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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “By this Amendment, claims 1, 17, and 29 have been amended. Support for the amendments may be found in Applicant's Specification as originally filed. See, e.g., Specification, [0045]- [0047]1. No new subject matter has been added. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of the claims in view of the presented amendments and accompanying remarks. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1-12, 14-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the Office Action alleges that the claims are directed to a " mental process" and do "not provide integration into a practical application." See Office Action, pp. 19-21…….. While Applicant disagrees with the Examiner's position, to advance prosecution, Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 17, and 29 to clarify that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception and the practical application integration of step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG. For i Applicant notes that these portions of Applicant's Specification are provided as examples only, and that other portions of Applicant's Specification also may describe aspects of the invention related to these claim features…... Accordingly, "the understanding of improvement points from a point of view of the user of the search engine may be improved, and thus the improvement points of the search engine may be rapidly and easily discovered, thereby improving search engine performance." See, e.g., id. at [0030]”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant argues that the claimed operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind because claim 1 now recites “calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string, and”, “determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention by using a clustering technique with respect to the embedding vector”, Examiner cites that “determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention
The limitation “calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector to the corresponding string, and”, recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
The limitations “by applying a pre-trained model”, “by using a clustering technique” are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
The amendments are directed to abstract ideas i.e. mental process and mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
Applicant further relies on the Specification’s statement that the claimed operations provide a search-engine performance-evaluation method that may discover search sessions requiring improvement and may thereby improve search-engine performance. However, the claims do not reflect any improvement to the technology. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Consequently, the operations recited in independent claims 1, 17, and 29 include meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment because they solve a real problem with a solution that improves the functioning of an electronic apparatus and provides an improved user experience by improving the performance of a search engine, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). These limitations provide unconventional steps that integrate claims 1, 17, and 29 to a practical application, and improve the search engine performance, as described in Applicant's Specification”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the amended limitations are abstract ideas. Examiner cites that “determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention
The limitation “calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector
The limitations “by applying a pre-trained model”, “by using a clustering technique” are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
The cited court case and the present application claims are not similar, therefore, the arguments with respect to the court case and the present application claims are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “In addition, it is submitted that independent claims 1, 17, and 29 are allowable for similar reasons as the claims in Weisner v. Google, LLC, 51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (precedential). In Weisner, the Federal Circuit considered claim 1 of U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,394,905 and 10,642,911. The claims at issue were directed to a method of directed "creating and using travel histories to improve computerized search results." Id. at 1084. It was found that these claims recited the "accumulation of physical location histories in a highly generic fashion," and then using these histories "in digital searches." Id. at 1084-85. Although it was found that the claims did "not invent a new search engine algorithm," the Court found that "the claims' specificity as to the mechanism through which they achieve improved search results" was sufficient to demonstrate a technological improvement. The pending claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons because they improve the search engine performance, i.e., achieve improved search results”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited court case and the present application claims are not similar, therefore, the arguments with respect to the court case and the present application claims are not persuasive.
The limitations “generate a similar search intention cluster….for each search intention”, “generate a similar behavior pattern cluster….behavior pattern”, “generate a behavior…search session”, “generate a specific behavior…by the user”, identify a problem of the search engine…”, “generate a correction solution…..search session”, “determine the result of the session…embedding vector” are mental process because human mind can generate and determine by evaluation and judgement of data.
The limitations “calculate and embedding vector…forming the embedding vector” is a mathematical calculation and mathematical concept.
The additional elements are “output a similar search….”, “output a similar behavior pattern…”, “output a behavior of the search…”, “output a specific behavior of the user….”, “output a tag tagged….”, “output a correction solution…”, are insignificant extra solution activities of data outputting and well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
The limitations “the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user”, -“by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string”, “by using a clustering technique” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Furthermore, similarly to claim 1 of Example 37 of the "2019 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility", the pending claims contain additional elements that focus on an improvement in another technology or field and the practical application of such an improvement. Claim 1 of Example 37 is generally directed to rearranging icons on a graphical user interface based on the amount of use of each icon. In a similar manner, the pending claims are generally directed to subdividing user behavior in the search session according to an intention of the user, and applying similarity information of the search session in units of user behaviors based on similarity between subdivided search behaviors, and finding a search session not satisfying a search intent of a search engine user in a large-scale search session record. See, e.g., Specification,… Thus, under the guidance discussed above, the instant claims 1, 17, and 29 are eligible because the claims are directed to a practical application of a particular improvement, and as such, are not directed to a judicial exception….For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-12, 14-24, and 26- 29 are directed to patent eligible subject matter, and respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of claims 1-12, 14-24, and 26-29, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The cited court case and the present application claims are not similar, therefore, the arguments with respect to the court case and the present application claims are not persuasive. The instant claims do not reflect any improvement to the technology. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
Detailed explanation is cited below in the 101 sections.
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 1-12, 14-24, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claims 1, 17:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to “an apparatus", “a method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate a similar search intention cluster using a search performance metric value for each search session and a result of session clustering for each search intention” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a similar search intention cluster using a metric value for each search session and cluster the session based on the search intention by evaluation and judgement/observation.
-“generate a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster through clustering of a first search session indicating a similar behavior pattern in the similar search intention cluster by using the result of the session clustering for each user behavior pattern” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster of the search session indicating a similar behavior pattern by using the result of the session cluster by evaluation and judgement/observation of data.
-“generate a behavior of the user for each search session” recites a mental process because human mind can generate behavior of a user for each search session by evaluation and judgment.
-“generate a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user, specific behavior of a user for each search session i.e. information searched by user and search results clicked by a user by evaluation and judgment/observation of data.
-“identify a problem of the search engine based on an analysis result of the tagged specific search session selected by the user and the specific behavior of the user” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a problem of a search engine based on an analysis of a session selected by the user and also by analyzing the specific behavior of the user by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“generate a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine using the tag of the specific search sessions by evaluation and judgement.
-“calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector , and” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention by with respect to the embedding vector” recites a mental process because human mind can determine the results of the sessions clustering for each search intention with respect to the embedding vector by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“an apparatus for evaluating search engine performance”, “one or more processor”, “memory storing one or more programs”, “wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the apparatus to:”, “a method for evaluating search engine performance, the method performed on a computing device including one or more processors and a memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising:” “wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the apparatus to:” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“output a similar search intention cluster using a search performance metric value for each search session and a result of session clustering for each search intention” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster through clustering of a first search session indicating a similar behavior pattern in the similar search intention cluster by using the result of the session clustering for each user behavior pattern” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a behavior of a user for each search session” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“ the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“output a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user, the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a tag tagged to the specific search session selected by the user, the tag comprising natural language indicating a second search session that failed to satisfy a search user” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string”, “by using a clustering technique” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a similar search intention cluster using a search performance metric value for each search session and a result of session clustering for each search intention” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster through clustering of a first search session indicating a similar behavior pattern in the similar search intention cluster by using the result of the session clustering for each user behavior pattern” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a behavior of a user for each search session” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a tag tagged to the specific search session selected by the user, the tag comprising natural language indicating a second search session that failed to satisfy a search user” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“ the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string”, “by using a clustering technique” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 18:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output the search performance metric value for each cluster, together with the similar search intention cluster” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output the search performance metric value for each cluster, together with the similar search intention cluster” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 3, 19:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output a representative query for each cluster in the form of as a word cloud, based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over
and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a representative query for each cluster in the form of as a word cloud, based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 20:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output an outlier cluster to which a distinguishing mark is added” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and wherein the outlier cluster comprises a cluster collecting a third search session failing to classify a search intention” is an insignificant extra solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over
and does not provide significantly more.
-“output an outlier cluster to which a distinguishing mark is added, and the outlier cluster is a cluster collecting a search session failing to classify a search intention” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“and wherein the outlier cluster comprises a cluster collecting a third search session failing to classify a search intention” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output a size of the similar search intention cluster in proportion to the number a number of search sessions included in each cluster, based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
-The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and
does not provide significantly more.
-“output a size of the similar search intention cluster in proportion to the number a number of search sessions included in each cluster, based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6, 21:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“calculate an average metric value for each cluster for a specific search performance metric selected by the user among a plurality of search performance metrics of the search engine” is a mental process because human mind can calculate an average metric value for each cluster selected for the search engine by evaluation and judgement.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output, based on the average metric value, each cluster in a distinguishable color” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output, based on the average metric value, each cluster in a distinguishable color” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster based on the similar search intention cluster being output” recites a mental process because human mind generate a distribution of a search performance of a metric value for each cluster by looking at the data being output by evaluation and judgment.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
- “output distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
- “output distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster based on the similar search intention cluster being output” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“change a distinguishing mark status for each cluster through adjustment of a threshold value that is a reference of the distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster” recites a mental process because human mind can change the mark status.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the similar search intention cluster comprises bundle of keywords for each topic” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
-“output another list of keywords associated with a cluster selected by the user and another search performance metric value of the cluster in a pop-up form” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output another list of keywords associated with a cluster selected by the user and another search performance metric value of the cluster in a pop-up form” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10, 23:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate a representative behavior pattern for each similar behavior pattern cluster, and to classify a specific user behavior for each representative behavior pattern using a distinguishable icon and color” recites a mental process because human mind generate and classify search behavior of a user by an icon and color by evaluation and judgment.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output a representative behavior pattern for each similar behavior pattern cluster”, and “output a specific user behavior for each representative behavior pattern using a distinguishable icon and color” are insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See, MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a representative behavior pattern for each similar behavior pattern cluster”, and “output a specific user behavior for each representative behavior pattern using a distinguishable icon and color” are well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11, 24:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the apparatus, based on a specific similar behavior pattern cluster is selected being selected by the user to: output a list of search sessions included in the selected similar behavior pattern cluster, and to and output query information and a user behavior matched to each search session” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the apparatus, based on a specific similar behavior pattern cluster is selected being selected by the user to: output a list of search sessions included in the selected similar behavior pattern cluster, and to and output query information and a user behavior matched to each search session” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“adjust, based on the list of search sessions being output, sorting of the list of search sessions according to the search performance metric value for each search session” recites a mental process because human mind can adjust search sessions by sorting according to a metric value by looking at the output data by evaluation and judgment.
Claims 14, 26:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“compare an input query for each search session and an expanded query for the input query” recites a mental process because human mind can compare query sessions and compare a search result for each search session and a specific behavior of the user for the search result by evaluation and judgment.
-“compare a search result for each search session and the specific behavior of the user for the search result” recites a mental process because human mind can compare query sessions and compare a search result for each search session and a specific behavior of the user for the search result by evaluation and judgment.
Claims 15, 27:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output a first search window for searching for a specific query in the similar search intention cluster” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a second search window for searching for a specific behavior pattern in the similar behavior pattern cluster” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output an input window for tagging at least one search session” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a first search window for searching for a specific query in the similar search intention cluster” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a second search window for searching for a specific behavior pattern in the similar behavior pattern cluster” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output an input window for tagging at least one search session” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 16, 28:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“output a result including at least one of an input specific behavior pattern or a sequence of the input specific behavior pattern” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a result including at least one of an input specific behavior pattern or a sequence of the input specific behavior pattern” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“wherein the generating the similar search intention cluster includes generating and distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster, and changing a distinguishing mark status for each cluster through adjustment of a threshold value that is a reference of the distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster” recites a mental process because human mind can generate distribution of a search metric value of each cluster and chaining a distinguish mark status for each cluster by a distinguishing mark comparing through by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein outputting the similar search intention cluster includes outputting distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting” in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“wherein outputting the similar search intention cluster includes outputting distribution of the search performance metric value for each cluster” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 29:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to “an apparatus", “a method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“identify a problem of the search engine based on an analysis result of the tagged specific search session selected by the user and the specific behavior of the user” recites a mental process because human mind can identify a problem of the search engine based on an analysis by evaluation and judgement/observation of data.
-“generate a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a correction solution using the tag of the specific search sessions by evaluation and judgment/observation of data.
-“calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector , and” recites a mathematical concept and mathematical calculation.
-“determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention by with respect to the embedding vector” recites a mental process because human mind can determine the results of the sessions clustering for each search intention with respect to the embedding vector by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a dashboard comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the dashboard to”, “wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the apparatus to:” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“output a similar search intention cluster using a search performance metric value for each search session and a result of session clustering for each search intent” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster through clustering of a first search session indicating a similar behavior pattern in the similar search intention cluster using the result of the session clustering for each user behavior pattern” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a behavior of a user for each search session” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user, the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“output a tag tagged to the specific search session selected by the user, the tag comprising natural language indicating a second search session that failed to satisfy a search user” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“and output a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session” is an insignificant extra solution activity as “data outputting”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string”, “by using a clustering technique” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“output a similar search intention cluster using a search performance metric value for each search session and a result of session clustering for each search intent” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a similar behavior pattern cluster and a behavior pattern for each cluster through clustering of a first search session indicating a similar behavior pattern in the similar search intention cluster using the result of the session clustering for each user behavior pattern” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a behavior of a user for each search session; and session” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user, the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“output a tag tagged to the specific search session selected by the user, the tag comprising natural language indicating a second search session that failed to satisfy a search user” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“and output a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string”, “by using a clustering technique” is Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type”. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Therefore, the limitation does not recite any improvement to the technology.
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior art considerations
Prior arts of record Misiewicz et al. (US 2022/0138258) teaches search intention cluster, performance metric value, search sessions in paragraphs fig. 2, [0041].
Guntar et al. (US 2022/0318378) teaches behavior pattern cluster, search sessions in paragraph [0064, fig. 2].
Convolbo et al. (US 2021/0097352) teaches user selecting a specific user session cluster in paragraph [0103].
Kota et al. (US 2021/0286851) teaches calculating embedding vectors in paragraph [0024, 0026].
Xu et al. (US 2021/0192460) teaches calculating embedding vectors in paragraphs [0072, 0073].
Alcock et al. (US 2020/0082212) teaches calculating embedding vectors in paragraph [0046].
Prior arts of record does not explicitly teach “generate and output a specific behavior of the user for a specific search session selected by the user, the specific behavior of the user comprising information searched by the user using a search engine, and a search result clicked in relation to a search intent of the user; output a tag tagged to the specific search session selected by the user, the tag comprising natural language indicating a second search session that failed to satisfy a search user; identify a problem of the search engine based on an analysis result of the tagged specific search session selected by the user and the specific behavior of the user; and generate and output a correction solution connected to the tag that addresses the problem of the search engine, using the tag of the specific search session, and wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the apparatus to: calculate an embedding vector of a search intention for each search session by merging one or more queries of each search session into a corresponding string and forming the embedding vector by applying a pre-trained model to the corresponding string, and determine the result of the session clustering for each search intention by using a clustering technique with respect to the embedding vector” as recited by the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights