On April 3, 2008, the US Patent & Trademark Office published three distinct Apple Store related patent applications. The patents cover their current review system and two new systems that present a recommended component and a new head-to-head competitive/comparisons chart. The latter is really a tool that is for the online community to use and not actually a comparison’s system applied by Apple, unfortunately.

Patent: Head-to-head comparisons

Providing a comparison of a set of similar items is disclosed. In some embodiments, a selection of a set of similar items to be included in a comparison is received from a first member of an online community, and the comparison is stored so that the comparison can be presented to a second member of the online community when an indication is received that the comparison is of interest to the second member.

Apple’s patent FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a head-to-head comparison provided to a user of an online store.

In some embodiments, a “head-to-head comparison” includes a comparison and/or review of a plurality of similar items or products. Such a head-to-head comparison may be useful, for example, to someone interested in purchasing a particular type of item but uncertain about which specific product to purchase. A head-to-head comparison can aid in making a decision about which item in a set of like items is the best or the best for a particular purpose or value.
Allowing members of a relevant community, e.g., an online community (such as users of an online store), to create or define head-to-head comparisons that can be provided to other members of the community, e.g., other users or customers of the store in the case of an online store, when appropriate is disclosed. In many cases, the user community may represent a wealth of information about a set of similar items or products available, for example, from an online store (or other third party), and it would be useful to be able to provide a comparison of the set of similar items to other users.

A user having some knowledge or expertise on a particular type of item may desire to create a head-to-head comparison that includes a plurality of items or products of that type. The author of a head-to-head comparison may include reviews and/or comparisons of various features associated with the items that are included in the head-to-head comparison as well as commentary on how the items differ. In some embodiments, the author may specify pros and cons of the items included in the head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, the author may rank the items and/or indicate which item the author feels to be the best in the set of items included in the head-to-head comparison. In some such cases, the author may rank the items included in a head-to-head comparison differently based on the intended use of the items and/or may select different items to be the best for different uses or under different circumstances. In some embodiments, the items included in a head-to-head comparison are similarly priced. In some embodiments, a head-to-head comparison includes items that are differently priced, and in some such cases may include reviews that compare prices to features or performance. In some embodiments, similar items from different manufacturers are compared in a head-to-head comparison. In some embodiments, a head-to-head comparison includes multiple items from the same manufacturer. In some embodiments, when an author selects items to be included in a head-to-head comparison, a comparison grid including various features of the items selected is automatically generated and/or populated from product descriptions and/or specifications available at an online store so that the author does not have to supply such information when defining a head-to-head comparison. In some such cases, the author may have the ability to append to, delete from, and modify, etc., information included in the automatically generated comparison grid. A head-to-head comparison created by one user of an online store may be useful to other users of the online store who are interested in the items and/or type of items included in the head-to-head comparison and may be presented to such another user when an indication of interest in the items and/or type of items included in the head-to-head comparison is received.

Patent: Recommended systems

Apple’s patent background states that “Customers visiting physical stores are typically approached by or have access to salespeople, who can aid in identifying items that meet their needs, answer questions about various items, recommend related items, etc. For example, a customer shopping in a computer store wanting to purchase a computer system may be presented by a salesperson of the store, based upon the customer’s intended use of the computer system, with a recommendation of a computer model, compatible peripherals and software, information relating to the manner in which to configure the system, reasons pertaining to why the recommended items will serve the customer’s intended use, etc.
Similar levels of customer service, however, do not exist in the context of typical online stores. Potential customers of an online store may have access to descriptions of individual items and reviews by other customers on individual items. However, it may be desirable to purchase a set of items, at least some of which are to be used together for a particular purpose, and it would be useful to receive recommendations on which items to select based on the intended use of at least some of the items as a set. In some cases, the administrators of an online store may define a few thematic sets that include multiple related items that a customer can purchase as a set. However, if the intended uses of such few administrator defined sets do not meet a customer’s needs, the customer must individually research and identify items without receiving advice or feedback on the interoperability of the items and whether the combination of items selected will meet the needs of the customer’s intended use.

For example, a customer shopping for a computer system at an online computer store may find it helpful to receive one or more recommendations on computer systems that are appropriate for the customer’s needs rather than having to individually identify various components such as a particular computer model, compatible peripherals, needed software, etc., that would be suitable as well as research the manner in which to configure the system for its intended use. It is useful to a customer to have access to recommendations on sets of complementary items and their potential uses as a set, especially if such recommendations can aid the customer in making a decision for the customer’s own needs.”

Apple’s abstract states that “Providing a recommendation of one or more items is disclosed. In some embodiments, a selection of a set of one or more items to be included in a recommendation is received from a first member of an online community, and the recommendation is stored so that the recommendation can be presented to a second member of the online community when an indication is received that the recommendation is of interest to the second member.”

Apple lists Kenneth N. Chang (San Jose, CA), David A. Koski (Cupertino, CA), Pedraum R. Pardehpoosh (Palo Alto, CA) and Ralph E. Zazula (Mountain View, CA) as the inventors of this patent which was originally filed in September 2006 and first publically published today. They are also credited for the first patent noted above titled Head-to-Head Comparisons.

The last of the three Apple Store patents relates to the long standing Reviews System set by actual consumers. For more information on this patent, see Summarizing reviews

NOTICE: MacNN presents only a brief summary of patents with associated graphic(s) for journalistic news purposes as each such patent application and/or grant is revealed by the U.S. Patent & Trade Office. Readers are cautioned that the full text of any patent applications and/or grants should be read in its entirety for further details.

Written and researched by Neo.