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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction and fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: monitoring for data indicating usage of product features associated with a product; determining one or more feature use patterns based at least in part on the data indicating the usage of the product features associated with the product, wherein the one or more feature use patterns is stored by the product application; receiving a query relating to the product
; retrieving the one or more feature use patterns stored by the product application; and based at least in part on retrieving the one or more feature use patterns from the product application, to: identify a particular product feature indicated by the query, and generate for display at least a portion of instructions for operation of the particular product feature.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a product application / search engine previously authorized to access the data from the product application , which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 is directed to a system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claim recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 11 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 further recite and narrow the abstract idea of claims 1/11. The claims further recite the abstract idea of a mental concept -i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining a presentation order of the plurality of videos based at least in part on the one or more feature use patterns / based at least in part on accessing the plurality of data structures, determining a probability score indicating whether a user associated with the product application will replace or dispose of the product / comparing the updated probability score to the probability score / based at least in part on determining that the updated probability score exceeds the probability score, retrieving a particular data structure of the plurality of data structured associated with a product feature different from the particular product feature indicated by the query. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category. The claims further recite the additional elements of receiving voice data/queries and verbal exchanges, a user device, device interface, control circuitry. The device/device interface/circuitry represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Receiving voice/verbal data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitation of claimed 1-20. Greenberger (20190156402) describes displaying product comparison data, including: comparing products using augmented reality comprising the steps of: detecting, by a processor, a presence of an object being viewed through a visual recognition system; determining, by the processor, the object being viewed by the visual recognition system; querying, by the processor, a data source for product information describing one or more features of the object being viewed; overlaying, by the processor, the product information onto a heads-up display (HUD) generated by the display device in a vicinity of the object or a digital representation of the object recorded by the visual recognition system in real-time corresponding to the product information; generating, by the processor, a digital overlay comparing and contrasting features of the object currently recorded through the visual recognition system and the previously viewed objects; and displaying, by the processor, the digital overlay comparing and contrasting features of the object currently recorded by the visual recognition system onto the HUD of the display device. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/11.
Cvek (20130275267) describes automatically or selectively tracking product usage patterns via sensors of the product, through the use of a product application; the data could then be reported to the user or a third party , including how the usage pattern compared to suggested usage patterns. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/11.
When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Greenberger (20190156402) describes displaying product comparison data, including: comparing products using augmented reality comprising the steps of: detecting, by a processor, a presence of an object being viewed through a visual recognition system; determining, by the processor, the object being viewed by the visual recognition system; querying, by the processor, a data source for product information describing one or more features of the object being viewed; overlaying, by the processor, the product information onto a heads-up display (HUD) generated by the display device in a vicinity of the object or a digital representation of the object recorded by the visual recognition system in real-time corresponding to the product information; generating, by the processor, a digital overlay comparing and contrasting features of the object currently recorded through the visual recognition system and the previously viewed objects; and displaying, by the processor, the digital overlay comparing and contrasting features of the object currently recorded by the visual recognition system onto the HUD of the display device. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/11.
Cvek (20130275267) describes automatically or selectively tracking product usage patterns via sensors of the product, through the use of a product application; the data could then be reported to the user or a third party , including how the usage pattern compared to suggested usage patterns. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
6/29/2026
