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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/2/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 16-22 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, and 15 were cancelled prior to this action.
Claims 18-20 were previously withdrawn without traverse (see: Remarks filed 5/5/2025; Non-Final Action mailed 6/4/2025 (p. 2)).
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-14, 16-17 and 21-22 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but re not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments emphasize paragraphs 0086-0088 of the specification as discussed on p. 11-12 in relation to the limitation generate an interface including a search results container with interface elements representative of one or more item variants selected from the set of search results, wherein the interface elements include a link to an interface page for each variant item, and, transmit the interface to the first device for display.
The Examiner first acknowledges that the specification alleges that the invention provides an improvement to user interfaces. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), which discusses how such improvements are to be evaluated:
In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement. While the claims do recite generate an interface including a search results container interface elements representative of one or more item variants selected from the set of search results, wherein the interface elements include a link to an interface page for each variant item, the specification only describes the interface and its components at a high level of generality. The specification provides no further restriction on how the interface is generated other than the use of a generic container in which results – including links – are presented. No portion in the specification provides the requisite detail necessary to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the container is provisioned in any particular manner.
This is even more pronounced with the specification’s bare assertion that the invention is purportedly “beneficial for computing devices with small screens”. There is simply no detail in the specification that demonstrates to one of ordinary skill in the art how the generation of the container is performed in a manner specific to small screen devices.
Similarly, the Examiner also directs Applicant to MPEP 2106.05(a), which further addresses improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the lack of disclosure in relation to generating an interface including a search results container interface elements representative of one or more item variants selected from the set of search results, wherein the interface elements include a link to an interface page for each variant item. That is, the specification lacks a technical explanation as to how this is accomplished, leaving one of ordinary skill to only speculate on how this alleged improvement might be achieved.
The high-level manner by which the claims recite the generation of the interface is at least similar to Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Like Trading Technologies, the claimed invention simply provides results with links within a region of an interface (e.g., webpage), which improves the business process of identifying item variants but not the underlying technology of the interface itself.
he manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the claims in Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions).
As another example, Applicant’s attention is also drawn to Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the courts found the claims to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words “apply it”. 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)).
Ultimately, the Examiner maintains that the alleged improvement is at best a bare assertion of the improvement and insufficient to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement. A review of the claims and specification reveals a similar lack of restriction on the manner by which the invention is performed to that discussed above in relation to Affinity Labs, Internet Patents, and Intellectual Ventures. Although the Examiner appreciates the arguments set forth by Applicant, the Examiner maintains that the evidence at hand demonstrates that the invention fails to provide the requisite detail and technical explanation with respect to the alleged improvements in order to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention achieves an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming arguendo the specification provides sufficient detail (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), the breadth of the claimed generation does not reflect such improvements. This is because the claims do not reflect any particular manner of generation to achieve an improvement to the claimed interface, and instead merely recite – at a high level – the generation of the interface and container as a mechanism to present the variant search results. Nothing in the claim relates to a specific manner of provisioning the interface/container to improve the interface itself or its operation on small screens. The improvement is in the analysis preceding the generation – not the technical manner of generating the interface. That is, in the improving of the underlying analysis for selecting the content (variant item results) to be provided sans any restriction on how the generation is performed results only in an improved abstract process, rather than an improved interface. Thus, when the claims are evaluated, they do not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the alleged improvement is achieved by the claimed invention(see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a)).
Turning to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Example 39 and ex parte Desjardins, the Examiner disagrees that the claimed invention is analogous to either. With respect to Example 39, set forth a multi-stage training processing including the application of one or more transformations to create a modified set of digital facial images, resulting in an improve neural network for facial detection. Example 39 specifically identified the problem with prior art methods as suffering “from an inability to robustly detect human faces in images where there are shifts, distortions, and variations in scale and rotation of the face pattern in the image”. No such problem is described by the current application, nor does the application provide evidence of such a multi-stage process that improves a field such as digital facial recognition. To the contrary, the utilization of iterative training of Applicant’s invention is used to improve an abstract commercial process rather than the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field This is an abstract idea based solution, and parallels the fact pattern employed in Recentive Analytics, Inc v. Fox Corp (Fed Cir, 2023-2437, 4/18/2025), which held the use of iterative training processes to be insufficient to confer eligibility on a claimed directed to improving an abstract idea. That is, the mere requirement for iterative training does not represent a technological improvement. Iterative training using selected training material (e.g., a training data set including variant item features) are incident to the very nature of machine learning. Other than describing at a high level “training”, neither the claims nor the specification delineates steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement to the technical field of machine learning. Considered individually or as a whole, they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Moreover, multiple portions of the specification demonstrate the utilization of known neural network or training techniques, such as 0024 which provides a list of known trained functions that may be used, as well as known types of neural networks (see also: 0050).
The above remains true when considering Desjardins. The adaption of the parameters as discussed in 0023 is not related to a problem such as catastrophic forgetting as discussed in Desjardins, or another problem arising the field of machine learning. Moreover, paragraphs 0048, 0072, and 0090-0100 outline in more depth the mathematical nature of the learning process while demonstrating how the machine learning techniques are used for the specific improvement of performing the commercial analysis. The claimed invention bears no semblance to the improvements discussed in Desjardins, and represent nothing more than the mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing hardware.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
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, 7-14, 16-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-17, and 21-22, under Step 2A claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-17, and 21-22 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites
receive a request including a search query;
generate, by a first level search model, a ranked set of candidate items based on the search query, wherein the first level search model comprises:
the relevance model configured to generate a set of relevance label values for each item variant in the item catalog based on the search query, a set of user features, and a set of variant item features;
the regression model configured to generate a set of engagement label values for each of the item variants in the item catalog based on the search query;
wherein the first level search model generates a baseline value for each item variant in an item catalog by performing a weighted combination of the relevance label values and the engagement label values for each of the item variants in the item catalog using one or more predetermined weights, and wherein the set of candidate items is selected based on the baseline value;
generate, by a second level search model comprising the ranking model configured to re-rank the ranked set of candidate items using a set of ranking criteria, a set of search results based on the set of candidate items;
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by setting forth or describing the performance commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes the process by which variant items are identified responsive to a user query. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
a non-transitory memory;
a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions,
generate one or more trained neural networks using a reiterative training process to train one or more untrained neural networks based on a training dataset, wherein the training dataset includes one or more variant item features, and wherein the one or more trained neural networks includes a relevance model, a regression model, and a ranking model;
a first device,
one or more trained neural networks,
an interface,
generate an interface including a search results container interface elements representative of one or more item variants selected from the set of search results, wherein the interface elements include a link to an interface page for each variant item and,
transmit the interface to the first device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). This is most notably true in reference to generate an interface, where neither the claims nor the specification provide further detail with respect to how this is accomplished (i.e., covers any manner of generating an interface with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result). Moreover, while the Examiner maintains that a first level search model, a second level search model, a relevancy model, and a regression model represent abstract models (e.g., informative and/or mathematical representations), they could arguably be construed as software models. In such a scenario, these models represent nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate 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). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
storing or retrieving information from memory
providing offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. Moreover, the claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 further define the search models as comprising a relevance model, ranking model, and regression model. Each of these more specific types of models represent mathematical models, or models based upon mathematical operations, further underscoring the abstract nature of the search models themselves. Lastly, certain dependent claims (e.g., claims 5, 9) expressly set forth mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Accordingly, claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 rely upon at least similar additional elements as recited in claim 1, and are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 10-14, 16-17 and 22 claims 10-14, 16-17 and 22 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-3, 5, 7-9 and 21 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 10-14, 16-17 and 22 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-14, 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected on other grounds; however, similar to the previous discussion of allowable subject matter, the Examiner provides the following:
Claims 1 and 10 have been recite parallel subject matter not taught by Dumon, such as:
the regression model (formerly in claim 4),
wherein the first level search model comprises one or more trained neural networks,
wherein the first level search model generates a baseline value for each item variant in an item catalog by performing a weighted combination of the relevance label values and the engagement label values for each of the item variants in the item catalog using one or more predetermined weights,
generate an interface including a search results container interface elements representative of one or more item variants selected from the set of search results, wherein the interface elements include a link to an interface page for each variant item.
While Pan remedies certain deficiencies (e.g., regression model, trained neural network), Pan does not teach or suggest a weighted combination of the relevance label values and the engagement label values for each of the item variants in the item catalog. Pan also lacks specific teachings of a search results container (i.e., a defined section of a webpage or similar document enclosing content) having interface elements that include a link to an interface page for each variant item.
With specific regards to a weighted combination…, the claimed limitation requires the baseline value to be generated by performing a weighted combination of the relevance score and the engagement label value. Dumon teaches a ranking score (i.e., baseline value) that is based on a relevance score (relevance label value) and a listing quality score (engagement value). Notably, the listing quality score is considered ‘weighted’ because it is computed as a weighted sum of a predicted score an observed score (e.g., 0035, 0039, 0045, 0057, 0065); however, the listing quality score represents the engagement label value, not the baseline value. Dumon is silent with respect to a weighted combination of the relevance scores (relevance label value) and the listing quality scores (engagement label value) to arrive at the ranking scores (baseline value).
Notably, an adjustment factor (also “business rules score”) may also applied to derive the ranking score (e.g., 0054, 0071). Though altering the ranking score, the rules score does not act as a weighted combination of the relevance label values (RL) and the engagement label values (EL). The weighted combination of the relevance label values and the engagement label values is understood to be a weighting between the RL and the EL, acting to balance the EL and RL relative to each other (e.g., weight the EL value higher than the RL value, or vice versa). As such, the application of the rules score, while acting to provide promotion/demotion of search results through manipulation of the ranking score, does not provide for the claimed weighted combination of the RL and EL specifically.
While certain limitations may exist in vacuo across the prior art, the Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record below is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but does not remedy the above noted deficiencies:
PTO form 892-U discusses the use of Learning to Rank (LETOR) in e-commerce search engines (see Sections 2.1, 2.2, Fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625