DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on May 27, 2025. Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant in Pages 12-14 of the Remarks argues that the claims do not meet the categories of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 revised guideline and that the Office provides no argument, evidence, or statement that the claims recited merely a “mental processes”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do meet the categories of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 revised guideline, and the office provided detailed argument, evidence, or statement for claims reciting steps that are merely “mental processes” in the 101 rejection in the previous office action.
Amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19 covers several steps, such as the re-rank step in claim 1, the analyzing, generating, identifying, and determining steps in claim 11, and the identifying, generating, and filtering steps in claim 19, that recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps, which are again discussed in detail in the current 101 rejection below.
Applicant in Pages 14-15 of the Remarks further argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and the claims, when read in light of applicant’s specification, provide a specific improvement in computer technology, such as “the generating, identification, and/or user of a refiner that enables a user to conduct efficient searches for content items that are stored in a data storage system”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
As discussed in detail in the 101 rejection below, steps such as generation, identification, and/or use of a refiner have been identified as reciting an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps.
The claims do not provide any limitations that are directed to a specific improvement in computer technology because "the generation, identification, and/or use of a refiner that enables a user to conduct efficient searches for content items that are stored in a data storage system", as argued by the applicant as being recited in the specification as being directed to a specific improvement in computer technology, are recited in the claims as limitations that have been identified as abstract ideas.
The remaining steps in the claims that are identified as reciting additional elements, are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology.
Therefore, the claims even as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Applicant in Pages 16-17 of the Remarks argues that Topatan, Gungor, Dumais, Blucher, Gibbon, Agrawal, and Munemann do not teach or even suggest the features "causing the computing device to dynamically re-rank the plurality of refiners based on the second ranking based on entropy minimization between the second ranking and the first ranking”, as disclosed in amended independent claim 1 and similarly discloses in amended independent claims 11 and 19.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of the currently pending claim(s) 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amended independent claims 1, 11, and 19 and by the addition/cancellation of dependent claims 13 and 22.
For the above reasons, Examiner states that rejection of the current Office action
is proper.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7 lines 1-2, the phrase “providing the additional refiner the computing device” should be “providing the additional refiner to the computing device”.
In Claim 19 lines 21-22, the phrase “base on entropy minimization” should be “based on entropy minimization”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 respectively recite a method, a system, and a
method, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“causing...to dynamically re-rank the plurality of refiners based on the second ranking based on entropy minimization between the second ranking and the first ranking”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper dynamically re-rank a plurality of refiners based on a second ranking based on entropy minimization between the second ranking and a first ranking.
The limitation, as recited above in claim 1, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations:
“analyzing content of content items associated with a user to generate contextual information including keywords associated with the content items interacted with by the user over an interval of time by at least performing an action including creating, editing, or deleting a content item, where the contextual information indicates at least one of: a topic associated with the content items, a creator associated with the content items, a sender associated with the content items, a timestamp associated with the content items, and a keyword associated with the content items”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze content of content items associated with a user, which were interacted with by the user over an interval of time by performing an action such as creating, editing or deleting, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify and generate contextual information, such as topic, creator, sender, timestamp, and/or keyword, associated with the content items based on the analysis.
“generating a plurality of user-specific refiners based, at least in part, on the contextual information based on an analysis of the content item”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze content of content items to identify contextual information associated with the content item, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate user-specific refiners based on the contextual information.
“identifying search results based, at least in part, on the search term”.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify search results based on a search term.
“determining an information gain associated with refiners of the plurality of user-specific refiners in view of the search results”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze generated search results and determine an information gain associated with refiners of a plurality of user-specific refiners in view of the search results.
“identifying a refiner from the plurality of user-specific refiners based on the refiners satisfying an information gain threshold, wherein the plurality of user-specific refiners are generated, based at least in part the contextual information including the keywords associated with the content items interacted with by the user over the interval of time, by at least identifying a particular content item corresponding to a particular topic associated with a particular keyword, where the particular content item is generated at a second interval of time after the content items”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze contextual information including keywords associated with content items interacted with by the person over an interval of time to generate a plurality of refiners, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify a refiner from the plurality of refiners based on the refiners satisfying an information gain threshold, by mentally or using a pen and paper identifying a particular content item generated at a second interval of time corresponding to a particular topic associated with a particular keyword.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 11, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations:
“identifying search results based, at least in part, on the search term and a first ranking of a plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify search results based on
a search term and a first ranking of a plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners.
“identifying a topic-based refiner from the plurality of user-specific topic- based refiners, the topic-based refiner being identified based, at least in part, on contextual information associated with a user including keywords associated with content items interacted with by the user over an interval of time, wherein the topic-based refiner is determined by at least identifying a particular keyword associated with a particular topic corresponding to a particular content item the user interacted with by at least performing an action on the particular content item, where the contextual information indicates at least one of: a topic associated with the content items, a creator associated with the content items, a sender associated with the content items, a timestamp associated with the content items, and a keyword associated with the content items”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify a topic-based refiner from a plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners based on contextual information associated with the user, including information associated with a content item the user interacted with by performing an action on the content item, and a person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify association between content and corresponding information over time used to generate the user-specific refiners, and a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze content items, which were interacted with by the person over an interval of time by performing an action such as creating, editing or deleting, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify and generate contextual information, such as topic, creator, sender, timestamp, and/or keyword, associated with the content items based on the analysis.
“generating a second ranking of the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners based on the topic-based refiner”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate a second ranking of a plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners based on a topic-based refiner.
“based on receiving a selection of the topic-based refiner filtering the search results, such that the search results are re-ranked based on the topic-based refiner”.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper select a topic based refiner and filter search results using the selected refiner, and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper re-rank search results based on the refiner.
The limitations, as recited above in claim 19, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“receiving, from a computing device, a search term”, which is a step of receiving data. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“searching using the search term to identify search results, the search results including a first content item”, which is a step of searching data. The searching step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving a first ranking of a plurality of refiners, a first refiner generated based on an analysis of the first content item to determine at least one of: a topic associated with the first content item, a creator associated with the first content item, a sender associated with the first content item, a timestamp associated with the first content item, and a keyword associated with the first content item”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receiving a second ranking of the plurality of refiners, including the first refiner, the second ranking generated based on contextual information associated with a second content item a particular user interacted with by at least performing one or more actions including at least one of: reading the second content item, creating the second content item, editing the second content item, and selecting a portion of the second content item, wherein the second content item is generated at an interval of time after the first content item”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“providing the search results based on the first ranking to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“providing the plurality of refiners to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“based on receiving a selection of the first refiner from the computing device, where the first refiner is displayed to the particular user based on the second ranking: receiving filtered search results based on the first refiner”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“based on receiving a selection of the first refiner from the computing device, where the first refiner is displayed to the particular user based on the second ranking:…providing the filtered search results to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “from a computing device” and “to the computing device” in steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations:
“receiving a search term provided in a user interface of an electronic messaging application”, which is a step for receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“providing the refiner and the search results in the user interface of the electronic messaging application, where the search results are re-ranked based on the refiner”, which is a step for providing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a system comprising: a processor, and a memory coupled to a processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform operations, comprising:” and “in a user interface of an electronic messaging application” in the steps in claim 11 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations:
“receiving a search term in a user interface of an electronic messaging application”, which is a step for receiving data. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“providing search results and the plurality of user- specific topic-based refiners in the user interface of the electronic messaging application, where the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners are ranked in the user interface based on entropy minimization which cause the topic-based refiner to be ranked above at least one other refiner of the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners based on an information gain associated with the topic-based refiner”, which is a step for providing data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “in a user interface of an electronic messaging application” in the steps in claim 19 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 19 recite the same additional elements as identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“receiving, from a computing device, a search term”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“searching using the search term to identify search results, the search results including a first content item”, which is a step of searching data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“receiving a first ranking of a plurality of refiners, a first refiner generated based on an analysis of the first content item to determine at least one of: a topic associated with the first content item, a creator associated with the first content item, a sender associated with the first content item, a timestamp associated with the first content item, and a keyword associated with the first content item”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“receiving a second ranking of the plurality of refiners, including the first refiner, the second ranking generated based on contextual information associated with a second content item a particular user interacted with by at least performing one or more actions including at least one of: reading the second content item, creating the second content item, editing the second content item, and selecting a portion of the second content item, wherein the second content item is generated at an interval of time after the first content item”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“providing the search results based on the first ranking to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“providing the plurality of refiners to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
“based on receiving a selection of the first refiner from the computing device, where the first refiner is displayed to the particular user based on the second ranking: receiving filtered search results based on the first refiner”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“based on receiving a selection of the first refiner from the computing device, where the first refiner is displayed to the particular user based on the second ranking:…providing the filtered search results to the computing device”, which is a step for providing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations:
“receiving a search term provided in a user interface of an electronic messaging application”, which is a step for receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“providing the refiner and the search results in the user interface of the electronic messaging application, where the search results are re-ranked based on the refiner”, which is a step for providing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations:
“receiving a search term in a user interface of an electronic messaging application”, which is a step for receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“providing search results and the plurality of user- specific topic-based refiners in the user interface of the electronic messaging application, where the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners are ranked in the user interface based on entropy minimization which cause the topic-based refiner to be ranked above at least one other refiner of the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners based on an information gain associated with the topic-based refiner”, which is a step for providing data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites additional limitations, such as:
“analyzing the one or more content items to determine a tag associated with one or more content items”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze one or more content items to determine a tag associated with the one or more content items, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“comparing the tag of the one or more content items to information associated with the refiner”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper compare a tag of one or more content items to information associated with a refiner, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional limitations, such as:
“determining a first set of the search results that are associated with the refiner and a second set of the search results that are not associated with refiner;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze a plurality of search results to determine that a first set of the search results are associated with a refiner and that a second set of the search results are not associated with the refiner, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
determining whether the first set of the search results in view of the second set of the search results meet a threshold”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze a plurality of search results to determine whether a first set of a search results in view of a second set of the search results meet a threshold, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the plurality of refiners are identified based, at least in part, on an analysis of content in the one or more content items”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze content in one or more content items to identify a plurality of refiners, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the refiner is:
a topic-based refiner;
a name of an individual that is associated with a content item of the one or more content items; or
associated with a date”.
These limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional limitations, such as:
“identifying an additional refiner as a result of providing the filtered search results to the computing device”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze filtered search results provided in a user interface to identify an additional refiner, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
“providing the additional refiner to the computing device”, which is a step of providing data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B , the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein a content item of the one or more content items is a document or electronic message provided in a messaging application”.
These limitations are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the contextual information is based, at least in part, on keyword associated with an entity”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze keywords associated with an entity and the person can mentally or using a pen and paper base contextual information on the keyword associated with the entity, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional limitations, such as:
“analyzing the search results to determine a topic associated with the search results”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze search results to determine a topic associated with the search results, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“comparing the topic associated with the search results with topic information associated with the refiner”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper compare a topic associated with search results with topic information associated with a refiner, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 recites additional limitations, such as:
“identifying a topic associated with each content item of the content items associated with the user, the topic indicated in the keywords”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper identify a topic indicated by keywords associated with content items associated with a user, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“for each identified topic, associating a particular user-specific refiner of the plurality of user-specific refines with the identified topic”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper associate a refiner with an identified topic, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 recites additional limitations, such as:
“receiving a selection of the refiner in the user interface of the electronic messaging application”, which is a step of receiving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering and outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B , the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
The additional element “in the user interface of the electronic messaging application” in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 recites additional limitations, such as:
“filtering the search results based, at least in part, on the received selection of the refiner in the user interface of the electronic messaging application”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper filter search results based on a selected refiner, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional element “in the user interface of the electronic messaging application” in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 17 recites additional limitations, such as:
“determining the contextual information based on a result of a machine learning model”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine contextual information based on a result pf a machine learning model, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“ranking the plurality of user-specific refiners based, at least in part, on the contextual information”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper rank refiners based on contextual information, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional element “a machine learning model” in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional limitations, such as:
“determining a score of the contextual information associated with each user-specific refiner”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine a score of contextual information associated with refiners, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“ordering each user-specific refiner based, at least in part, on the score”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 11, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper order refiners based on the score, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 recites additional limitations, such as:
“analyzing the search results to determine a topic associated with the search results”;
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 19, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze search results to determine a topic associated with the results, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
“determining which topic-based refiners of the plurality of user-specific topic-based refiners are associated with the topic”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 19, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine which topic based refiners are associated with a topic, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the contextual information is determined based, at least in part, on an output of a semantic model that takes as an input the keywords associated with the content items interacted with by the user to determine meaning associated with the keywords”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper determine contextual information based on an output of a semantic model, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional element “a semantic model that takes as an input the keywords associated with the content items interacted with by the user to determine meaning associated with the keywords” in the claim is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the entropy minimization causes the first refiner of the plurality of refiners to be ranked above at least one other refiner of the plurality of refiners based on an information gain associated with the first refiner, the information gain indicating an entropy difference between the second ranking and the first ranking”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper apply entropy minimization to rank a first refiner of a plurality of refiners above at least one other refiner of the plurality of refiners based on mentally or using a pen and paper identifying an information gain associated with the first refiner indicating an entropy difference between the second ranking and the first ranking, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-18, and 20-22 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topatan (US Pub 2014/0344250) in view of Gungor (US Pub 2018/0218422) and in further view of Lesmes (US Pub 2019/0038125).
With respect to claim 1, Topatan discloses a method for filtering search results (Topatan in [0069] and [0075] discloses search results are filtered based on the refiners and the refined search results are returned), comprising:
receiving, from a computing device, a search term (Topatan in [0018], [0019], and [0026] discloses search results returned and presented through a user interface of a personal information service, search performed on personal information such as email, calendar, contacts, messages etc., user entering a textual search query in a search box to search a personal information database, performing a search and returning search results relevant to the search query; Topatan in [0030] and in Figure 3 discloses a computing device);
searching using the search term to identify search results, the search results including a first content (Topatan in [0018], [0019], and [0026] discloses performing a search and returning search results relevant to the search query, search results include various information items such as relevant emails, contacts, calendar events etc., search results presented along with various suggested refiners with which to refine the search);
receiving…a plurality of refiners, a first refiner generated based on analysis of the first content item to determine at least one of: a topic associated with the first content item, a creator associated with the first content item, a sender associated with the first content item, a timestamp associated with the first content item, and a keyword associated with the first content item (Topatan in [0005] and [0036] discloses analyzing search results to identify refiners associated with content items such as messages, emails etc., which are content items interacted with by a user; Topatan in [0006] discloses search results returned along with suggested refiners to refine the search, prior to refining the search one or more of the suggested refiners are identified, selected or indicated as of interest by the user, the search results are then refined using the selected refiners and the refined results are presented to the user interface, keyword refiners derived from content items from search results; Topatan in [0020] and [0021] discloses suggested refiners include a variety of types of refiners, such as category refiners and keyword refiners, categories can include details of email such as sender, recipient, date etc.; Topatan in [0056], [0060], and [0061] and in Figures 5-8 discloses refiners are used to refine search results and can be derived from the search results, such as keywords can be derived from emails, emails can be