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 06/16/2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
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 more than one of interaction; and execute a search ... in response to a subsequent search request, to access the updated taxonomy library during execution of a search and apply, during query evaluation, taxonomy associations ... to identify a results set of one or more products as a function of the search request and the updated taxonomy library.
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)”. Updating a taxonomy library with a representative keyword determined from search term-product pairings is business/sales activity used to improve conversion rate and relevance of product searches, as supported by ¶ [0003] of Applicant’s Specification. 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; execute a search engine; 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). Employing generic computer functions (i.e. updating/storing data, executing a search engine) 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 06/16/2026 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 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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.’’). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recited method of “determining a set of keyword search term-product pairings” based on “keyword search term data,” “product data,” and “interaction data,” further “determining one or more clusters of keyword search terms” based on “an engagement score associated with each keyword search term-product pairing,” and then “determining ... a representative keyword search term by detecting a keyword search term medoid that is based on cosine distances” is a mental process equivalent to 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). Regarding the limitation “determining a set of keyword search term-product pairing ... associated with more than one type of interaction on a distributed computing platform”, a human can determine a set of search term-product pairings associated with interactions on a distributed computing platform. The distributed computing platform is not doing anything in this limitation but providing an environment for the data associated with the determined pairing. Applicant has not explained how the limitation, “determining ... a representative keyword search term by detecting a keyword search term medoid that is based on cosine distances”, requires “evaluations across clustered data structures that cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper”. This limitation requires “detecting” a single medoid (i.e., computing distances between data points in a group, summing the distances, and selecting a minimum OR just noticing a provided medoid), which can practically be performed with pen and paper for a reasonably sized dataset. The amended “execute a search engine” is an additional element that invokes a generic search engine in its ordinary capacity to execute a search, however the underlying idea of accessing an updating taxonomy library during execution of a search can be performed by a human. Additionally, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity in the form of a sales activity, as explained in the 101 rejection. For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea in Prong One.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “the claims recite a practical application directed to improving the operation of a search engine system and therefore are not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The amended claim recites “executes a search engine, in response to a subsequent request,” and “access[] the updated taxonomy library during executing of a search” and “apply ... taxonomy associations stored in the updated taxonomy library ... in identifying a results set.” The recited search engine is not doing anything differently from existing search engines which ordinarily access updated databases/taxonomies to execute a search. Nothing about the mechanics of the recited search engine is altered by updating the taxonomy library. Furthermore, construction and maintenance of a taxonomy library of a search engine is a human endeavor as demonstrated in ¶ [0005] of Applicant’s Specification. The identification of a representative keyword search term, used to update the taxonomy, is based on an abstract analysis as explain in the rejection and response to the Prong One arguments above. Interaction data, organizing data in bipartite graph, and computational analysis are not outside of the realm of abstract information and analysis. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the claims are directed to the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the claim (e.g. updating a stored taxonomy, executing a search engine, etc.) add no more than mere instruction to implement the recited abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “this combination of limitations is not a routine or conventional use of computer components, by instead defines a specific architecture in which interaction-derived data is processed to construct and update a taxonomy library, which is then used to alter the execution path of a search engine during runtime query evaluation”.
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). Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract. Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an additional element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
“Determining a set of keyword search term-product pairings” based on multiple types of interaction data, “determining one or more clusters of keyword search terms” based on engagement scores, and “determining ... a representative keyword search term” using cosine-distance-based medoid detection” set forth an abstract analysis comprised of mental processes and a mathematical concept. The collection and analysis of information, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, is a mental process. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A. These features cannot furnish an inventive concept as they are not additional elements but steps of the abstract idea itself. The additional elements in claim 1, for example, amount to a computer updating a taxonomy library stored in a database and then accessing that stored/updated information with search engine that executes a search in the ordinary way. Running a search on an updated taxonomy library does not “alter the execution path of a search engine during runtime query evaluation” as Applicant argues. The search engine is accessing the same stored taxonomy library during query evaluation. Storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), as is electronic recordkeeping and updating data (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) and Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755). Search engines which access information stored in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional combination of elements (Zhu et al. US 2017/0308613 A1 ¶ [0023] “The search engine 120 may be an existing engine such as ... a Google® search engine, a Microsoft Bing™ search engine, a Yahoo® search engine, or another type of search engine. Search engine 120 may provide a search result (or query result) including a mix of Web pages, images, and other types of files, and may maintain real-time information by running an algorithm (e.g. a web crawler) to maintain an index. For example, when a user enters a query into a search engine (typically by using keywords), the engine examines its index and provides a listing of results”).
For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible because the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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:
Y. Song, S. Liu, X. Liu and H. Wang (NPL Reference U) studies a challenging problem of deriving a taxonomy from a set of keyword phrases using use a general-purpose knowledgebase and keyword search to supply the required knowledge and context.
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
Prosecution Insights