DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended.
Claims 4 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are currently 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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of 02/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 04/14/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the scoring and ranking steps are isolated from the rest of the claim and therefore they are embedded in a larger technical process and cannot be meaningfully extracted as a standalone “calculation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Representative claim 1 recites certain claim limitations that are directed to the abstract idea of ranking search results. These limitations include: a search results section and a search adjustment section to receiver user input; determining a plurality of factors in response to receiving a search query; determining a plurality of factor ranges corresponding to the plurality of factors, wherein the plurality of factor ranges are based on one or more of logically possible values or data attributes of the plurality of search results; displaying using the search adjustment section, a plurality of elements corresponding to the plurality of factors and the plurality of factor ranges; determining a plurality of environment trigger conditions; modifying the plurality of factors, wherein modifying the plurality of factors includes one or more of adding a new factor to the plurality of factors or removing a factor form the plurality of factors; and adjusting the plurality of factor ranges in response to a second environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions; displaying, using the search adjustment section, a modified plurality of elements corresponding to the modified plurality of factors and the adjusted plurality of factor ranges; receiving using the modified plurality of elements, a plurality of factor weights for the modified plurality of factors, the plurality of factor weights being within the adjusted plurality of factor ranges; scoring each of the plurality of search results using the plurality of factor weights; ranking the plurality of search results based on the scoring; displaying using the search results section, the ranked plurality of search results for selection by the user; wherein the first environment trigger condition of the second environment trigger condition includes a change in availability of an item corresponding to the one of the plurality of search results; in reposen to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by receiving geolocation data indicating a change in location, removing one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying an updated plurality of search results from which the removed one or more search results are absent; and in respoen to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring the plurality of search results.
The abstract idea recited in claim 1 is certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites limitations directed towards commercial or legal interactions, specifically sales activities. Additionally, claim 1 recites limitations that require calculations using a known formula and therefore recite abstract idea considered to be mathematical concepts. Examiner notes that Step 2A prong 1 evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception, which limitations of the claim recite the judicial exception, and why it is considered a judicial exception. Step 2A prong 2 evaluates the additional elements AND considers the claim as a whole.
On pages 14-15, Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong Two that the claims recite a specific machine configuration in which hardware components interact with external signal sources to drive real-time modifications to the search engines’ s evaluative framework and therefore is not a generic computer passively executing an algorithm. Applicant further argues that the multi-trigger architecture with differentiated automated responses is a specific technological implementation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification mentions that search results may be updated dynamically in response to changes. Specification at page 7, lines 16-25. Additionally, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the external device may be any type of device that allows for input or output and may be part of computing device which may monitor conditions by receiving data from one or more external devices such as receiving certain trigger conditions or changes may trigger the addition or removal of a weighted factor, adjustment of a range of values, availability of search results, or ranking of search result. Specification and pages 14-15, lns 15-25 & 1-5. These statements are considered conclusory statements because there is no explanation as to how the invention improves the functionality of the user interface or controllable elements and is therefore insufficient to demonstrate that the claims improve technology. Applicant argues that the claims recite specific hardware architecture including a processing device, memory device, input/output device, and external devices. However, a computing device that include a processor, memory, input/output means, and ability to communicate with ANY type of external device in order to facilitate the implementation of rules and equations is performing in a typical generic fashion of a generic general purpose computer. Simply saying it is “specific” does not mean that there was actual a difference to this computer vs. others or a technological solution implemented as a result of the “specific” hardware architecture. The instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” but are directed to improving the commercial task of ranking search results. The claimed process is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor/user interface latency and/or user interface and/or computer components and/or display and/or sensor that operate the system. The specification discloses that data may be updated based on monitored factors such as geolocation. This is not a technical improvement to the search interface. Rather, it is taking known methods of monitoring to do routine updates of data that is displayed. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements.
At most, the information provided to the end user is improved based on the various factors and triggers. This however, is an improvement to the abstract idea and not a technical solution to a technical problem. The elements including the geolocation information are merely data points or data processing itself. They are not additional elements such as computer architecture. The same is true of the environment triggers. These are merely a set of rules that are applied to the data to improve the output. That is an improvement to the abstract idea. Additionally, removing “stale search results for a moving user” is not a technical problem, but rather a problem directed towards the abstract idea of providing improved search results. The implementation of these steps by a computer to make the process timely and improve mobile communication efficiency is merely the tangential result of performing a task by a computer. The courts have found that accelerating a process (i.e., data retrieval) when the increase speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general purpose computer, (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Syst., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) was not sufficient to show improvement to the computer functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Further, the use of a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further see Affinity Labs V. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures / LLC V. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
On page 16, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more and that the specific ordered combination of elements in the amended claims is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. When reviewed in combination, the claims do not recite an unconventional combination. The additional elements are merely using a computing device to modify factors for presenting search results is merely data processing (sending and receiving). As noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner that merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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 are considered individually. 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 eligibility analysis, 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.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 04/14/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not disclose "determining, by the processing device, a plurality of environment trigger conditions based on one or more signals received from one or more external devices through the input/output device, and monitoring, by the processing device, the one or more signals received through the input/output device to detect occurrence of the plurality of environment trigger conditions", "modifying, by the processing device, the plurality of factors in response to detecting a first environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, wherein modifying the plurality of factors includes one or more of adding a new factor to the plurality of factors or removing a factor from the plurality of factors", "adjusting, by the processing device, the plurality of factor ranges in response to detecting a second environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions", "in response to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by the input/output device receiving geolocation data from one of the one or more external devices indicating a change in location of the computing device, removing, by the processing device, one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying, by the computing device to the user interface, an updated plurality of search results from which the removed one or more search results are absent", and "in response to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring, by the processing device, the plurality of search results". Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Revelle discloses “determining, by the processing device, a plurality of environment trigger conditions based on one or more signals received from one or more external devices through the input/output device”. See at least paragraph [0024] disclosing system generating list of data fields and user selecting the factors form the list of the data field – Examiner notes that an environment trigger is considered to be any sort of manipulation to the search, [0029], [0018] disclosing processor and memory device part of computer and computing device connecting over communications path with search system, [0020], [0022] disclosing input device. While Setty discloses “monitoring, by the processing device, the one or more signals received through the input/output device to detect occurrence of the plurality of environment trigger conditions”. See at least paragraph [0043], [0049], [0071], [0073]. Examiner notes that Applicant used incorrect markings to indicate amendments with respect to at least the “monitoring, by the processing device, the one or more signals received through the input/output device to detect occurrence of the plurality of environment trigger conditions” as this is all newly added limitations.
Revelle discloses "modifying, by the processing device, the plurality of factors in response to detecting a first environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, wherein modifying the plurality of factors includes one or more of adding a new factor to the plurality of factors or removing a factor from the plurality of factors". See at least paragraph [0024]-[0025] & [0034] disclosing user choosing which factors to be used in the search, [0035].
Revelle discloses "adjusting, by the processing device, the plurality of factor ranges in response to detecting a second environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions". See at least paragraph [0024]-[0025] & [0034] disclosing indicating ranges such as max and min, Figs. 3A, 3B, & 4 disclosing entering in range information.
Greenwald discloses "in response to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by the input/output device receiving geolocation data from one of the one or more external devices indicating a change in location of the computing device, removing, by the processing device, one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying, by the computing device to the user interface, an updated plurality of search results from which the removed one or more search results are absent". See at least Abstract, paragraph [0015] disclosing datasets and no rescoring, [0024] & [0151] disclosing automatically changing time/location changes availability of “items”, [0025] disclosing as the location of the device or the desired location of the device changes, the venues and events around the updated location will also change, automatically detect the change in location of the device and update the venue and event dataset to include the venues within a pre-determined or defined region that currently surrounds the device, [0087] disclosing users can add and remove filters to manipulate and change information from dataset and the presentation of that information on the display, [0093] disclosing search results of venues change and update with location of device, [0110] disclosing options available for the area, [0118]-[0120] disclosing ability to select on search result for more information from user interface, [0138] disclosing based on conditions (e.g., tag being removed), interface may remove all venues and events that contain this tag, [0145] disclosing as location changes, information on map including what is available will change, [0158]-[0159] disclosing availability of events/venues changes based on change of time, location, etc. and disclosing the filter selections or options in the filter menu changes as the time window changes… filter menus are modified or changes to reflect what is available at a given time or time period as determined by the dataset based on the location, tag and time filters, [0168] disclosing as location is changes, the icons in filter panel will also change to reflect the available filter options, Fig. 31 and 32A-D.
Setty discloses "in response to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring, by the processing device, the plurality of search results". See at least paragraph [0107] disclosing updating in real time or near real time or periodically updates to user preferences by looking at historical activity/new user activity data, [0097] & [0108] disclosing determining confidence scores based on user activity, weights, preferences, etc. that can be used in ranking results.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 103 rejection.
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 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims re directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-3 and 5-10, is directed to a process. Additionally, the computer program product, as claimed in claims 11-13 and 15-20, is directed to an apparatus
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of ranking search results. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of: a method for ranking dynamic search results comprising:
a search results section and a search adjustment section to receiver user input;
determining a plurality of factors in response to receiving a search query;
determining a plurality of factor ranges corresponding to the plurality of factors, wherein the plurality of factor ranges are based on one or more of logically possible values or data attributes of the plurality of search results;
displaying using the search adjustment section, a plurality of elements corresponding to the plurality of factors and the plurality of factor ranges;
determining a plurality of environment trigger conditions;
modifying the plurality of factors, wherein modifying the plurality of factors includes one or more of adding a new factor to the plurality of factors or removing a factor form the plurality of factors; and
adjusting the plurality of factor ranges in response to a second environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions;
displaying, using the search adjustment section, a modified plurality of elements corresponding to the modified plurality of factors and the adjusted plurality of factor ranges;
receiving using the modified plurality of elements, a plurality of factor weights for the modified plurality of factors, the plurality of factor weights being within the adjusted plurality of factor ranges;
scoring each of the plurality of search results using the plurality of factor weights;
ranking the plurality of search results based on the scoring;
displaying using the search results section, the ranked plurality of search results for selection by the user;
wherein the first environment trigger condition of the second environment trigger condition includes a change in availability of an item corresponding to the one of the plurality of search results;
in reposen to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by receiving geolocation data indicating a change in location, removing one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying an updated plurality of search results from which the removed one or more search results are absent; and
in respoen to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring the plurality of search results.
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 MPEP 2106.04(a). The claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of ranking search results, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain 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 determining factors, determining ranges, determining trigger conditions, modifying factors, adjusting ranges, displaying elements/modified elements/search results, receiving weights, scoring, and ranking the results are commercial or legal interactions because they are sales activities.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is considered to be mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts include “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). In this case, receiving a plurality of weights, scoring the search results using the weights, and ranking the search results in response to the scoring are mathematical calculations because they require a calculation using a known formula for calculating search result scores. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised 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). When an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as user interface with different sections, a computing device including a processing device, a memory device, and an input/output device in communication with one or more external devices, plurality of controllable elements, one or more of a sensor or network interface, data structure, a modified plurality of controllable elements including a slider tool, a display. Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573, U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)) and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). MPEP 2106.05(f). Similarly, specifying that the abstract idea of ranking search results occurs within an electronic world merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic interface. Since the additional elements merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea and, thus, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
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 recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
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 are 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, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (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 eligibility analysis, 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.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: capturing an image of a bar code (claim 10). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-9 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-3 and 5-10 are also ineligible.
Independent claim 11 recites the same abstract idea recited in representative claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computer program product for use on a computer system comprising tangible, non-transient computer usable medium having computer readable program code. The additional elements in independent claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent clams 12-13 and 15-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-3 and 5-10. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-3 and 5-10, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 12-13 and 15-20 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Revelle (US 2017/0011038) in view of Setty et al. (US 2016/0125498), and further in view of Greenwald et al. (US 2016/0259500).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Revelle discloses a method for ranking dynamic search results (See at least Abstract, [0031] disclosing search results sorted based on weightings)
Providing a user interface operatively coupled with and in communication with a computing device (See at least paragraph [0018]), the user interface including a search results section configured to display a plurality of search results and a search adjustment section configured to receive user input, (Revelle: see at least Fig. 3A-B, Fig. 4, 5 disclosing receiving query and results and receiving input, 6, 10, paragraph [0004] disclosing search results returned to consumer, [0020]), the computing device including a processing device, a memory device, and an input/output device in communication with one or more external devices (See at least paragraph [0018] disclosing processor and memory device part of computer and computing device connecting over communications path with search system, [0020], [0022] disclosing input device);
Determining, by the processing device (See at least paragraph [0018], a plurality of factors (See at least paragraph [0024]) in response to receiving a search query through the search entry section of the user interface (See at least Fig. 3A-B, Fig. 4, 5 disclosing receiving query and results and receiving input, 6, 10, paragraph [0004] disclosing search results returned to consumer, [0020], [0018]);
Displaying, by the computing device to the user interface, using the search adjustment section, a plurality of controllable elements corresponding to the plurality of factors, each controllable element including a slider tool configurable by the user to assign a weight within a corresponding factor range (See at least Fig. Fig. 3A-B, Fig. 4, 6, 10, paragraph [0032], [0033])
Determining, by the processing device, a plurality of environment trigger conditions based on one or more signals received from one or more external devices through the input/output device (See at least paragraph [0024] disclosing system generating list of data fields and user selecting the factors form the list of the data field – Examiner notes that an environment trigger is considered to be any sort of manipulation to the search, [0029], [0018] disclosing processor and memory device part of computer and computing device connecting over communications path with search system, [0020], [0022] disclosing input device);
Modifying, by the processing device, the plurality of factors in response to detecting a first environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions (See at least paragraph [0024]-[0025] & [0034] disclosing user choosing which factors to be used in the search), wherein modifying the plurality of factors include one or more of adding a new factor to the plurality of factors or removing a factor form the plurality of factors (See at least paragraph [0024]-[0025], [0035]);
Adjusting, by the processing device, the plurality of factor ranges in response to determining a second environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions (See at least paragraph [0024]-[0025] & [0034] disclosing indicating ranges such as max and min, Figs. 3A, 3B, & 4 disclosing entering in range information)
Receiving, by the processing device through the user interface, using the plurality of controllable elements, a plurality of factor weights for the modified plurality of factors, the plurality of factor weights being within the adjusted plurality of factor ranges (See at least paragraph [0025]-[0026], [0031]-[0032] disclosing receiving weight information, Fig. 6 disclosing slidable elements to adjust weights of each factor)
Ranking, by the processing device, the plurality of search results in response to weighing the plurality of search results (See at least paragraph [0017] and [0031] disclosing ranking the search results in accordance with the weights), and
Displaying, by the computing device to the user interface, using the search results section, the ranked plurality of search results See at least paragraph [0017] and [0031] disclosing ranking the search results in accordance with the weights, [0035], Fig. 10).
Revelle does not expressly provide for the user interface including both a search results section and a search adjustment section, determining, by the processing device, a plurality of factor ranges corresponding to the plurality of factors; monitoring, by the processing device, the one or more signals received through the input/output device to detect occurrence of the plurality of environment trigger conditions; displaying, by the computing device, using the search adjustment section, a plurality of controllable elements corresponding to the plurality of factors and the plurality of factor ranges; and scoring, by the processing device, each of the plurality of search results using the plurality of factor weights; in reposen to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring, by the processing device, the plurality of search results.
However, Setty discloses the user interface including both a search results section and a search adjustment section (See at least Fig. 6A), determining, by the processing device, a plurality of factor ranges corresponding to the plurality of factors (See at least paragraph [0041] disclosing dynamically determining popular price ranges for items); monitoring, by the processing device, the one or more signals received through the input/output device to detect occurrence of the plurality of environment trigger conditions; (See at least paragraph [0043], [0049], [0071], [0073]) displaying, by the processing device, using the search adjustment section, a plurality of controllable elements corresponding to the plurality of factors and the plurality of factor ranges (See at least Fig. 6A); and scoring, by the processing device, each of the plurality of search results using the plurality of factor weights (See at least paragraph [0097] & [0108] disclosing determining confidence scores based on user activity, weights, preferences, etc. that can be used in ranking results); in reposen to a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions, rescoring, by the processing device, the plurality of search results (See at least paragraph [0107] disclosing updating in real time or near real time or periodically updates to user preferences by looking at historical activity/new user activity data, [0097] & [0108] disclosing determining confidence scores based on user activity, weights, preferences, etc. that can be used in ranking results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle with the scoring of results, as taught by Setty, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including enhanced search results with better refinement. See Setty paragraph [0002]-[0003].
However, neither Revelle nor Setty expressly provides for automatically displaying, by the computing device, using the search adjustment section, a modified plurality of controllable elements corresponding to the modified plurality of factors and the adjusted plurality of factor ranges; displaying search results for selection by the user via the user interface; wherein the first environment trigger condition of the second environment trigger condition includes a change in availability of an item corresponding to the search results; in response to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by the input/output device receiving geolocation data from one of the one or more external devices indicating a change in location of the computing device, removing by the processing device, one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying by the computing device to the user interface, an updated plurality of search results from which the remove done or more search results are absent.
Greenwald discloses automatically displaying, by the computing device, using the search adjustment section, a modified plurality of controllable elements corresponding to the modified plurality of factors and the adjusted plurality of factor ranges; displaying search results for selection by the user via the user interface; wherein the first environment trigger condition of the second environment trigger condition includes a change in availability of an item corresponding to the search results; in response to a third environment trigger condition comprising a geolocation trigger condition generated by the input/output device receiving geolocation data from one of the one or more external devices indicating a change in location of the computing device, removing by the processing device, one or more of the plurality of search results corresponding to a location no longer accessible based on the change in location indicated by the geolocation data, and displaying by the computing device to the user interface, an updated plurality of search results from which the remove done or more search results are absent. (See at least Abstract, paragraph [0015] disclosing datasets and no rescoring, [0024] & [0151] disclosing automatically changing time/location changes availability of “items”, [0025] disclosing as the location of the device or the desired location of the device changes, the venues and events around the updated location will also change, automatically detect the change in location of the device and update the venue and event dataset to include the venues within a pre-determined or defined region that currently surrounds the device, [0087] disclosing users can add and remove filters to manipulate and change information from dataset and the presentation of that information on the display, [0093] disclosing search results of venues change and update with location of device, [0110] disclosing options available for the area, [0118]-[0120] disclosing ability to select on search result for more information from user interface, [0138] disclosing based on conditions (e.g., tag being removed), interface may remove all venues and events that contain this tag, [0145] disclosing as location changes, information on map including what is available will change, [0158]-[0159] disclosing availability of events/venues changes based on change of time, location, etc. and disclosing the filter selections or options in the filter menu changes as the time window changes… filter menus are modified or changes to reflect what is available at a given time or time period as determined by the dataset based on the location, tag and time filters, [0168] disclosing as location is changes, the icons in filter panel will also change to reflect the available filter options, Fig. 31 and 32A-D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle/Setty with the modified controllable elements based, as taught by Greenwald, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including ability to provide up-to-date and real-time information regarding items that have been filtered based on time and location changes. See Greenwald paragraph [0002], [0005].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Revelle does not expressly provide for wherein the plurality of environment trigger conditions includes an updated essential status for one of the plurality of factors, and wherein the method comprises removing a portion of the plurality of search results from the plurality of search results based on one factor of the plurality of factors corresponding to the updated essential status.
However, Setty discloses wherein the plurality of environment trigger conditions includes an updated essential status for one of the plurality of factors, and wherein the method comprises removing a portion of the plurality of search results from the plurality of search results based on one factor of the plurality of factors corresponding to the updated essential status (Setty: see at least paragraph [0110] & [0112] both disclosing making choosing to make a factor mandatory or optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle with the mandatory/optional constraints, as taught by Setty, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including enhanced search results with better refinement. See Setty paragraph [0002]-[0003].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Revelle discloses adding, by the computing device, a new search result to the plurality of search results in response to a third environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions. (Revelle: see at least paragraph [0025], [0026], & [0031] disclosing updates/changes to search results based on various user interactions with search engine).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, Revelle does not disclose removing, by the computing device a first search result from the plurality of search results in response to evaluating a third environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions. However, Setty discloses removing, by the computing device a first search result from the plurality of search results in response to evaluating a third environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions. (See at least Setty paragraph [0081] & [0082] disclosing the removal/deletion of certain constraints/keywords to modify search query/results).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle with the removal of a constraint, as taught by Setty, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including enhanced search results with better refinement. See Setty paragraph [0002]-[0003].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15. However, Revelle does not disclose rescoring, by the computing device, the plurality of search results in response to evaluating a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions. However, Setty discloses rescoring, by the computing device, the plurality of search results in response to evaluating a fourth environment trigger condition of the plurality of environment trigger conditions (Setty: see at least paragraphs [0097] & [0108] disclosing determining scores based on various user activities and preferences, [0107] disclosing updates to user preferences or user activity data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle with the scoring, as taught by Setty, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including having greater confidence in how well a search result will be for a particular user. See at least Setty paragraph [0104], [0109].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Revelle discloses wherein modifying the plurality of factors is either: adding, by the computing device, a new factor to the plurality of factors in response to one of the plurality of environment trigger conditions; or removing, by the computing device, a first factor from the plurality of factors in response to one of the plurality of environment trigger conditions (See Revelle: paragraph [0024]-[0025] & [0034] disclosing modifying factors by adding additional factors).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Revelle discloses wherein the user interface is configured to provide a vendor search result, and wherein the method comprises: updating, by the computing device, the plurality of factors in response to the plurality of environment trigger conditions; and updating, by the computing device, the vendor search result in response to the updated plurality of factors (See Revelle: paragraph [0024]-[0025] and [0034] disclosing inputting of factors, Fig. 10 disclosing Hotel’s listed – Examiner is interpreting hotel to be a vendor).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Revelle discloses wherein the user interface is configured to provide a vendor search result, and wherein the method comprises: updating, by the computing device, the plurality of factor ranges in response to the plurality of environment trigger conditions; and updating, by the computing device, the vendor search result in response to the updated plurality of factor ranges (See Revelle: paragraph [0024]-[0025] and [0034] disclosing inputting of factor ranges, Fig. 10 disclosing Hotel’s listed in search results – Examiner is interpreting the hotels to be types of vendors).
Claims 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Revelle (US 2017/0011038) in view of Setty et al. (US 2016/0125498), in further view of Greenwald et al. (US 2016/0259500), and further in view of Kellog et al. (US 2013/0211927).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Revelle, Setty, and Greenwald teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. However, neither Revelle nor Setty nor Greenwald expressly provide for capturing, by the computing device, an image of a bar code corresponding to a supplemental search result, reranking, by the computing device the plurality of search results, wherein the plurality of environment trigger conditions includes a receipt of a new search result, and wherein the reranked plurality of search results includes a rank for the new search result.
Kellog discloses capturing, by the computing device, an image of a bar code corresponding to a supplemental search result, reranking, by the computing device, the plurality of search results, wherein the plurality of environment trigger conditions includes a receipt of a new search result, and wherein the reranked plurality of search results includes a rank for the new search result (See at least Figs 16-21 and paragraph [056] disclosing use of scanning a barcode to input data and using said input data to further search results, number scores, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Revelle/Setty/Greenwald with the bar code use, as taught by Kellog, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including additional means for user to input data in fast manner as opposed to physically typing out further search information. See Kellog at least paragraph [0156].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights