DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on 24 October 2025.
Claims 1, 8 & 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 18, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. A new grounds of rejection in view of Wilgus et al. US 2012/0233035 A1.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in view of the amendments and arguments. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of A system comprising one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories. The system identify, by communicating with a database stored in the one or more memories, a set of one or more entities, of the one or more entities, that have a particular attribute, wherein the set of one or more entities comprise one or more preferred vehicle providers, and wherein the one or more preferred vehicle providers are associated with a particular organization, and wherein the database stored in the one or more memories includes information that identifies that the set of one or more entities are the one or more preferred vehicle providers; determine, by communicating with the database stored in the one or more memories, an entity order associated with the set of one or more entities; and determine, by obtaining item inventory information from the database stored in the one or more memories by communicating with the database located in the system. This allows for quick processing to return a result. Although each of the steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement reducing the amount of time and reducing the amount of items searched. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in a faster improved system. The claim as a whole integrates human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10 & 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. US 10,664,721 B1, hereafter Price in view of Roper et al. US 6,986,100 B1, hereafter Roper and in further view of McEwan et al. US 2016/0035145 A1, hereafter McEwan and in further view of Wilgus et al. US 2012/0233035 A1, hereafter Wilgus.
Claim 1, 8 & 15
Price discloses:
A system for providing search results, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (column 1, lines 62-65: “The system may include one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed, configure the one or more processors to perform operations. Column 2, lines 8-10: “The operations may also include receiving a selection of at least one of the result icons or at least one of the filter icons, performing a search, based on the selection.”)
receive, from a user device, a search query that includes one or more entity characteristic parameters and one or more item characteristic parameters (column 27, lines 7-11: “For example, in some embodiments the query may include location information of client devices. Additionally, the query may include user preferences. For example, in addition to the user selections of vehicle make, color, and model, the query of step 804 may include location coordinates of client devices 150 associated with the query and user preferences, such as a limited listed of preferred dealers.”);
identify, based on the one or more entity characteristic parameters of the search query, one or more entities associated with the one or more entity characteristic parameters (column 27, lines 21-24: “In step 806, inventory search system 105 may receive an inventory search results with available items that match user selections and/or other parameters transmitted in the query of step 804.”);
identify, by communicating with a database stored in the one or more memories, a set of one or more entities, of the one or more entities, that have a particular attribute, (column 24, lines 48-51: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may query local memories to identify which options are available for the selected preliminary icon.” & column 24, lines 60-62: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may perform the query of step 704 with a local memory, to minimize latency and provide a smooth user experience with minimum lag.”) wherein the set of one or more entities comprise one or more preferred vehicle providers, and wherein the one or more preferred vehicle providers are associated with a particular organization (column 27, lines 7-11: “For example, in some embodiments the query may include location information of client devices. Additionally, the query may include user preferences. For example, in addition to the user selections of vehicle make, color, and model, the query of step 804 may include location coordinates of client devices 150 associated with the query and user preferences, such as a limited listed of preferred dealers.” & column 28 lines 5-9: “In some embodiments, the ranking may be based on user preferences or selections. For example, if the user prefers ranking based on popularity, then inventory search system 105 may rank secondary results based on popularity. In other embodiments, however, inventory search system 105 may rank inventory of secondary results by considering the multiple variables together.”); and
determine, by communicating with the one or more memories, an entity order associated with the set of one or more entities (column 28 lines 5-9: “In some embodiments, the ranking may be based on user preferences or selections. For example, if the user prefers ranking based on popularity, then inventory search system 105 may rank secondary results based on popularity. In other embodiments, however, inventory search system 105 may rank inventory of secondary results by considering the multiple variables together.” & column 24, lines 60-62: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may perform the query of step 704 with a local memory, to minimize latency and provide a smooth user experience with minimum lag.”);
perform, based on the one or more item characteristic parameters, the entity order, […], an item search that prioritizes the set of one or more entities by generating a search result that identifies a plurality of items provided by the set of one or more entities (column 28 lines 5-9: “In some embodiments, the ranking may be based on user preferences or selections. For example, if the user prefers ranking based on popularity, then inventory search system 105 may rank secondary results based on popularity. In other embodiments, however, inventory search system 105 may rank inventory of secondary results by considering the multiple variables together.”)
and does not identify a plurality of other items provided by the other entities of the one or more entities (column 21, lines 34-43: “Further, inventory search system 105 may determine location preferences based on user records. For example, a user doing vehicle image classification may prefer certain dealers or may prefer certain areas to limit the search. In such embodiments, inventory search system 105 may determine that there are location preferences (step 616: Yes) and continue to step 618 to eliminate preliminary results (from step 612) that are out of the location or the preferred range. This reduction of results may improve user experience by displaying only relevant results in screens that may have limited space in client devices 150.”);
wherein, the one or more processors, to perform the item search, are configured to search, without providing the search query to a server that hosts a search engine, the database stored in the one or more memories (column 24, lines 48-51: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may query local memories to identify which options are available for the selected preliminary icon.” & column 24, lines 60-62: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may perform the query of step 704 with a local memory, to minimize latency and provide a smooth user experience with minimum lag.)”;
transmit, to the user device, the search result to allow the user device to display the search result on a screen of the user device (column 21, lines 41-43: “This reduction of results may improve user experience by displaying only relevant results in screens that may have limited space in client devices 150.”).
wherein the database stored in the one or more memories[…] (column 24, lines 60-62: “In some embodiments, inventory search system 105 may perform the query of step 704 with a local memory, to minimize latency and provide a smooth user experience with minimum lag.”)
Price does not disclose the following, however Roper does disclose:
determine a respective quantity of item display slots for each entity of the set of one or more entities (column 4, lines 32-42: “Because the number of available display slots on a Web page is typically limited, in environments in which there are multiple sources of display items each desiring use of the limited number of available display slots, a problem arises with respect to how to allocate the available display slots among the different sources. For example, in the on-line merchandizing example illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, the total number of product offers (i.e., display items) from the different merchants (i.e., sources) in a given product category may be much greater than the number of available display slots on the Web page 100. & Column 5, lines 36-42);
perform, based on the one or more item characteristic parameters, the entity order, and the respective quantity of item display slots for each entity of the set of one or more entities, an item search to generate a search result that identifies a plurality of items provided by the set of one or more entities (column 8, lines 40-49 & column 9, lines 44-56); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Roper with the technique of Price to balance the allocation display slots such that the results page has a plurality of different sources of items. Therefore, the design incentives of balanced allocations of display slots provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Price and Roper do not teach the following, however McEwan does teach:
wherein the database includes information that identifies that the set of one or more entities are the one or more preferred vehicle providers (Para. 0048: “Using database resources, the processor can identify preferred and local dealers 509.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of McEwan with the technique of Price & Roper to provide better offers and streamlined services. Therefore, the design incentives of balanced allocations of display slots provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Price, Roper & McEwan do not teach the following, however Wilgus does teach:
determine, by obtaining item inventory information from the dataset stored in the one or more memories, a respective quantity of item […],wherein the item inventory information indicates a total number of items that are available to be provided by each entity of the set of one or more entities; ,wherein the item inventory information indicates a total number of items that are available to be provided by each entity of the set of one or more entities; (para. 0019: “The databases 114 can be integrated into the same device as the processor 116, located locally and communicably connected to the processor 116, located remotely and communicably connected to the processor 116, or a combination thereof. Moreover, the present invention may include redundant devices or devices operating in parallel. The vendor devices 104 provide inventory data 118 and sales data 120 to the data processing device 108 for analysis and storage in the database(s) 114. The inventory data 118 and sales data 120 can be provided in real-time or near real-time. The product inventory data 118 may include a product name or code and a quantity available… The product availability query 122 may include a requested product, a location (e.g., a zip code, an address, a GPS coordinate, a latitude and a longitude, etc.), a quantity, a session identifier and one or more access keys. The processor 116 then provides search results 124 to the potential customer devices 102 based on the inventory data 118 stored in the database(s) 114. The search results 124 can be ranked on the location, a quantity available, a price or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Wilgus with the technique of Price, Roper & McEwan to provide a more accurate and flexible system. Therefore, the design incentives of higher accuracy matches and flexibility provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 2, 9 & 16
Price discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, to determine the entity order associated with the set of one or more entities, are configured to: identify, based on the one or more entity characteristic parameters, a physical location associated with the search query (column 28 lines 5-9: “In some embodiments, the ranking may be based on user preferences or selections. For example, if the user prefers ranking based on popularity, then inventory search system 105 may rank secondary results based on popularity. In other embodiments, however, inventory search system 105 may rank inventory of secondary results by considering the multiple variables together.” & column 27, lines 7-11: “For example, in some embodiments the query may include location information of client devices. Additionally, the query may include user preferences. For example, in addition to the user selections of vehicle make, color, and model, the query of step 804 may include location coordinates of client devices 150 associated with the query and user preferences, such as a limited listed of preferred dealers.”)
identify respective physical locations associated with the set of one or more entities (column 21, lines 13-27: “For example, when the image classification is being processed in client devices 150 or is received from a specific location, inventory search system 105 may tailor results from the image classification based on a location of client devices 150 and a range. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine to focus results that are available within a 5-mile radius from the location of client devices 150. Thus, in some embodiments, ranking of preliminary results may include determinations of distance with respect to client devices 150. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine a maximum distance for the plurality of first results based on a preference stored in the one or more storage devices and eliminate a result from the first results associated with a location outside the maximum distance from the location of the client device.”); and
determine, based on the respective physical locations associated with the set of one or more entities, respective distances of the set of one or more entities from the physical location associated with the search query (column 21, lines 13-27: “For example, when the image classification is being processed in client devices 150 or is received from a specific location, inventory search system 105 may tailor results from the image classification based on a location of client devices 150 and a range. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine to focus results that are available within a 5-mile radius from the location of client devices 150. Thus, in some embodiments, ranking of preliminary results may include determinations of distance with respect to client devices 150. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine a maximum distance for the plurality of first results based on a preference stored in the one or more storage devices and eliminate a result from the first results associated with a location outside the maximum distance from the location of the client device.”); and
determine the entity order based on the respective distances of the set of one or more entities from the physical location associated with the search query (column 21, lines 13-27: “For example, when the image classification is being processed in client devices 150 or is received from a specific location, inventory search system 105 may tailor results from the image classification based on a location of client devices 150 and a range. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine to focus results that are available within a 5-mile radius from the location of client devices 150. Thus, in some embodiments, ranking of preliminary results may include determinations of distance with respect to client devices 150. For example, inventory search system 105 may determine a maximum distance for the plurality of first results based on a preference stored in the one or more storage devices and eliminate a result from the first results associated with a location outside the maximum distance from the location of the client device.”)
Claim 3, 10 & 17
Price, Roper & McEwan discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1, 8 & 15 above. Price does not disclose the limitation of wherein the one or more processors, to determine the respective quantity of item display slots for each entity of the set of one or more entities, are configured to, for each entity of the set of one or more entities: identify, for the entity, the item inventory information; determine, based on the item inventory information, an item inventory size of the entity; and determine, based on the item inventory size of the entity, a quantity of item display slots for the entity. However, Roper, in column 5, lines 36-52 discloses “an attempt is made to define a set of twelve candidate items for each source (i.e., the same number as available slots on the Web page). In the case of Sources A and C, which both have fewer than twelve display items, the respective sets of candidate items will contain all of the display items of that source. Thus, the candidate set of display items for Source A contains items A1 A4, and the candidate set of display items for Source C contains items C1 C6. In the case of Source B, twelve candidate items are randomly selected from its forty display items to create a candidate set having twelve display items, B1 B12. Selecting a smaller number of items to define each set, such as a number equal to the number of available display slots on the Web page, effectively minimizes any large differences in the number of display items among different sources (e.g., 4 items versus 40 items).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Roper with the technique of Price to balance the allocation display slots such that the results page has a plurality of different sources of items. Therefore, the design incentives of balanced allocations of display slots provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 4, 11 & 18
Price, Roper & McEwan discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1, 8 & 15 above. Price does not disclose the limitation of wherein the one or more processors, to perform the item search to generate the search result that identifies the plurality of items, are configured to: identify a particular entity, of the set of one or more entities, that is associated with a particular position of the entity order; identify, based on the respective quantity of item display slots for each entity of the set of one or more entities, a particular quantity of item display slots for the particular entity; identify, based on the one or more item characteristic parameters, a plurality of items provided by the particular entity; and generate the search result to identify a particular quantity of items of the plurality of items provided by the particular entity, wherein the particular quantity of items is equal to the particular quantity of item display slots for the particular entity. However, Roper, in column 5, lines 36-52 discloses “an attempt is made to define a set of twelve candidate items for each source (i.e., the same number as available slots on the Web page). In the case of Sources A and C, which both have fewer than twelve display items, the respective sets of candidate items will contain all of the display items of that source. Thus, the candidate set of display items for Source A contains items A1 A4, and the candidate set of display items for Source C contains items C1 C6. In the case of Source B, twelve candidate items are randomly selected from its forty display items to create a candidate set having twelve display items, B1 B12. Selecting a smaller number of items to define each set, such as a number equal to the number of available display slots on the Web page, effectively minimizes any large differences in the number of display items among different sources (e.g., 4 items versus 40 items).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Roper with the technique of Price to balance the allocation display slots such that the results page has a plurality of different sources of items. Therefore, the design incentives of balanced allocations of display slots provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 5 & 19
