DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-10 and 21-22 are directed to a system, claims 11-19 are directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 11 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. In the instant case, representative claim 11 recites abstract concepts including: obtaining… domain data, the domain data indicating a first domain; based on the obtained domain data, implementing ... operations that update a taxonomy library ... the operations including: based on the domain information, identifying…keyword search term data associated with the first domain, product data associated with the first domain, and interaction data associated with the first domain; based on the keyword search term data, the product data and the interaction data, determining… a set of keyword search term-product pairings, wherein each keyword search term-product pairing is associated with more than one type of interaction; based on the set of keyword search term-product pairings and an engagement score associated with each keyword search term-product pairing of the set of keyword search term-product pairings, determining… one or more clusters of keyword search terms, wherein each keyword search term in the one or more clusters of keyword search terms is paired with one or more respective products in the one or more keyword search term-product pairings; and based on the engagement score associated with each keyword search term of each of the one or more clusters, determining… for each of the one or more clusters of keyword search terms, the representative keyword search term by detecting a keyword search term medoid that is based on cosine distances, wherein the keyword search term medoid is a keyword search term that is a most centrally located point in a respective cluster of keyword search terms; providing an output of the representative keyword search term to a user; and in response to a notification that includes one or more interactive features; updating the taxonomy library ... by adding the representative keyword search term to the taxonomy library in response to detecting a user selection of the representative keyword search term, wherein the engagement score associated with a given keyword search term-product pair is representative of a normalized combined rate of interaction of the given keyword search term-product pair across the one or more type of interaction.
When considering the subject matter groupings articulated in MPEP 2106.04, the claims recite an abstract idea of “determining a representative keyword search term”. This concept is considered to be a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The instant claims similarly recite collecting domain data, analyzing it, and providing a representative keyword as the result of the collection and analysis, with the data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality that they could be performed in the human mind.
Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. In this case, determining a representative keyword search term is an example of managing personal behavior because the method manages a product search by analyzing available information to recommend a representative keyword search term. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
If it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, then in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the SME analysis, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This is the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05, the evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In this instant case, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the additional elements including: a system comprising: one or more processors; a set of memory resources to store a set of instructions; data; a distributed computing platform; updating a taxonomy library stored in a database; the updating the taxonomy library allows the search engine to scale across website requirements having different entity sizes without the use of labeled training data; a service application executing on an operator mobile computing device; a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. execution on a generic computer). Additionally, the limitation reciting “slows the search engine to scale across websites” claims a desired result without the technical mechanism(s) for achieving it. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data, or simply adding a general purpose computer/components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea of “determining a representative keyword search term” into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. The invention as claimed merely automates “determining a representative keyword search term” (the abstract idea) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas beyond generally linking the abstract process to implementation via generic compute/software technology. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, do not render the claim as being significantly more than the underlying abstract idea, and the claims 1, 11, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 10, 12-15, and 21-22 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-5, 10, 12-15, and 21-22 are also ineligible.
Dependent claims 6-7 and 16-17 recite additional elements including: receive, from a service application executing on an operator mobile computing device, input data; and transmitting, to the service application executing on the operator mobile computing device, a first dataset … the first dataset causing an interface presented by the service application to display the representative keyword search term. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the service application and interface are described in ordinary terms and merely used as tools in performance of the abstract idea. These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and data output. MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been repeatedly considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17, considered both individually and as a combination, are ineligible.
Dependent claim 8-9 and 18-19 recite additional elements including: a library of taxonomies stored in a database. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the database and the storage and retrieval methods are described in ordinary terms and merely used as tools in performance of the abstract idea. These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering and data output. MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, storing and retrieving information in memory has been repeatedly considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claims 8-9 and 18-19, considered both individually and as a combination, are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “claim 1 is not a mental process and is not a method of organizing human activity”. Specifically, Applicant argues “no human can practically perform these claim-recited steps mentally” and “although implemented within the ecommerce context, the advance is not a fundamental economic practice or way managing human behavior”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Applicant argues a human cannot perform “computing a normalized combined engagement rate” or “executing cosine-distance computations to form clusters and detect medoids”, however these are still abstract concepts of mathematical calculations. In response to Applicant’s argument that “coordinating database-backed taxonomy updates across a distributed computing platform are computational tasks requiring specialized processing and data structures”, Examiner suggests amending to the claims to recite these specialized processes and data structures. As written, Claim 1 recites “updating the taxonomy library, stored in the database, by adding the representative keyword search term to the taxonomy library in response to detecting a user selection of the representative keyword search term”. The concept of updating a taxonomy library by adding a keyword to the taxonomy in response to detecting a user selection, is a human cognitive action. See Specification ¶ [0005] “the apparatus and methods described herein may prevent an operator from spending months on building a customer friendly and relevant taxonomy from scratch”. Examiner acknowledges that the taxonomy library is “stored in a database” thus invoking a generic computer, however claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2104.04). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts.
