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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 15 were amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to abstract idea 101, applicant makes the following arguments:
On pages 8-9, Element (A), applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant and has updated his mapping below, specifically, “…determining the search query is an intent-based query that describes a task that the user intends to perform;”. This limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, based on the are observation/evaluation steps. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
On pages 9-14, Element (B) applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant, examiner respectfully believes that the applicant meant to argue that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under step 2A prong two under Element (B), in view of this, the claim elements as recited by the examiner as additional elements do not combine with the abstract idea to move the claim 1 limitation into a practical application. Specifically the claim as a whole is just matter of Collecting information (receiving a query), analyzing information (classifying intent; generating task-related items), and Presenting results of the analysis (executing search and returning results). The analyzing information is something one can do using Mental processes (evaluation and categorization of a request) MPEP 2106.04(a). The utilization of generative AI model does not alter the underlying character of the claimed activity. The claim recites the desired result (generating.. a list of items) without reciting any specific algorithmic improvement to the AI technology. Specifically in view of Step 2A, Prong two, the claims do not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application. Applicants argument that the claims improve internet search engine and solve an internet-centric problem is not technically recited in the claim, instead the claim just contains a generic “generative AI model, a classification model, and a database search” No technical details are provided as to how these components are implemented or improved. Therefore the claim merely recites applying an abstract idea using generic computer components and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to dependent claims, examiner respectfully maintains his mapping of 101 abstract idea as mapped below.
On page 15 applicant argues in view of 103 prior art rejection, which has been obviated due to amendment and new mappings.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant in view of dependent claims and maintained his rejection as mapped below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to independent claims, 1, 9 and 15, specifically claim 1 recites “…determining the search query is an intent-based query that describes a task that the user intends to perform; generating …a list of items corresponding to a task defined by the search query”. This limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, based on the are observation/evaluation steps. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2A, prong two, claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 recites the additional elements of “receiving a search query from a user; …providing the search query to a generative Al model; generating by the generative Al model…; and executing a database search utilizing the list of items generated by the generative AI model to retrieve search results corresponding go the list of items.” are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (processor, database, memory) and basic data-gathering and outputting functions (MPEP 21096.05(f)) using output from a generic AI hence reciting insignificant extra solution activities.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims, 1, 8 and 15 at step 2B do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements as recited in step 2A prong 2 recite conventional computer executing routine data-storage and retrieval operations with utilization of generic AI computer technologic. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. According, claim 1 is ineligible under 101.
Claims 2-7 are dependent claims and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically,
Claim 2. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the list of items are comprised of items that may be used to enable the user to accomplish the task.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity of utilizing generic computer actions and merely extra post-processing of data (data presentation (outputting & user selection). With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 3. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “classifying the search query as a product-based query or an intent-based query.” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), a person can choose or determine what type of query is presented.
Claim 4. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “determining that the query is an intent-based query, by a classification model trained to determine words that are characteristic of a user searching for items to perform a task. ” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), because a human can read a query, analyze the words used, and determine whether it reflects intent to perform a task. The utilization of classification model merely automates that mental evaluation rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical technological application.
Claim 5. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “providing an option for the user to execute a search for the search query or the search for the list of items corresponding to a task defined by the search query” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity of presenting data for selection from the user in a computing environment, this is nothing but applying a survey to a computing environment. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 6. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “determining the search query is not a cached query.” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), a person can determine if a query is a cached query or not.
Claim 7. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “identifying the task defined by the search query.” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), a person can determine what tasks are needed for a query to be executed.
Claim 8. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “enabling the user to add additional items to the portion of items prior to executing the search.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity of presenting data for selection from the user in a computing environment, this is nothing but applying a survey to a computing environment. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claims 9-20 are similar to claims 1-8 hence rejected similarly.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0394549) in in view of Thakur et al. (US 9,767,182) further in view of Yuan et al. (US 2016/0048905)
1. Li teaches, A method of leveraging generative artificial intelligence (AI) to identify products for completing a task (Abstract, Li), the method comprising:
receiving a search query from a user (Fig 6: 102, Paragraph 1 – search engine receives search query from the user, Li);
generating by the generative Al model, a list of items corresponding to a task defined by the search query. (Fig 7: 704, 706 and 708, Paragraph 88-91 – teaches identifying complementary item listings and provides item-listing recommendation, Li); and
Li does not explicitly teach, based on determining the search query is an intent-based query that describes a task that the user intends to perform, providing the search query to a generative Al model; and
executing a database search utilizing the list of items generated by the generative AI model to retrieve search results corresponding to the list of items.
However, Thakur teaches,
based on determining the search query is an intent-based query that describes a task that the user intends to perform, providing the search query to a generative Al model; (Col 2: lines 1-4 – teaches intent categories and other categories, further Col 3: lines 24-31 teaching classification process for unseen queries using trained machine learning module, Thakur – Although Thakur does not disclose a generative AI model, however the combination with Li’s generative AI system can be applied to Thakur’s intent classification to improve relevance and task understanding).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Li’s invention to be combined with Thakur’s invention because Li and Thakur are in the same field of endeavor of search systems and query processing, the combination complements each other by improving search and recommendations.
Furthermore, Yuan teaches,
executing a database search utilizing the list of items generated by the generative AI model to retrieve search results corresponding to the list of items. (Paragraph 50 – teaches searches merchant databases to locate items based on the objectives; Paragraph 34 – teaches inventory information can be used in both generating item listings and selecting and ordering search result – thus disclosing executing data searches of merchant databases and using item lists/objectives to retrieve item listings, and further disclosing using inventory information in selecting and ordering search results, Yuan)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify the system Li with the teaching of Yuan because Li and Yuan are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely e-commerce search systems and product retrieval from merchant databases. Incorporating Yuan’s inventory-aware database search techniques into Li’s generative AI framework would have predictable improved the practical implementation of Li’s system by ensuring that the generated list of items is used to retrieve available products from merchant databases.
2. The combination of Li and Jain teach, The method of claim 1, wherein the list of items are comprised of items that may be used to enable the user to accomplish the task (Paragraphs 88-91 and Fig 6: 608 and 610 – teaches performing search using objects from input image and storing complementary item listing information based on item listing identified from searches, Li);
4. The combination of Li, Thakur and Yuan teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
trained to determine words that are characteristic of a user searching for items to perform a task (Col 2:1-4 – teaches intent categories and other categories; Col 3: 24-31 – teaches classifying unseen queries using a trained machine learning module – thus disclosing categorizing search queries into intent categories and using a trained machine learning module to classify previously unseen query, Thakur);
determining that the query is an intent-based query, by a classification model
determining available items of the portion of items that are available in an inventory (Paragraph 34 – teaches the network-based publication system 120 can work with both POS system 134 and inventory system 132 to obtain access to inventory available system 132 to obtain access to inventory available at individual retail locations and further teaches inventory information can be used in both generating item listings, and selecting and ordering search results, Yuan); and
executing the search for portion of items that are available in the inventory (Paragraph 50 – teaches searches merchant databases to locate items based on the objectives and Paragraph 34 – teaches inventory information can be used in… selecting and ordering search results, Yuan).
5. The combination of Li, Thakur and Yuan teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising providing an option for the user to execute a search for the search query or the search for the list of items corresponding to a task defined by the search query (Paragraph 59 – teaches the query suggestion component 146 provides query suggestions to a user based on complementary objects and complementary item listings… thereby implying presenting alternative searches for selection, Li).
7. The combination of Li, Thakur and Yuan teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the task defined by the search query (Paragraph 3 – teaches multi-target search uses object detection to detect each object, and stores complementary object data associating each object from the image. Additionally, a search of an item list datastore is performed using each object form the image as a search query… the query suggestions are determined for the input item listing using the complementary object data and the complementary item listing data. These references show that the system interprets the user input and its context to determine the associated task (e.g. recommending complementary items), Li).
Claims 9, 11, 12, 13, 15-18 and 20 are similar to claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 hence rejected similarly.
Claims 6 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0394549) in view of Thakur et al. (US 9,767,182) and Yuan et al. (US 2016/0048905) further in view of Jiang et al.
All the limitations of claim 1 is taught above.
6. The combination of Li and Jain do not explicitly teach, determining the search query is not a cached query.
However, Jiang teaches,
determining the search query is not a cached query (Col 7: lines 25-27 – teaches caching and storing images into local image store; and Col 3: lines 25-32 – teaches a search engine performing a search in content database which includes primary content database and/or auxiliary content database, to identify a list of content items that are related to the keywords.. the combination teaches that when searching the search would perform as cache search before performing a fresh query search, Jiang).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Li’s invention to be combined with Jiang’s invention because Li and Jiang are in the same field of endeavor of improving search experience by analyzing user inputs and returning relevant items.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 6 hence rejected similarly.
Claims 8, 14 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0394549) in view of Thakur et al. (US 9,767,182) and Yuan et al. (US 2016/0048905) further in view of Ahi et al. (US 2007/0260591)
All the limitations of claim 1 are taught above.
8. The combination of Li, Thakur and Yuan do not explicitly teach, enabling the user to add additional items to the portion of items prior to executing the search.
However, Ahi teaches,
enabling the user to add additional items to the portion of items prior to executing the search (Paragraph 72-73 – teaches user interface for refining and modifying search parameters, Ahi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Li’s invention to be combined with Ahi’s invention because Li and Ahi are in the same field of endeavor of search systems, user interfaces, and methods for refining or expanding search queries.
Claims 14 and 19 are similar to claim 8 hence rejected similarly.
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 AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159