Price, Roper & McEwan discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 & 15 above. Price does not disclose the limitation of wherein the one or more processors, to perform the item search to generate the search result that identifies the plurality of items, are configured to: identify a first entity, of the set of one or more entities, that is associated with a first position of the entity order, and a second entity, of the set of one or more entities, that is associated with a second position of the entity order; identify, based on the respective quantity of item display slots for each entity of the set of one or more entities, a first quantity of item display slots for the first entity and a second quantity of item display slots for the second entity; identify, based on the one or more item characteristic parameters, a first plurality of items provided by the first entity and a second plurality of items provided by the second entity; and generate the search result to identify a first quantity of items, of the first plurality of items provided by the first entity, and a second quantity of items of the second plurality of items provided by the second entity, wherein: the first quantity of items is equal to the first quantity of item display slots for the first entity, and the second quantity of items is equal to the second quantity of item display slots for the second entity. However, Roper, in column 5, lines 42-52 discloses “In the case of Sources A and C, which both have fewer than twelve display items, the respective sets of candidate items will contain all of the display items of that source. Thus, the candidate set of display items for Source A contains items A1 A4, and the candidate set of display items for Source C contains items C1 C6. In the case of Source B, twelve candidate items are randomly selected from its forty display items to create a candidate set having twelve display items, B1 B12. Selecting a smaller number of items to define each set, such as a number equal to the number of available display slots on the Web page, effectively minimizes any large differences in the number of display items among different sources (e.g., 4 items versus 40 items).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Roper with the technique of Price to balance the allocation display slots such that the results page has a plurality of different sources of items. Therefore, the design incentives of balanced allocations of display slots provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 14
Price discloses:
wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to provide the search result, cause the system to: transmit, to a user device, the search result to allow the user device to display the search result on a screen of the user device (Abstract: “generating a first graphical user interface for display in the client device.”).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 12, 13 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price & Roper in view of McEwan & Wilgus and in further view of Abeer et al. US 11,514,499, hereafter Abeer.
Claim 6, 12 & 20
Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5, 11 & 19 above. Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus do not disclose the limitation of wherein the first quantity of items, of the first plurality of items provided by the first entity, and the second quantity of items, of the second plurality of items provided by the second entity, are ordered in the search result according to relative positions of the first entity and the second entity in the entity order. However, Abeer, in column 11, lines 12-18 discloses “In the example illustrated in Table 1, Product D has the highest fulfillment score of the three products, and thus may be presented first in a ranked list of Product D, Product E, and Product F that is returned to the user; Product E has the second-highest fulfillment score and may be presented second, and Product F has the third-highest fulfillment score and may be presented third.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Abeer with the technique of Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus to improve the integrity and accuracy of the search results such that the results ranked based on relevancy and inventory information. Therefore, the design incentives of improved the integrity and accuracy provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Claim 7 & 13
Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 5 & 11 above. Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus do not disclose the limitation of wherein the first quantity of items, of the first plurality of items provided by the first entity, and the second quantity of items, of the second plurality of items provided by the second entity, are ordered in the search result based on a particular item characteristic parameter of the one or more item characteristic parameters. However, Abeer, in column 5, lines 47-52 discloses “The lists of products responsive to a query may be ordered according to the relevance of each product to the query and/or according to inventory information respective of each product. In some embodiments, the result ranking system 108 may be integrated into a system that hosts an e-commerce website, such as a website of a retailer.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Abeer with the technique of Price, Roper, McEwan & Wilgus to improve the integrity and accuracy of the search results such that the results ranked based on relevancy and inventory information. Therefore, the design incentives of improved the integrity and accuracy provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins et al. US 2015/0039589 A1 discloses receiving search query results based on the query and filtering the query to produce an enhanced query.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights