interested [i.e. acquiring service description information corresponding to a target service); Jedrzejowicz does not teach obtaining at least one entry prompt respectively associated with at least one of the plurality of entry items, the at least one entry prompt being determined by using a machine learning model based on at least one of: feature information associated with the target service, and service recommendation information corresponding to a service type to which the target service belongs; and presenting the at least one entry prompt in association with the at least one entry item. Larner teaches obtaining at least one entry prompt respectively associated with at least one of the plurality of entry items, the at least one entry prompt being determined by using a machine learning model based on at least one of: feature information associated with the target service, and service recommendation information corresponding to a service type to which the target service belongs; and presenting the at least one entry prompt in association with the at least one entry item (¶0094, ¶0095, the learning recommendation engine 830a may create a relationship between the user's asset selections and one or more network resources in the first user's browse information. For example, the learning recommendation engine 830a can create a relationship between an advertisement the user selected and web pages viewed by the first user in a browse session. In an embodiment, the learning recommendation engine 830a performs this analysis and creation of relationships in an off-line process or separate process from a recommendations generation process). In view of the teachings of Larner, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Jedrzejowicz. The suggestion/motivation would be generating recommendations may include obtaining social network data from one or more network resources and word relationships may be created between selected words in the social network data to produce relationship data.
As to claim 2, Jedrzejowicz and Larner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feature information associated with the target service comprises: feature information for characterizing a service provider of the target service, feature information for characterizing a service recipient of the target service, and feature information for characterizing the service type to which the target service belongs (Jedrzejowicz , Col. 12 Ln. 32-37, process 310 may include receiving service provider information (block 312). For example, interactive session system 240 may receive service provider information from organization systems 204 [i.e. in response to receiving input information in the service information input interface]" "Process 310 may include mapping organizations to topics (block 314). For example, interactive session system 240 may map organizations, associated with organization systems 204, to topics in a topical directory based on the service provider information, information provided by the organizations, information about the organizations, or the like [i.e. based on the input information and the service type of the service]" ).
As to claim 3, Jedrzejowicz and Larner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the service recommendation information at least indicates adjustment information for the service type in a content delivery platform for recommending the target service (Col. 13 Ln. 57-66, process 400 may include receiving a search query from a user device (block 405). In some implementations, a user, of a user device 230, may use a browser to navigate to a web page or portal associated with interactive session system 240. The web page or portal may provide a user interface with which the user may interact to find a service in which the user is interested. For example, the web page or portal may provide a search box via which the user may enter one or more search terms, of a search query, that describe the service in which the user is interested [i.e. acquiring service description information corresponding to a target service).
As to claim 8, Jedrzejowicz and Larner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the service information entry interface is generated based on an interface template corresponding to a service type of the target service (Jedrzejowicz, Col. 13 Ln. 57-66, process 400 may include receiving a search query from a user device (block 405). In some implementations, a user, of a user device 230, may use a browser to navigate to a web page or portal associated with interactive session system 240. The web page or portal may provide a user inteface with which the user may interact to find a service in which the user is interested. For example, the web page or portal may provide a search box via which the user may enter one or more search terms, of a search query, that describe the service in which the user is interested [i.e. acquiring service description information corresponding to a target service.
As to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-7, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Jedrzejowicz and Larner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210390596 A1 to Pocard et al.
As to claim 4, Jedrzejowicz and Larner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one entry prompt comprises at least one of: candidate entry information recommended for the entry item, a suggestion for entry information in the entry item, or a selectable adjustment option for the entry item, the adjustment option being selected to trigger an adjustment of the entry information in the entry item. Pocard teaches wherein the at least one entry prompt comprises at least one of: candidate entry information recommended for the entry item, a suggestion for entry information in the entry item, or a selectable adjustment option for the entry item, the adjustment option being selected to trigger an adjustment of the entry information in the entry item (Pocard, ¶0092, "FIG. 7A is one illustrative example of a GUI screen of a mobile device 108 for creating a user-hair stylist profile [i.e. displaying a service configuration interface]. Input field 702 includes three buttons that allows the user-hair stylist to identify the categorical value of the location type [i.e. wherein the service configuration interface carries a plurality of candidate service types]. Further screens may prompt the user-hair stylist to enter additional categorical values depending on the location type. For a physical salon location, further screens may require input of categorical values for the address, the number oftotal seatings in the salon, the salon ambiance from a drop down menu. Fora mobile location, screens may require a discrete value for a maximum distance willing to travel to a customer. For both location types, input may be required of categorical values for contact information, such as phone, email, website, social medium accounts, an appointment calendar showing open times, prices for each hair styling skill, or combinations. Next, input field 704 can contain any number, six, for example, of drop-down menus for identifying the categorical values of the hair stylist's favorite product brands"). In view of the teachings of Pocard, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Jedrzejowicz and Larner.
As to claim 5, Jedrzejowicz, Larner and Pocard teaches the method of claim 4, wherein presenting the at least one entry prompt in association with the at least one entry item comprises: presenting, in an input box corresponding to the first entry item in the at least one entry item, candidate entry information corresponding to the first entry item, or presenting, in or around a second entry item in the at least one entry item, a suggestion or a selectable adjustment option corresponding to the second entry item (Pocard, ¶0092, "FIG. 7A is one illustrative example of a GUI screen of a mobile device 108 for creating a user-hair stylist profile [i.e. displaying a service configuration interface]. Input field 702 includes three buttons that allows the user-hair stylist to identify the categorical value of the location type [i.e. wherein the service configuration interface carries a plurality of candidate service types]. Further screens may prompt the user-hair stylist to enter additional categorical values depending on the location type. For a physical salon location, further screens may require input of categorical values for the address, the number of total seatings in the salon, the salon ambiance from a drop down menu. Fora mobile location, screens may require a discrete value for a maximum distance willing to travel to a customer. For both location types, input may be required of categorical values for contact information, such as phone, email, website, social medium accounts, an appointment calendar showing open times, prices for each hair styling skill, or combinations. Next, input field 704 can contain any number, six, for example, of drop-down menus for identifying the categorical values of the hair stylist's favorite product brands").
As to claim 6, Jedrzejowicz, Larner and Pocard teaches the method of claim 4, wherein obtaining the at least one entry prompt respectively associated with the at least one of the plurality of entry items comprises: in response to a third entry item in the at least one entry item comprising the corresponding entry information, enabling the machine learning model to further determine an entry prompt associated with the third entry item based on entry information corresponding to the third entry item (Pocard, ¶0092, "FIG. 7A is one illustrative example of a GUI screen of a mobile device 108 for creating a user-hair stylist profile [i.e. displaying a service configuration interface]. Input field 702 includes three buttons that allows the user-hair stylist to identify the categorical value of the location type [i.e. wherein the service configuration interface carries a plurality of candidate service types]. Further screens may prompt the user-hair stylist to enter additional categorical values depending on the location type. For a physical salon location, further screens may require input of categorical values for the address, the number of total seatings in the salon, the salon ambiance from a drop down menu. Fora mobile location, screens may require a discrete value for a maximum distance willing to travel to a customer. For both location types, input may be required of categorical values for contact information, such as phone, email, website, social medium accounts, an appointment calendar showing open times, prices for each hair styling skill, or combinations. Next, input field 704 can contain any number, six, for example, of drop-down menus for identifying the categorical values of the hair stylist's favorite product brands")..
As to claim 7, Jedrzejowicz and Larner teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining entry information corresponding to the at least one entry item by detecting a user selection or user adjustment on the at least one entry prompt; and determining service information corresponding to the target service based on the entry information corresponding to the plurality of entry items (Larner, ¶0094, recommendation service 820 comprises a learning recommendation engine 830a. In certain embodiments, the learning recommendation engine 830a retrieves a first user's browse information or history data from a data repository or the like. The browse information data may include asset selection data and data on network resources viewed or browsed by the user, by a group of users, and/or on a particular computer, purchases made by the user, and the like. The asset selection data may include data on the first user's selections of advertisements or the like).
As to claim 12, see the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A KURIEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHRISTINE A KURIEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2421
/NATHAN J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights