www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`18/091,106
`
`12/29/2022
`
`Manabu MAEDA
`
`P67663
`
`2498
`
`125331
`
`7590
`
`10/02/2023
`
`Panasonic Intellectual Property Corporation
`of America c/o Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`EXAMINER
`
`GARTLAND, SCOTT D
`
`RDOO
`
`10/02/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-16 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230908
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`48/091,106
`MAEDAetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`SCOTT D GARTLAND
`RDOO
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 29 December 2022.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continuation
`
`1.
`
`This application is indicated as a continuation application of U.S. Application No.
`
`16/452,158 filed on 25 June 2019, now U.S. Patent 11,574,340, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/276,225 filed on 13 May 2014, now U.S.
`
`Patent 10,380,635 (“Parent Application” or “Parent Applications”). See MPEP
`
`§201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02(II)(A)(2) and MPEP §2001.06(b)(last
`
`paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the
`
`Parent Application. In further 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.
`
`Status
`
`2.
`
`This communication is in responseto the application filed on 29 December 2022.
`
`Claims 1-16 are pending and presented for examination.
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`3.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`4.
`
`The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention
`
`whichis also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 3
`
`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-AlA 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 neither of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos.
`
`16/542,158 and 14/276,252, fail to provide adequate support or enablementin the
`
`manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for
`
`one or more claims of this application. The instant claims, as originally filed and
`
`presented for examination, indicate receiving a purchase history of household goods
`
`and clothing from a plurality of users and extracting from that purchasehistory to
`
`recommenda household good or clothing to the first user. The only supportfor this
`
`conceptat the instant application is at the original claims and the original Abstract;
`
`however, neither the claims, Abstract, or specification of at least Parent Application
`
`16/452,158 contain such support. Any support at the indicated Parent Application(s)
`
`is not related to the scope of “household goods’.
`
`Further, dependent claims 7 and 15 each recite “selection by the second
`
`processor of the recommendation for one of the household goods purchased by the
`
`second user is based on the second user's purchase history of clothing”. There is no
`
`description support at any of the instant or former Abstracts or descriptions. Only the
`
`instant original claims
`
`As such, the Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving
`
`the benefit of an earlier filing date under the 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 4
`
`requirement. Since the claim asoriginally filed are part of the specification, the
`
`applicant does have support for an interactive mapin the instant application but the
`
`instant application is granted a priority date as of the filing date of the instant
`
`applicant which is November 18, 2019.
`
`5. Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of
`
`the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new
`
`matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship
`
`(continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this
`
`application contains the following matter not disclosedin the prior-filed application:
`
`Asindicated above, instant claims 1 and 9, asoriginally filed and presented for
`
`examination, indicate receiving a purchase history of household goods andclothing
`
`from a plurality of users and extracting from that purchase history to recommend a
`
`household good or clothing to the first user: “receiving, from the network and storing
`
`in a second memory with a second processor, the purchasehistory of one or more
`
`of household goods and clothing by a plurality of users of the one or more of the
`
`household goods and clothing; extracting with the second processor from the
`
`second memory a second user, from among the plurality of users, who has
`
`purchased a household good or clothing with a design or function similar to a
`
`household good or clothing purchasedbythe first user; transmitting, with the second
`
`processor, over the networkto the first processor, a recommendation for the first
`
`user of a household goodor clothing purchased by the second user, which is stored
`
`in the first memory” — at least Parent Application 16/452158 provides no support,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 5
`
`and Parent Application 14/276,225 is not co-pending and also does not provide
`
`support. There also is no indication (also as indicated above) of supportat either of
`
`the Parent Applications regarding the recommendation selection for a household
`
`appliance being a second user’s clothing purchase(asat instant claims 7 and 15).