In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to the certain method of organizing human activity grouping, Examiner points to MPEP 2104.04(II)(C) which provides examples of managing personal behavior including: “filtering content” BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC and “considering historical usage information while inputting data” BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. These concepts are analogous to “update a taxonomy library” based on an analysis of interaction data, as presently claimed. Generally linking performance of these abstract ideas to a “computer” or “distributed computing environment”, with no recited details distinguishing this hardware from generic computers and arrangements, does not render the recited abstract ideas patent-eligible as further explained below.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “any mathematical concepts embedded in the claim (e.g., cosine distances for medoid selection) are integrated into a practical application that enhances computer functionality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Construction and maintenance of a taxonomy library of a search engine is a human endeavor as demonstrated in ¶ [0005] of Applicant’s Specification. The claimed steps consist of mental processes (identify keyword search term data associated with a first domain, determine keyword search term-product pairings associated with more than one type of interaction, determine clusters of keyword search term pairs, determine a representative keyword search term, provide output of the representative keyword search term to a user, and in response to a notification that includes one or more interactive features, update the taxonomy library by adding the representative keyword) and mathematical calculations. The claim’s ordered steps are equivalent to all human thinking: ingest data, analyze it, and then output a result. Improving the content of data stored in a database is not the same as improving the database technology or the computer itself. Claim 1 recites desired functional results of “allows the search engine to scale across website requirements having different entity sizes without the use of labeled training data”, but does not recite a technical mechanism for achieving this result. There is nothing recited in the claims to suggest a new or improved data structure, improved system resource, or changes to the functionality of existing search engines.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the ordered combination of limitations provides an inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine, or conventional activity”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an additional element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception.
Computing a normalized combined rate of interaction across multimer interaction types specifically for keyword-product pairs, selecting representative terms via medoid detection based on cosine distances within computer clusters, and updating a persistent taxonomy library in response to a structured user interaction are each abstract concepts of organizing information or mathematical calculations. As such, these features cannot furnish an inventive concept. A taxonomy library is information, and a database is a generic well-understood storage tool (see MPEP 2106.05(d) “Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Generally linking the data used in the abstract analysis to be “associated” with interactions “on a distributed computing platform” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception which does not meaningfully limit the claim.
Applicant furthers on page 13 of the Remarks, that paragraph 5 of the specification rebuts both the “mental process” and “method of organizing human activity” characterization. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 5 actually demonstrates that the underlying concepts of building and maintaining a search relevant taxonomy are mental processes previously performed by a human “operator”. Paragraph 5 also demonstrates that the claimed interactions are shopping/purchasing activities performed on an ecommerce platform, which sets forth sales activities and commercial interactions classified under certain methods of organizing human activity. The descriptions that the claimed apparatus and methods “may not require labeled training data and is not computational resource heavy” and “may be scalable to fit any website requirements of a variety of ecommerce entity sizes” are not sufficient to show a technical solution. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. The assertion that a claimed process may be performed without training data and with limited computational resources does not, by itself, render the process a technological improvement. These advantages describe simplicity of the abstract process itself, rather than any non-conventional use of computer resources or improvement to the operation of computers/technology. Furthermore, “scalable” is a desired result, not a technical solution. The claims fail to recite how the computer system is made scalable in a technical way.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner is maintaining the § 101 rejections of claims 1-22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lukas and M. Ponty (NPL Reference U) shows that by combining the user's taxonomy information with the collection's knowledge field information, search results relevancies can be increased.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached on 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688