DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 01 August 2025.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, and claims 11-20 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of retrieving and providing search requests and results. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
a plurality of previous search results generated by supplier subsystems, in response to previous search requests received at the supplier subsystems, and
for each previous search result, a supplier identifier of the supplier subsystem having generated the previous search result;
receiving a current search request containing current search parameters;
responsive to receiving the current search request, selecting a set of the supplier subsystems for search result generation;
for a first supplier subsystem from the set, retrieving a previous search result associated with a second supplier subsystem from the set, based on correspondence between (i) the search parameters and (ii) attributes of the previous search result; and
sending, to the first supplier subsystem, (i) the current search request, and (ii) auxiliary search parameters corresponding to the retrieved previous search result, for generation of current search results at the first supplier subsystem employing the auxiliary search parameters as inputs.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of retrieving and providing search requests and results, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “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).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims are directed to providing the generation of current search results at a first provider that is based on a plurality of previous search results generated by a supplier system in response to previously received search requests, where each search result includes supplier identifiers of the supplier that generated the previous search result, receiving a current search request that has search parameters and then selecting a set of supplier subsystems for the search result generation, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: an aggregator, storing a repository, the aggregator, and the repository.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., retrieving and providing search requests and results) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of an aggregator, storing a repository, the aggregator, and the repository recited in independent claim 1, are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 11 is similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 11 includes the additional elements of a computing device, and a memory storing a repository. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of a computing device and a memory storing a repository in claim 11, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 11 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 11, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 1 and 11, respectively. The claims of 2-10 and 12-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims 9 and 19 include the additional elements of transmitting a New Distribution Capability (NDC)-formatted message and NDC-formatted message. Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 9 and 19 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 9 and 19, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, M., et al. (PGP No. US 2021/0406260 A1), in view of Hackleman, D., et a. (PGP No. US 2004/0088286 A1).
Claim 1-
Sharifi discloses a method, comprising:
at an aggregator, storing a repository containing (Sharifi, see FIG. 2 depicting the search system [i.e., aggregator] that includes search databases and historical query databases.):
a plurality of previous search results generated by subsystems, in response to previous search requests received at the subsystems (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “previously submitted the search queries” and “obtained resources that are responsive to the search query and provided them as search results” and “search results are provided to the user via a communicatively coupled computing device 103. Example search results 106A, 108A, 110A, and 112A rendered by computing device 103” and “results are provided…via a communicatively coupled computing device 103”; and paragraph [0028] disclosing “inputs received at 180A, 180B, and 180D share a line of inquiry with the current search query (180E)”; and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285 [i.e., subsystems]…indications of one or more highest ranked search results”), and
(ii) for each previous search result, an identifier of the subsystem having generated the previous search result (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0043] disclosing “entity tagger” and “may also use related prior input and/or other related data outside of the particular textual input to resolve one or more entity reference” and “a first query of a user in a dialog with the search system 212 may be ‘presidential debates’” and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285 [i.e., subsystem]…indications of one or more highest ranked search results”);
receiving a current search request containing current search parameters at the aggregator (Sharifi, see: [0027] disclosing “may determine that the user interface input at 180D is a current search query with at least a threshold level of semantic similarity to previously submitted search queries”; Also see FIG. 1B depicting that at step 180D the user has input “refurbished cell phone” which is the current search with parameters of refurbished for the cell phone type.);
responsive to receiving the current search request, selecting, at the aggregator, a set of the subsystems for search result generation (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0029] disclosing “virtual assistant searches one or more search databases” and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285 [i.e., subsystems]…indications of one or more highest ranked search results”);
for a first subsystem from the set, retrieving a previous search result associated in the repository with a subsystem from the set, based on correspondence between (i) the search parameters and (ii) attributes of the previous search results (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “virtual assistant may additional or alternatively compare the current search query to one or more previously-submitted search queries” and paragraph [0029] disclosing “searches one or more search databases based on the combined search query”; Also see FIG. 1B depicting that at step 180D the user has input ‘refurbished cell phone’ which is the current search with parameters of refurbished for the cell phone type, and then step 180E that has the search for ‘cell phone deals with new plan’, corresponding to both search parameters and previous search results.); and
sending, from the aggregator to the first subsystem, (i) the current search request, and (ii) auxiliary search parameters corresponding to the retrieved previous search result, for generation of current search results at the first subsystem employing the auxiliary search parameters as inputs (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0029] disclosing “virtual assistant…the most recent previously submitted search queries” and “may generate a combined query 104B based on determining search parameters 105B, 107B, and 109B of the combined query for each of the current search query” and “virtual assistant searches one or more search databases” and “provides them to the user 100 as result results”) (Examiner’s note: It is interpreted that the system of Sharifi is able to take the most recent search query and results with the current search query, and use the data to produce current search results that are ranked and provided to the user.)
Although Sharifi discloses subsystems that includes a plurality of databases that include previous search queries, previous search results, as well as current search queries and results, Sharifi does not explicitly describe that the subsystems are for a plurality of suppliers. Sharifi does not disclose:
supplier subsystems;
supplier identifier;
a set of suppliers;
a first supplier;
a second supplier;
the first supplier;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
supplier subsystems (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0059] teaching “A search subsystem 400”);
supplier identifier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “types of content suppliers” and “content suppliers from different organizations” and paragraph [0015] teaching ‘the content supplier 22 and the content supplier interface 26 can be the same device” and “can be identified by device”);
a set of suppliers (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “a large number of content suppliers”);
a first supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”);
a second supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”);
the first supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of supplier subsystems, supplier identifier, a set of suppliers, a first supplier, a second supplier, and the first supplier, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 2-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses further comprising:
sending the current search request from the aggregator to each remaining subsystem from the set, including the second subsystem (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0029] disclosing “virtual assistant…the most recent previously submitted search queries” and “may generate a combined query 104B based on determining search parameters 105B, 107B, and 109B of the combined query for each of the current search query”).
Sharifi does not disclose:
each supplier;
second supplier;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
each supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “a large number of content suppliers”);
second supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of each supplier and second supplier, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 3-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses further comprising:
storing, in the repository, auxiliary identifiers corresponding to at least a subset of the subsystems (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0043] disclosing “entity tagger” and “may also use related prior input and/or other related data outside of the particular textual input to resolve one or more entity reference” and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285”); and
identifying the first subsystem according to the auxiliary identifiers (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0043] disclosing “entity tagger” and “may also use related prior input and/or other related data outside of the particular textual input to resolve one or more entity references” and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285”).
Sharifi does not disclose:
enrollment identifiers;
the supplier subsystem;
the first supplier;
the enrollment identifiers;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
enrollment identifiers (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0015] teaching “content supplier interface” and “a content supplier interface is identified”; and see: paragraph [0016] teaching “Information must be entered into the system 20” and paragraph [0017] teaching “to the ‘content component’ or substantive content 24, records 28 can also include information relating to the content supplier”);
the supplier subsystem (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0059] teaching “A search subsystem 400”);
the first supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “a large number of content suppliers”);
the enrollment identifiers (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0015] teaching “content supplier interface” and “a content supplier interface is identified”; and see: paragraph [0016] teaching “Information must be entered into the system 20” and paragraph [0017] teaching “to the ‘content component’ or substantive content 24, records 28 can also include information relating to the content supplier”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of enrollment identifiers, the supplier subsystem, the first supplier, and the enrollment identifiers, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 4-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses further comprising:
storing, for each previous search result, a previous handling indicator defining whether the previous search result was returned from the aggregator to a client subsystem(Sharifi, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “sequence of searches performed by the virtual assistant…determines that a shared line of inquiry exists” and “the user 100 has previously submitted the search queries of ‘unlimited cell phone data plans’”; Also see FIG. 1A that displays the indication of a received search and indication of the ‘unlimited cell phone data plans’ that had been previously searched.);
wherein retrieving the previous search result is further based on the previous handling indicators (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0025] disclosing “the virtual assistant has obtained resources that are responsive to the search query and provided them as search results”; Also see: FIG 1A).
Claim 5-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses:
wherein the auxiliary search parameters include the identifier of the second subsystem (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0043] disclosing “entity tagger” and “may also use related prior input and/or other related data outside of the particular textual input to resolve one or more entity reference” and “a first query of a user in a dialog with the search system 212 may be ‘presidential debates’” and paragraph [0048] discloses “historical query data may include indications of search parameters submitted to the search system 212, or to another search system associated with the one or more historical query databases 285 [i.e., subsystem]…indications of one or more highest ranked search results”).
Sharifi does not disclose:
the second supplier;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
the second supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of the second supplier, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 6-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 5, as described above.
Sharifi discloses:
wherein the auxiliary search parameters include at least one of (i) a price of the previous search result, and (ii) an identifier of an associated service and a price of the associated service (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0030] disclosing “the combined search query 104B” and “the search results 106B, 108B, and 110B may additionally or alternatively be provided”; Also see FIG. 1B that displays the results with the optional parameters, which include a result with a price (i.e., el. 108B).)
Claim 7-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses further comprising:
storing, in the repository, configuration settings defining an age threshold for previous search results (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “two queries were received in a row and/or within a particular time interval of each other (e.g., during the same dialog session) may be used” and “two queries that otherwise have a modest measure of semantic similarity to each other may nonetheless be considered part of the same line of inquiry because they were received in a row, or at least within a time interval”);
wherein retrieving the previous search result omits previous search results having ages greater than the age threshold (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “two queries that otherwise have a modest measure of semantic similarity to each other may nonetheless be considered part of the same line of inquiry because they were received in a row, or at least within a time interval”).
Claim 8-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 7, as described above.
Sharifi discloses:
wherein the configuration settings further include, for the first supplier subsystem, a prioritized search result attribute (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0020] disclosing “two queries were received in a row and/or within a particular time interval of each other (e.g., during the same dialog session) may be used” and “two queries that otherwise have a modest measure of semantic similarity to each other may nonetheless be considered part of the same line of inquiry because they were received in a row, or at least within a time interval” and paragraph [0087] disclosing “the system may be configured to prioritize diversity of search parameters”); and
wherein retrieving the previous search result is further based on the prioritized search result attribute (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0087] disclosing “the system may be configured to prioritize diversity of search parameters” and “only select a search parameter to be included in the combined search query if there is sufficient semantic difference from the other selected search parameters or term”).
Sharifi does not disclose:
the first supplier;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
the first supplier(Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of the first supplier, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 10-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Sharifi discloses:
wherein retrieving the previous search result associated with the second subsystem includes (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0066] disclosing “produces a new combined search query with greater or lesser semantic similarity to the old combined search query and/or to the search results”):
selecting candidate previous search results associated with the second subsystem (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0066] disclosing “one or more candidate modifications for a given search parameter or group of search parameters may be determined and the candidate modification that produces a new combined search query”);
providing the candidate previous search results and the search parameters to a classifier, to obtain a relevance indicator for each of the candidate previous search results (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0066] disclosing “one or more candidate modifications for a given search parameter or group of search parameters may be determined and the candidate modification that produces a new combined search query” and “may select those previously-submitted previous search queries with search parameters or results indicating a very high level of semantic similarity to a current query for creating the initial combined search query” and “may select the search parameters determined based on those semantically similar previously submitted search queries that have the lowest levels of similarity to the parameters included in the current query”); and
selecting the previous search result by comparing the relevance indicators to a threshold (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0066] disclosing “may select the search parameters determined based on those semantically similar previously submitted search queries that have the lowest levels of similarity to the parameters included in the current query”).
Sharifi does not disclose:
the second supplier;
Hackleman, however, does teach:
the second supplier (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of the second supplier, as taught by Hackleman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve search interfaces by focusing on search parameters to retrieve more updated and relevant information (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a system. Claim 11 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claim 11 also recites the features of a processor, a memory storing a repository, and the computing device, disclosed by Sharifi (see at least FIG. 2 of Sharifi, depicting the search system that includes the computing device that contains the input devices and the user interfaces that can search databases and historical query databases.). Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a system. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claim 12 also recites the computing device, disclosed by Sharifi (Sharifi, see: FIG. 2). Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a system. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claim 14 also recites the computing device, disclosed by Sharifi (Sharifi, see: FIG. 2). Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a method. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a system. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a system. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a system. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards a method. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharifi, M., et al., in view of Hackleman, D., et a., and O’Neil-Dunne, T., et al. (Patent No. US 9,904,964 B1).
Claim 9-
Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Although Sharifi discloses the subsystem the auxiliary search parameters contained in a field (Sharifi, see FIG. 1B displaying the optional parameters that are of high importance and low importance.), and Hackleman teaches the supplier subsystem (Hackleman, paragraph (Hackleman, see: paragraph [0013] teaching “large number of content suppliers 22 and a wide variety of different content supplier types”), Sharifi does not disclose:
wherein providing the search request includes transmitting a New Distribution Capability (NDC)-formatted message, wherein the parameters are contained in a field of the NDC-formatted message.
O’Neil-Dunne, however, does teach:
wherein providing the search request includes transmitting a New Distribution Capability (NDC)-formatted message, wherein the parameters are contained in a field of the NDC-formatted message (O’Neil-Dunne, see: Claim 1, teaching “a travel product query” and “one or more data schemas may be either schema compliant with the new distribution capability or schema not compliant with the new distribution capability”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sharifi, to include the features of wherein providing the search request includes transmitting a New Distribution Capability (NDC)-formatted message, wherein the parameters are contained in a field of the NDC-formatted message, as taught by O’Neil-Dunne . One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Sharifi to improve the performance of product databases for customers (O’Neil-Dunne, see at least Col. 1, ln. 37-61).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a system. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b), and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 01 August, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 7-8 of the remarks stating that “The claims are not, in fact, directed to a method of organizing human activity,” and “The claims have no connection whatsoever to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or management of personal behavior. In particular whether the search requests are associated with products or services that can be sold is entirely irrelevant, as the claims makes no mention whatsoever of their sale or any other form of disposition,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of retrieving and providing search requests and results, as stated in the Office action above. The abstract idea falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the steps are related to sales activities or behaviors. The claims specifically recite activities of receiving a current search request containing search parameters, responsive to receiving the current search request, the selection of a set of the supplier subsystems for search results are generated, for a first supplier subsystem set, retrieving a previous search result associated with a second supplier subsystem from the set based on correspondence between the search parameters and attributes of the previous search results, and sending the current search request and the auxiliary search parameters corresponding to the retrieved previous search result for generation of current search results at the first supplier subsystem employing the auxiliary search parameters as inputs. Although the claims do not recite a specific step for purchasing, transaction, or buying, the claims are related to sales activities or sales behaviors because the claims involve the steps of performing a current search request (i.e., for products and services), with parameters and based on the current search request, the selection of a set of supplier subsystems for search result generation occurs, where the first supplier subsystem from the set retrieves a previous search result that is associated with a second supplier subsystem, and then sending to the first supplier subsystem the current search request and the auxiliary search parameters corresponding to the retrieved previous search result for generation of the current search results and the first supplier subsystem employing the auxiliary search parameters as inputs. Therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea that falls into the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically related to sales activities or behaviors.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 8 of the remarks stating “Applicant further submits that, to the extent that claims recite any category of abstract idea, the claims plainly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,” and “By automatically enriching search requests using previous search results, the claimed method and computing device can narrow the search space, leading to fewer and/or more relevant search results for the same expenditure of computational resources,” and “the underlying computer system is therefore improved,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements, that when considered in combination and individually, are recited in a generic manner and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea by using generic computing components. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology or a technical field. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0026] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention that is directed toward solving problems related to difficult search results, leading to generating more accurate and relevant search results, which can further result in improved “revenue for the operating entity of the relevant supplier subsystem 116”. Although the claims include computer technology such as an aggregator, storing a repository, the aggregator, and the repository, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing search requests and results. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in more relevant search results, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve search results, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements such as improvements to the computer system. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the 101 rejection is maintained.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 01 August 2025 have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 9-10 of the remarks stating that “The asserted combination of Sharifi and Hackleman does not disclose or suggest at least the following limitations of claim 1 or the equivalent limitations of independent claim 11: (I) ‘for a first supplier subsystem from the set, retrieving a previous search result associated in the repository with a second supplier subsystem from the set, based on correspondence between (i) the search parameters and (ii) attributes of the previous search results’, (II) ‘sending, from the aggregator to the first supplier subsystem, (i) the current search request, and (ii) auxiliary search parameters corresponding to the retrieved previous search result, for generation of current search results at the first supplier subsystem employing the auxiliary search parameters as inputs’,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references of Sharifi in view of Hackleman teach the limitations. For example, Sharifi is relied upon to disclose the limitations of for a first subsystem from the set, retrieving a previous search result associated in the repository with a subsystem from the set, based on correspondence between (i) the search parameters and (ii) attributes of the previous search results, as Sharifi describes a virtual assistant that utilizes a current search query to compare to a previously submitted search by au ser (Sharifi, see: paragraphs [0028]-[0029]). The utilized searches are extracted from search databases that are specific to a combined search query of a current search and a previous search (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0029]). Further, as depicted in FIG. 1B, the user can input a search of a ‘refurbished cell phone’ which encompasses the current search, taking place at a present time, and then the next step of Sharifi (step 180E) is rendered to show the cell phone deals with a new plan corresponding to the user’s previous search for phones that also includes the current parameters and the previous search results (Sharifi, see: FIG. 1B). Next, Sharifi describes that the virtual assistant utilizes the most previous submitted search queries to generate the combined query with the new and current search, and provides the user with the updated search results by transmitting this information of the current search, with the parameters, the retrieved search from a previous search, and the newly updated results, to the user device (Sharifi, see: paragraph [0029] and FIG. 1B). Although Sharifi describes this virtual assistant that can search a plurality of databases that include previous searches and results, as well as the current search of a user, Sharifi does not specifically disclose that the sources are a plurality of suppliers. The reference of Hackleman is merely relied upon to demonstrate subsystems that can include supplier information, such as supplier identifiers, and where the subsystems can include a large number of content suppliers to choose from (Hackleman, see: paragraphs [0013], [0015[, and [0059]). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references teach the limitations, and thus maintains the 103 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Garg, A., et al. (Patent No. US 8,725,756 B1), describes methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, in which one or more search query suggestions are made for a current search session. Similar previous search sessions which include search queries common to the current search session are identified. Based upon the similar previous search sessions, one or more suggested search queries are derived and provided to a search engine interface for serving to a user or a client.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of re