`
`Merely cancelling the above identified claims would not be sufficient to
`
`correct the priority issue. As the originally filed claims are considered to be part of
`
`the specification, cancelling the claims would not remove the subject matter from the
`
`applicant’s specification. Therefore, the specification would still be considered to
`
`contain new matter by virtue of the originally filed claims. As such, the instant
`
`applicant cannot maintain a relationship of “continuation” and the applicant must
`
`change the relationship to “continuation-in-part’. See MPEP 211.05.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`6.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 March 2023 was
`
`filed after the mailing date of the application on 29 December 2022. The submission
`
`is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information
`
`disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`Examiner’s Note
`
`7. The Examiner notes that there is no indication of what is meant by “household
`
`goods’ — the phraseis not found anywherein the specification, except the Abstract,
`
`in fact the term “household” is only found in the Abstract, and the term “good”is only
`
`found at Applicant J] 0221 (“The information providing system may recommend a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 6
`
`curtain, a carpet, and furniture from a purchasehistory of clothing, such as clothes,
`
`instead of a home appliance, and may recommend a home appliance. This makes it
`
`possible to provide information about various products that suit the user based on
`
`information about a user who possessessimilar goods.”) and Applicant {| 0222 (“the
`
`extracted information includes information about what kind of other programs a user
`
`watching a similar program watches, what kind of recipe of food a user makes
`
`immediately after the user watches a program with similar content, what kind of
`
`product a user purchases immediately after the user watches a program with similar
`
`content. This makes it possible to, for example, recommenda recipe regarding food
`
`that appearsin the television program. This also makes it possible to recommend a
`
`recipe of food good for health after watching a program about health.”). Based on
`
`the above lack of explanation or description, this is regarded as a breadth (and field
`
`of use) issue (i.e., what is considered to be a “household good”), rather than a
`
`specific indefiniteness issue, and the claim interpretation applied is that any product,
`
`good, or merchandize that a household, customer, or consumer would purchase
`
`(apparently including clothing, carpets, and/or curtains) is considered to be a
`
`household good.
`
`8.
`
`The Examiner notes that whether a “household good” and/or “clothing” is
`
`requested and/or recommended(as at independent claims 1 and 9), and/or whether
`
`that request or recommendation includes a household appliance, a curtain, a carpet,
`
`and/or a shelf (as at dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16), are all fields of use and/or
`
`printed matter. The processing and selection encompasses any second user that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 7
`
`has purchased (apparently) anything related to the request (since dependent claims
`
`indicate recommending an appliance based on a clothing purchase, and/or
`
`recommending a curtain, carpet, or shelf based on an appliance purchase);
`
`therefore, any record of anyone purchasing a (vaguely) related productis
`
`encompassedbythe claims. Therefore, the processing is (or would be) the same
`
`regardless whatis requested and/or what is recommended — thereis literally no
`
`indication of whatis, or is not, a household good; however, even if something other
`
`than a household good or clothing were requested (e.g., investments, stocks,
`
`services, contractors, etc.), the processing would merely provide a recommendation
`
`based on matching. The aboveindicated products (i.e., household goods, clothing,
`
`appliance, curtain, carpet, shelf) are also printed matter since there is no functional
`
`relationship between the item(s) and the substrate —i.e., the message(s), message
`
`medium, message transmission or reception, etc. MPEP § 2103.1.C.(A) indicates a
`
`field of use may be grantedlittle if any patentable weight, and MPEP § 2111.05
`
`indicates that when there is no functional relationship to the substrate, little if any
`
`patentable weight may be granted. This is to say the transmitting, receiving, and
`
`extraction claimed are not functionally related or altered based on the items/products
`
`claimed(the claims literally encompass requesting or recommending a white
`
`appliance versus a black appliance, for instance — this has no definable meaning or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 8
`
`relation to any matching or processing indicated), solittle if any patentable weight
`
`may be granted to suchlimitations.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`(a) INGENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
`of the manner and process of making and usingit, in suchfull, clear, concise, and exact terms
`as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with whichit is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and usingit, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`person skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or with whichit is most nearly connected, to make
`and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying
`out his invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(bo) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph:
`The specification shall conclude with one or moreclaims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`9. Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112
`
`(pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement
`
`requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the
`
`specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or
`
`with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-
`
`AlA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling (despite having
`
`no description whatsoever for what someone could imagine for certain
`
`circumstances (e.g., recommending some goods, such the same or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 9
`
`complimentary/accessory items, based on a second user clothing purchase), the
`
`description does not reasonably provide enablement for the scopeof the claims —
`
`that a second user’s clothing purchase may somehowbe any reasonable basis to
`
`recommend household goods such as, e.g., a refrigerator, a computer, a vehicle, a
`
`desk, a chair, etc. etc. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art
`
`to whichit pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use
`
`the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Parent claims 1 and 9 recite
`
`that the extracting of information (i.e., to select a recommendation) is regarding or of
`
`items “with a design or function similar to [that which is/was] purchased bythe first
`
`user’, but there is no apparent connection or correlation regarding design or function
`
`of clothing as compared to household goods (at claims 7 and 15), or a curtain,
`
`carpet, or shelf (at claims 8 and 16). Neither the claims nor the description indicate
`
`or require any connection, there is no description of the basis for making selection
`
`related to the second user’s clothing purchase(s) (i.e., the specification just says,
`
`essentially, “do it”), and the claims broadly and literally encompass ALL types of
`
`household goods andclothing.
`
`The same analysis applies to claims 6 and 14, where claims 6 and 14 recite “a
`
`comparison of the design, color, or characteristic function” of the first and second
`
`user’s household appliances; however, the recommendation is indicated as “one of
`
`the curtain, the carpet, and the shelf’. There appears to be no correlation between
`
`comparing appliances and recommending a curtain, carpet, or shelf. There appears
`
`to be no indication or description regarding how a recommendation is formulated or
`
`selected for recommending a curtain, carpet, or shelf based only on a comparison of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 10
`
`the design, color, or function of an appliance (i.e., just because both the first and
`
`second users have white kitchen appliances does not appearto have any relation to
`
`recommending a curtain, carpet, or shelf — but that is what claims 6 and 14 say).
`
`Regarding the Wands factors (see MPEP §§ 2164.01(a)), the Examiner finds that
`
`with regard to factor:
`
`A) The breadth of the claims include any and all household goods that may be
`
`recommended, and also any and all clothing that may be purchased — there is no
`
`limiting or correlation at either the specification or the claims. The only support for
`
`the claims appears to be the claims themselves asincludedin the originalfiling.
`
`(B) The nature of the invention — there does not appear to be, and there is no
`
`description regarding any correlation between any household goods and/or any
`
`clothing. The only description related to this is Applicant § 0221 (as submitted)
`
`indicating “The information providing system may recommenda curtain, a carpet,
`
`and furniture from a purchasehistory of clothing, such as clothes, instead of a home
`
`appliance, and may recommend a home appliance.” This merely indicates to
`
`recommend something based on a clothing purchase, but not how to make the
`
`association or selection of anything — it just says “do it’, but not with any more logic
`
`or reasoning than finding a needle in a hay stackby just doing it. There is no
`
`apparent connection or correlation between the “design or function” indication of
`
`data used at the independent claims and the clothing purchase that is claimed as
`
`used to select a recommendation for household goods at dependent claims 6-8 and
`
`14-16.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 11
`
`(C) The state of the prior art and (D) The level of one of ordinary skill — there
`
`does not appearto be any state of the art nor any level of ordinary skill regarding
`
`recommending a household good based on a second user's clothing purchase(s),
`
`exceptin the broadest sense(s) as indicated above where, e.g., the clothing is
`
`considered a household good and the recommendation is for a related article of
`
`clothing.
`
`(E) The level of predictability in the art — based on the above, there is no actual
`
`level of predictability in the art. The only level of predictability would be based on the
`
`relationship of the goods, clothing, and user(s), but none of that is described by the
`
`specification or required by the claims. The parent independentclaims indicate the
`
`extracted data (as the only information available for use as a selection basis)
`
`(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor — there is no direction
`
`provided in the specification, other than (as indicated above) to just arbitrarily
`
`recommend anything a household or consumer could purchase since someone else
`
`bought some article of clothing. Household goods are not discussed outside of the
`
`Abstract, and the only mentions of clothes or clothing is the Abstract mention (as
`
`mirroring the claims) of recommending based on a second user’s purchasehistory,
`
`and the Applicant § 0221 (as above) merely saying just do it.;
`
`(G) The existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation
`
`needed to makeor usethe invention based on the content of the disclosure — there
`
`are no working examples provided, there is no indication of how such a basis for
`
`recommending would be anything but a random, arbitrary selection of any product
`
`-
`
`there is no connection or correlation of the first and second users other than the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 12
`
`and second users bought something “with a design or function [that is] similar’, and
`
`dependentclaims 2 and 10 indicate this merely includes the “design, color, or
`
`characteristic function” — so, if a second user has purchased a whiteshirt, it is within
`
`the claim scopeto arbitrarily recommend a white refrigerator to the first user. There
`
`is no reasonable connection, correlation, or explanation regarding how such a
`
`recommendation system would or could reasonably work, nor how to make such a
`
`system work. The recommendations made appear to encompass merely being an
`
`arbitrary, random choice/selection.
`
`10. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA),
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for
`
`pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 9 eachrecite A) “transmitting a request, withafirst
`
`processor ofthe first user, via a network, for recommended household goods and
`
`clothing for the first user’, B) “extracting with the second processor from the second
`
`memory a second user’, and C) that the second user has purchased a household
`
`goodor clothing with “a design or function similar to a household good or clothing
`
`purchasedbythe first user” (citing to claim 1, similar phrasing used at claim 9).
`
`With respect to A), the Examiner is uncertain whether the requestis for
`
`“household goods AND clothing” (emphasis added — requiring a single requestfor
`
`both the household goods AND the clothing), or if this should be household goods or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 13
`
`clothing. The extracting performed, and the transmitted response, as well as the
`
`displaying is phrased in the alternative — that only one or the other of household
`
`goods OR clothing is considered for the response and display. The claim would
`
`apparently not be infringed unless thereis a single request(i.e., “a request”) that
`
`requests a recommendation of both household goods and clothing. However, it also
`
`appears, as indicated above, that clothing would be “nousehold goods”, so the
`
`Examiner is also uncertain what the difference would be and/or if two products are
`
`necessarily requested (one considered as a ‘household good” and the other
`
`“clothing’). The Examiner suggests phrasing the “transmitting a request’ in the
`
`alternative for clarity (e.g., “for at least one of household goods andclothing”, or “for
`
`one or both of household goods and clothing’, or similar). The claim is being
`
`interpreted as the request being for at least one of households and/or clothing.
`
`With respectto B), it appears to be impossible to extract a second user froma
`
`second memorythat is understood to be a computer or machine memory — the claim
`
`recites extracting an actual person, not just records of a second person. The
`
`Examiner suggests reciting extracting records or purchasehistory of a second user
`
`instead — that seems to be whatis intended (but the claims do not currently reflect
`
`this).
`
`With respectto C), first, there is no extraction or receiving or determining of any
`
`designs or functions of any household goodor clothing; therefore, it appears
`
`impossible to compare the designs or functions for similarity. Second, there is no
`
`indication that there are any records available regarding purchases bythe first user
`
`— the first user is not in any manner required or indicated as included in the purchase
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 14
`
`history records that are received. Third, the Examiner has searched for a similarity
`
`standard that may be used to determine whether designs or functions are “similar”
`
`and finds no indication regarding how they may be compared, whatlevel of similarity
`
`is required, or even what is considered a function. For instance, dependentclaims 6
`
`and 14 (as examples that are necessarily included) indicate “wherein the household
`
`goods include a household appliance, a curtain, a carpet, and a shelf’; therefore, is
`
`the function of a curtain to hang on a wall or cover a wall? Is any picture, mural,
`
`drawing, etc. then considered to be similar in function, even though they are very
`
`different objects. Similarly, a carpetliterally only functions to lie on a floor — although
`
`some may be hung on a wall; so, is a carpet of similar function to the curtains (they
`
`both are hung from a wall, apparently)? Is a couch, or table, or chair(s), of similar
`
`function to a carpet since theyall just lie on a floor? There is no indication provided
`
`in the description regarding whatlevel or type of similarity is required. Therefore, the
`
`term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar”
`
`is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for
`
`ascertaining the requisite degree, and one ofordinary skill in the art would not be
`
`reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as indicated above.
`
`Claims 2-8 and 10-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, but do not resolve the above
`
`issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2-8 and
`
`10-16 are also indefinite.
`
`Dependentclaims 6 and 14 recite “wherein the household goods include a
`
`household appliance, a curtain, a carpet, and a shelf’, and dependent claims 8 and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 15
`
`16 recite “wherein the household goods include curtain, a carpet, and a shelf’.
`
`Claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 1, whereas claims 14 and 16 depend from claim
`
`9. The phrase “the household goods’at claims 6, 8, 14, and 16 maybereferring to
`
`the requested household goods, the purchasehistory data of the plurality of users
`
`(at claim 1), the stored recommended household goods (at claim 8), the purchase of
`
`a household good by a second user, or the transmitted and displayed household that
`
`is being recommended. There is no indication what instance of “the household
`
`goods”is being referenced by dependentclaims 6, 8, 14, and 16.
`
`Further, claims 6 and 14 recite “a comparison of the design, color, or
`
`characteristic function” of the first and second user’s household appliances;
`
`however, the recommendation is indicated as “one of the curtain, the carpet, and the
`
`shelf’. There appears to be no correlation between comparing appliances and
`
`recommending a curtain, carpet, or shelf. The Examiner notes, however, that it may
`
`be that the extracting is entirely separate from the recommendation, and the
`
`extracting is not to be regarded as having any meaningful limitation — regardless of
`
`the comparing, the system will recommend any curtain, carpet, or shelf that anyone
`
`has ever purchased. The Examiner has no idea whatthe claim is actually intended
`
`to mean, but for examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting this as ANY
`
`product comparison to produce any recommendation as being regarded as
`
`encompassed — i.e., anticipating or obvious.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 16
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsofthis title.
`
`11. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 becausethe claimed invention
`
`is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
`
`Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
`
`For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method
`
`(claims 1-8) and “information providing device” (i.e., ,a machine or article of
`
`manufacture) (claims 9-16), which would be classified under one ofthe listed
`
`statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
`
`For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independentclaim 1 recites a
`
`method for recommending household goods and clothing information to a first user
`
`of the household goods and clothing, comprising: transmitting a request, withafirst
`
`processor of the first user, via a network, for recommended household goods and
`
`clothing for the first user, to be received and stored in a first memory and displayed
`
`on a displayof the first user; receiving, from the network and storing in a second
`
`memory with a second processor, the purchase history of one or more of household
`
`goods and clothing by a plurality of users of the one or more of the household goods
`
`and clothing; extracting with the second processor from the second memory a
`
`second user, from among the plurality of users, who has purchased a household
`
`good or clothing with a design or function similar to a household goodor clothing
`
`purchasedbythe first user; transmitting, with the second processor, over the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 18/091 ,106
`Art Unit: RDOO
`
`Page 17
`
`networkto the first processor, a recommendation for the first user of a household
`
`good or clothing purchased by the second user, whichis storedin the first memory;
`
`and displaying on the display of the first user, as instructed by the first processor, the
`
`recommended household good or clothing purchased by the second user.
`
`Independent claim 9 is analyzed in the same manner as claim 1 above since
`
`directed to an information providing device ... comprising: a terminal device of the
`
`first user having a display for displaying ...; a first memory of the terminal device; a
`
`communicating interface of the terminal device configured to transmit a request, via
`
`a network, [for the goods and clothing] to be received and stored in the first memory
`
`and displayed on the display of the terminal device of the first user; and receive ...
`
`from a second processor via the network and storing [the recommendeditems] in
`
`the first memory; and a controller of the terminal device comprising a first processor
`
`configured to: transmit via the communication interface the request ... to be received
`
`and storedin the first memory and displayed on the display of the terminal of the first
`
`user, receive via the communi