DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that generating a user interface element is not something that can be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface element is a portion of a web page. Specification [0015]. People can write HTML code for a web page, including writing code for a user interface element in said web page. Using a computer as a tool (i.e., using a text editor on a computer) for the human to write HTML does not remove the act of writing HTML from being a mental process. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Therefore, generating a user interface element as claimed is practically performable in the human mind.
Applicant argues that sending instructions that cause a client computing device to display the user interface element in a search result page integrates generating a user interface element into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, sending the instructions is sending a web page containing HTML code to render the element. This is necessary data outputting, i.e., the point of writing HTML code is to send it to clients to be rendered. Therefore this does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, sending HTML in order to render the HTML is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and therefore this also does not make the claim, as an ordered combination, significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 2 and 7:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating search results in response to the query, the search results including multiple electronic resources,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., that http://www.uspto.gov/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO are electronic resources related to a query referencing the USPTO. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “identifying a set of content items relating to the entity from the multiple electronic resources, wherein the set of content items include multiple types of content items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “identifying” encompasses a person forming a judgment, e.g., by observing the webpages hosted at http://www.uspto.gov/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO to identify who is the USPTO director and where the USPTO has offices. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating, from the set of content items, a user interface element that provides a summary for the entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person collecting content items of multiple types, analyzing them to determine a summary for the entity, and presenting the results of the collection and analysis by forming a judgment as to the design and layout of the element with respect to other elements on a search result page and then arranging these elements by, e.g., writing HTML code. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving, from a client computing device, a query that references an entity,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “sending, as a response to the query, instructions that cause the client computing device to display the user interface element in a search result page, the user interface element being different from a search result for the query,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the search results page,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving, from a client computing device, a query that references an entity,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “sending, as a response to the query, instructions that cause the client computing device to display the user interface element in a search result page, the user interface element being different from a search result for the query,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this describes sending an HTML webpage, which is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C); Wikipedia, HTML, pg. 1 (“The purpose of a web browser is to read HTML documents and compose them into visual or audible web pages. The browser does not display the HTML tags, but uses the tags to interpret the content of the page.”).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the search results page,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting information. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 8:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein at least a portion of the set of content items are selected based on a number of received queries that reference one of the entity or content depicted by the set of content items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment by counting how many queries reference both the entity and the content. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 9:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “selecting a knowledge panel template based on a type of entity for the entity from a plurality of knowledge panel templates,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what template goes with what type of entity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating the user interface element by populating the knowledge panel template with the set of content items related to the entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person collecting content items of multiple types, analyzing them to determine a summary for the entity, and presenting the results of the collection and analysis by forming a judgment as to the design and layout of the element with respect to other elements on a search result page and then arranging these elements by, e.g., writing code. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 10:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining that an additional content request control was selected,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a control was selected. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “sending instructions that cause the client computing device to display additional content items relating on the user interface element without navigating away from the search result page on which the user interface element and the search result are presented,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the additional content items on the user interface element,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “sending instructions that cause the client computing device to display additional content items relating on the user interface element without navigating away from the search result page on which the user interface element and the search result are presented,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the additional content items on the user interface element,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6 and 11:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining that a request additional information control in the user interface element was selected,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a control was selected. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “in response determining that the request additional information control was selected, providing, to the client computing device, instructions that cause the client computing device to display additional information on the search result page without navigating away from the search result page,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the additional content items on the user interface element,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “in response determining that the request additional information control was selected, providing, to the client computing device, instructions that cause the client computing device to display additional information on the search result page without navigating away from the search result page,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “wherein the client computing device displays the additional content items on the user interface element,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the multiple electronic resources comprise multiple different web pages,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person collecting web pages, analyzing them to determine a summary for the entity, and presenting the results of the collection and analysis by forming a judgment as to the design and layout of the element with respect to other elements on a search result page and then arranging these elements by, e.g., writing code. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 13 and 18:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a search result page including multiple electronic resources received in response to the query, the search result page further including a user interface element generated using a set of content items related to the entity identified from the multiple electronic resources, wherein the set of content items include multiple types of content items and the user interface element provides a summary for the entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person collecting content items of multiple types, analyzing them to determine a summary for the entity, and presenting the results of the collection and analysis by forming a judgment as to the design and layout of the element with respect to other elements on a search result page and then arranging these elements by, e.g., writing HTML code. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “providing, to a search server, a query that references an entity,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “displaying, in response to receiving instructions from the search server, a search result page that includes a user interface element generated from a set of content items related to the entity that have been obtained from multiple electronic resources referenced by search results related to the query, wherein the set of content items include multiple types of content items and the user interface element provides a summary for the entity,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “displaying the user interface element in the search result page, the user interface element being different from a search result for the query,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “providing, to a search server, a query that references an entity,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “displaying, in response to receiving instructions from the search server, a search result page that includes a user interface element generated from a set of content items related to the entity that have been obtained from multiple electronic resources referenced by search results related to the query, wherein the set of content items include multiple types of content items and the user interface element provides a summary for the entity,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0039] (“A user device 106 typically includes a user application, e.g., a web browser, to facilitate the sending and receiving of data over the network 102.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “displaying the user interface element in the search result page, the user interface element being different from a search result for the query,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0039] (“A user device 106 typically includes a user application, e.g., a web browser, to facilitate the sending and receiving of data over the network 102.”), in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 14 and 19:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein at least a portion of the set of content items are selected based on a number of received queries that reference one of the entity or content depicted by the set of content items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “selecting” encompasses a person forming a judgment by counting how many queries reference both the entity and the content. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 15 and 20:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein the user interface element is a knowledge panel template populated with the set of content items related to the entity,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “populating” encompasses a person forming a judgment what content items are related to the entity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 16:
The limitation, “determine that an additional content request control was selected,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a control was selected. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of determining that a control was selected is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “in response determining that the additional content request control was selected, send instructions to the search server to generate additional content items,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “upon receiving the additional content items, display the additional content items on the user interface element without navigating away from a search result page on which the user interface element and the search result are presented,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “in response determining that the additional content request control was selected, send instructions to the search server to generate additional content items,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “upon receiving the additional content items, display the additional content items on the user interface element without navigating away from a search result page on which the user interface element and the search result are presented,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00109]-[00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The limitation, “determine that a request additional information control in the user interface element was selected,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment that a control was selected. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The abstract idea of determining that a control was selected is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “in response determining that the request additional information control was selected, send instructions to the search server to generate additional information,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “upon receiving the additional information, displaying the additional information on the search result page without navigating away from the search result page,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the particular technological environment of the Internet. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “in response determining that the request additional information control was selected, send instructions to the search server to generate additional information,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “upon receiving the additional information, displaying the additional information on the search result page without navigating away from the search result page,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [00109]-[00110], in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,268,820. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’820 patent.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,318,567. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’567 patent.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,093,539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’539 patent.
Claims 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,836,177. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader than but encompass the subject matter of the ’177 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach generating search results for a query referencing an entity, identifying content items relating to the entity from the search results, and generating, from the content items, a user interface element that summarizes the entity to be displayed along with the search results. However, this is a novel abstract idea, and therefore is not patentable.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159