Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following is in response to the amendment filed on May 23, 2025.
Claim Rejections ‐ 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 9, 19 – 20 and 22 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category - MPEP §§ 2106.03
Claims 1–9 recite a method (process), claims 19 and 22 – 28 recite an electronic device (machine), and claims 20 and 29 – 30 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (manufacture), which fall within the statutory categories under § 101.
Independent Claims 1, 19 and 20 Analysis
Step 2A, Prong 1: Recited Judicial Exception (abstract idea) - MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)
The representative claim 1 recites the following abstract idea limitations:
determining a type and a style of each of at least one first search result in response to the at least one first search result being push information, wherein the type comprises a content page, a list page and a comprehensive page, and the style comprises a graph, a video, and a card; (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment);
based on a preset mapping relationship, determining a first score corresponding to each of the at least one first search result according to the type and the style of each of the at least one first search result (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about scoring search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment);
acquiring an updated order of the plurality of first search results by adjusting the initial order in order of the first score from largest to smallest (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about adjusting the order. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application (additional elements) - MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c),(e)-(h).
The claim recites the following additional elements:
acquiring a plurality of first search results corresponding to a search request and an initial order of the plurality of first search results corresponding to the search request (This limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).);
pushing the plurality of search results corresponding to the search request to a user based on the updated order of the plurality of first search results. (This limitation amounts to data presenting which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).);
Step 2B: Significantly more or amounting to an inventive concept (Transformation or Technological Improvement) - MPEP §§ 2106.05
Claim recites additional elements of “acquiring … search results…; and pushing … search results” at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitations on the scope of the claim. In addition, paragraphs 15 – 17 of the instant specification describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".)
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.05 (d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec...; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...;
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life...;
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp...; Ultramercial... ;
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc...;
Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank...; and
A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc...
Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent Claims Analysis
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for independent claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the above-mentioned groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically,
Claims 2, 22 and 29 add the limitation of, “determining the initial order of the plurality of first search results based on a relevance of each of the plurality of first search results to the search request, and a number of clicks of each of the plurality of first search results within a preset duration.” This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
Claims 3, 23 and 30 add the limitations of:
determining at least one vertical class label to which the search request is currently mapped; This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining labels. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
calculating a second score of each of the at least one vertical class label based on a preset value index; This limitation is a function that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept and does not transform the abstract idea.
determining a relevance of each of the plurality of first search results to each of the at least one vertical class label; This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
determining a third score of each of the plurality of first search results based on the relevance of each of the plurality of first search results to each of the at least one vertical class label, and the second score of each of the at least one vertical class label; and This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
determining the initial order of the plurality of first search results based on the third score corresponding to each of the plurality of first search results. This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
Claims 4 and 24 add the limitations of:
determining a historical search frequency and a historical click value rate corresponding to each of the plurality of first search results; and This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
determining a first search result with the historical search frequency greater than a first threshold and/or the historical click value rate greater than a second threshold as the push information. This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
Claims 5 and 25 add the limitations of:
acquiring historical search results for a specified historical duration; This limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining a fourth score corresponding to each of the historical search results based on a preset value index; and This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
determining the mapping relationship between each type and each style and the first score based on an average value of the fourth scores of the historical search results with a same type and a same style. This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
Claims 6 and 26 add the limitations:
determining a current arrangement position of each of the plurality of first search results; and This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
inserting a second search result into a specified display position in the arrangement position, wherein the second search result is a predetermined search result having a specified page feature or a specified page content. This limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 7 and 27 add the limitations of:
inserting the second search result into the specified display position in the arrangement position in response to there being one second search result; or, This limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
inserting a plurality of second search results into each of the specified display positions in the arrangement position in a preset order in response to there being the plurality of second search results. This limitation is a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 8 and 28 add the limitations of:
acquiring the plurality of first search results corresponding to the search request and device attribute information of initiating the search request; This limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining a reference order associated with the device attribute information based on a preset mapping relationship; and This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
determining the initial order of the plurality of first search results based on the reference order. This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user thinking about determining search results. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process under 2019 PEG because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment and opinion.
Claim 9 adds the limitation of, “a device type, a network type used by a device and attribute information of a user to which the device belongs.” These steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 1 – 9, 19 – 20 and 22 – 30 are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more. The dependent claims provide specific implementations but do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 19, 20 and 22-30 are allowed. The claim recites that “the type comprises a content page, a list page and a comprehensive page and the style comprises a graph, a video and a card.” The type and style of each search result includes all of the options as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues “The amended claim 1 relates to an improvement in the related art, and has novelty and inventiveness over the related art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to MPEP 2106.05(a) the improvement to the technology needs to be part of the specification, pointed out clearly and reflected in the claims. Applicant has not pointed to the disclosure’s recitation of the alleged improvement nor does the claim clearly recite what the improvement to the technology is.
Conclusion
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 MARIELA D REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-1006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-3923. 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.
/Mariela Reyes/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights