DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the Instant Application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 08/01/2025, is a continuation of 17/501,855, filed 10/14/2021, a continuation of 15/295,318, filed 10/17/2016, which claims priority from Provisional Application 62/243,037, filed 10/17/2015. Thus, the earliest effective filing date is 10/17/2015 for what was recited therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 was considered by the examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, 7, 8, 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the patent claims recited the same personalized recommendation process using user interactions to with item listings, word vectors and ranking related terms to generate a recommended item listing. Claims are issue are shown below:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145
1. A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first item listing based on a user interaction;
mapping a word associated with the first item listing to a plurality of words in a natural- language data structure;
ranking the plurality of words based on scores of word vectors representing contextual relatedness between the word and the plurality of words;
identifying a second item listing based on the ranking of the plurality of words; and
causing display of the second item listing on a device.
1. A system to generate personalized user recommendations comprising: one or more processors; and a computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
identifying a plurality of words associated with a first item listing, based on user interaction with the first item listing in a network-based marketplace;
constructing a plurality of word vectors based on the plurality of words, each word vector including a pair of words from the plurality of words; scoring each of the plurality of word vectors based on a semantic relatedness between the pair of words included in the respective word vectors, the sematic relatedness indicating a likelihood of search being performed for the pair of words together;
identifying a second item listing with which a user has had an interaction; identifying listing words included in the second item listing; identifying word vectors of the plurality of word vectors that include the listing words; identifying second words semantically related to the listing words based on the identified word vectors; first ranking the second words responsive to the scores of their respective word vectors; second ranking a plurality of item listings of the network-based marketplace responsive to the first ranking of the second words; and generating, based on the second ranking, an output, recommending at least a third item listing.
Claims 11 is the method that is performed by the system of claim 1 and is matched with claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145 in substantially the same way as claim 1.
Claim 20 is the program product that provides the system of claim 1 and is matched with claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145 in substantially the same way as claim 1.
Claims 2-4, and 6 of the Instant Application are also included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
Claim 5 of the Instant Application includes claims 3-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
Claim 7 of the Instant Application includes claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
Claim 10 of the Instant Application includes claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
Claims 12-14 and 16 of the Instant Application are also included in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
Claim 15 of the Instant Application includes claims 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,176,145.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1 recites “A system…” and thus is a machine. Claim 11 recites a method and thus is a process and claim 20 recites a program product and is thus a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One
Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the mental and mathematical process of recommending an item based on user history.
First, a mental process is used to identify items users have interacted with. Second, the scoring and ranking of words to find a recommendation is a mathematical concept. The following emphasized limitations are those that recite the abstract idea.
1. A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising: identifying a first item listing based on a user interaction; mapping a word associated with the first item listing to a plurality of words in a natural- language data structure; ranking the plurality of words based on scores of word vectors representing contextual relatedness between the word and the plurality of words; identifying a second item listing based on the ranking of the plurality of words; and causing display of the second item listing on a device.
Thus, the claimed are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of a memory, a processor, a natural language data structure and a display, but each are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
No method of calculating the scores or vectors are described in the claim, which strengthens the position that the claim represents the abstract idea by just using a computer to use mathematical rules to calculate a score, without improving a computer or the recommendation of products.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 12 and 14-17 further describe the calculations that are performed to calculate the mathematical score, the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 11 and 20.
Claims 3 and 13 recite displaying listings of rankings, which is considered insignificant post-solution activity.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 simply described a generic data structure, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 9 and 19 simply describes generic computer equipment and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 describes refining the words associated with the “first item listing,” which is just a mental process to expand what is recommended by manipulating words, which an abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Nuckolls, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0070803.
As per claim 1, Nuckolls discloses a system comprising:
a memory storing instructions ([0080]); and
one or more hardware processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured by the instructions to perform operations ([0080]) comprising:
identifying a first item listing based on a user interaction ([0051] wherein Moby-Dick is identified based on a user wanting to know similar movies);
mapping a word associated with the first item listing to a plurality of words in a natural- language data structure ([0053] wherein names and word sequences associated with the first item are mapped to a natural language data structure, recognized as a dictionary in the prior art);
ranking the plurality of words based on scores of word vectors representing contextual relatedness between the word and the plurality of words ([0055] wherein sorting by match score is the ranking based on the scores of word vectors);
identifying a second item listing based on the ranking of the plurality of words ([0078] wherein the most similar products are identified); and
causing display of the second item listing on a device ([Claim 19] wherein the claim in the reference teaches displaying target products sorted by match score).
As per claim 2, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise:
identifying a plurality of item listings based on the plurality of words in the natural- language data structure, each item listing being associated with a title that comprises one or more words from the plurality of words ([0038] wherein the data structure 80 can store a plurality of items listing based on the concepts in the dictionary, wherein the title’s are described);
ranking the plurality of item listings based on one or more scores of word vectors assigned to the one or more words in the title of the each item listing ([0038] wherein the items are ranked (sorted in the prior art) by match score); and
causing display of the plurality of item listings as recommended item listings on the device ([Claim 19] wherein the claim in the reference teaches displaying target products sorted by match score).
As per claim 3, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of item listings is caused to be displayed in an order according to the ranking of the plurality of item listings ([Claim 19] wherein the claim in the reference teaches displaying target products sorted by match score).
As per claim 4, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 2, wherein each word is assigned a score of word vectors representing contextual relatedness between the each word and the word associated with the first item listing ([0047] wherein each word vector in the first item listing is assigned a match score with each target product word).
As per claim 8, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the natural-language data structure comprises words associated with at least one of a title of an item listing, an abstract of an item, or a category of an item (Examiner notes the use of “at least one,” where [0038] wherein titles are associated with concept words).
As per claim 9, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the natural-language data structure is accessed through a communication module that maintains communications with the natural-language data structure through one or more of networks, application servers, and data servers ((Examiner notes the use of “one or more,” where only one of the elements is required, and [Fig. 1B] wherein the data structured is accessed by the client by a network).
As per claim 10, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise: semantically refining the word associated with the first item listing before mapping the word to the plurality of words in the natural-language data structure ([0045]-[0046] wherein from the listing (conceptual documents in the prior art) the words are refined and weighted using the dictionary, before being mapped to the words in the natural-language structure that provide a recommendation).
Claim 11 is the method performing the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 12 is the method performing the system of claim 2 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 13 is the method performing the system of claim 3 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 14 is the method performing the system of claim 4 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 18 is the method performing the system of claim 8 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claim 19 is the method performing the system of claim 9 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
As per claim 20, claim 20 is the program product providing the system of claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuckolls in view of Bates et al. (“Bates”), United States Patent Publication No. 2011/0010307.
As per claim 5, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 2, and adjusting the one or more scores of word vectors assigned to the one or more words in the title of each of the plurality of item listings based on the quality score ([0038] wherein word vectors assigned to the title of each the of the item listings are based on the quality score (match score in the prior art), but does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of item listings is associated with user interaction data, and wherein the operations comprise: determining a contextual identifier for each of the plurality of item listings based on a type of user interaction represented by the user interaction data; and assigning a quality score to each of the plurality of item listing based on the contextual identifier. However, Bates teaches wherein each of the plurality of item listings is associated with user interaction data ([0164] wherein for each item listing is associated with click-through data), and wherein the operations comprise: determining a contextual identifier for each of the plurality of item listings based on a type of user interaction represented by the user interaction data ([0164] wherein correlation data is generated based on user interaction data); and assigning a quality score to each of the plurality of item listing based on the contextual identifier ([0166] wherein products having the highest quality score (correlation score in the prior art).
Both Nuckolls and Bates describe recommending products by prior interactions. One could use the quality score by interaction in Bates, in addition or replacing the matching scores in Bates to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of providing product recommendations based on word vectors in order better determine similar products that will cause purchase transactions to the user.
Claim 15 is the method performing the system of claim 5 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuckolls in view of Artfun et al. (“Artfun”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0204738.
As per claim 6, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the scores are assigned based at least in part on the user interaction, and wherein the scores indicate a likelihood of a search being performed using words together. However, Artfun teaches wherein the scores are assigned based at least in part on the user interaction, and wherein the scores indicate a likelihood of a search being performed using words together ([0044]-[0046] wherein the scores are based on the pairs, and the keyword pairs are determined based on the specialized functions module i.e. indicating the likelihood of search being performed on a respective pair of words, since keywords are paired if the probability is high if the words are used together as described in [0044]).
Both Nuckolls and Artfun describe using user interest in past products to recommend new products using word similarity. One could use the scores being based on likelihood of being searched together as in Artfun with the phrase dictionary in Nuckholls to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the method recommending product by word similarity in Nuckholls with the determination of a score of interaction in Artfun to in order to better detect terms that are related.
.
Claim 16 is the method performing the system of claim 6 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuckolls in view of Forman et al. (“Forman”), United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011.01234122.
As per claim 7, Nuckolls discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the contextual relatedness represents an edit distance between words. However, Forman teaches wherein the contextual relatedness represents an edit distance between words ([0022] wherein the edit distance is calculated for strings from the same product website to determine contextual relatedness (recognized as similarity in the prior art)).
Both Nuckolls and Forman generate a vector related to a product to describe the product. While Nuckolls creates the vector from past interactions, Forman creates descriptions for product pages. For pages that the user has interacted with in Nuckolls, one could replace the method of calculating the vector with the multi word edit distance in Forman to teach the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of generating a vector for a pages a user has interacted with in Nuckolls with the vector being an edit distance for a single page in Forman in order to get more precise summary of the product details.
Claim 17 is the method performing the system of claim 7 and is rejected for the same rationale and reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at (571) 272-4085. 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.
/KANNAN SHANMUGASUNDARAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights