DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 05/07/2026.
Claims 2, 17 and 23 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 16, and 22 have been amended.
5 Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…a network interface configured…”; “a search engine configured to:…”; and “a content modification engine configured to:…” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a method for generating custom text content responsive to a received search query, which is a statutory class (method), executed by one or more processors, a communication interface, a computing device: the method comprising:
receiving, via a communication interface from a user computing device, a search query including one or more search terms;
determining, using one or more processors and responsive to the search query, a set of search results relevant to the search query;
identifying, using one or more processors and responsive to the search query, third-party content and/or a third party relevant to the search query;
generating, using one or more processors via a content modification engine and based on (i) the search query and (ii) the third-party content or the third party, custom text content relevant to the search query and related to a landing page associated with the third-party content or the third party, for presentation along with the set of search results; and
transmitting, via the communication interface to the user computing device, the custom text content, wherein generating the custom text content includes:
forming an input vector including (i) the one or more search terms of the search
query; and (ii) at least a portion of the third-party content and/or information related to
the third party; and
processing the input vector with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine the custom text content.
The steps of
receiving, via a communication interface from a user computing device, a search query including one or more search terms;
determining, using one or more processors and responsive to the search query, a set of search results relevant to the search query;
identifying, using one or more processors and responsive to the search query, third-party content and/or a third party relevant to the search query;
generating, using one or more processors via a content modification engine and based on (i) the search query and (ii) the third-party content or the third party, custom text content relevant to the search query and related to a landing page associated with the third-party content or the third party, for presentation along with the set of search results; and
transmitting, via the communication interface to the user computing device, the custom text content, wherein generating the custom text content includes:
forming an input vector including (i) the one or more search terms of the search
query; and (ii) at least a portion of the third-party content and/or information related to
the third party, and
processing the input vector with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine the custom text content,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for generating custom content responsive to a received search query. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to transmitting the custom content to the user device.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device. The communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receiving a search query including one or more search terms, determining a set of search results relevant to the search query, identifying third-party content and/or a third party relevant to the search query, generating custom content relevant to the search query for presentation along with the set of search results, and transmitting the custom content.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of
one or more processors, a communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by a generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44); and providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, one or more processors, a communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device, performing commercial interactions including: receiving a search query including one or more search terms, determining a set of search results relevant to the search query, identifying third-party content and/or a third party relevant to the search query, generating custom content relevant to the search query for presentation along with the set of search results, and transmitting the custom content, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 1, 16 and 22 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 4, 18, 19 and 24-25, these claims recite “…wherein the input vector further includes one or more aspects of the landing page.” and “… wherein the input vector further includes one or more user characteristics.” These claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1, 16 and 22 specifically with forming and processing input vector. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 5, 20 and 26, these claims recite “…wherein generating the custom text content includes: generating, responsive to the search query, all of the custom text content…” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “one or more processors and one or more memory” language in claims 1, 16 and 22. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 6, 21 and 27, these claims recite “…wherein generating the custom text content includes: determining one or more modifications to the third-party content based on one or more search terms of the search query, and at least a portion of the third-party content”; and “…modifying the third-party content based on the one or more modifications to form the custom text content …” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “one or more processors and one or more memory” language in claims 1, 16 and 22. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claim 7, this claim recites “…wherein determining the one or more modifications includes: forming an input vector including the one or more search terms of the search query, and the at least a portion of the third-party content”; and
“processing the input vector with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine the one or more modifications. …” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “one or more processors and one or more memory” language in claim 6. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 8-10, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 6 and 7. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claim 11, this claim recites “…further comprising: transmitting, via the communication interface to the user computing device, the set of search results, wherein the custom text content is generated before the set of search results are transmitted to the user computing device.”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “one or more processors, a communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device” language in claim 1. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claims 12-13 and 15, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As for dependent claim 14, this claim recites “…further comprising: processing landing page content with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine one or more aspects of the landing page, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example but for the “one or more processors and one or more memory” language in claim 1. The claim falls into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. Applicant argued that “…35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections
Each of claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
allegedly "directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." Present Action at p. 6.
Applicant traverses this rejection and submits that each of independent claims 1, 16, and 22, and their dependent claims, constitutes patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, especially in view of the Examiner-suggested amendments, for at least the reasons discussed below.
The Office asserts that "[claim 1] does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." Present Action at p. 9. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As detailed below, amended claim 1 is patent-eligible because it recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, i.e., because claim 1 recites "an inventive concept.". See MPEP § 2106.05.I. "Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." Id. Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" include "improvements to the functioning of a computer" and "improvements to any other technology or technical field." Id. at MPEP § 2106.05.I.A. In particular, amended claim 1 provides an improvement to computer performance and resource management, which amounts to significantly more than the alleged
judicial exception itself, especially under the guidance from recent USPTO Memorandum dated December 5, 2025, with respect to "Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins" (hereinafter "Memo")…” Remarks pages 8-11
13. Examiner notes that aside from the "one or more processors, a communication interface, a network interface, a search engine , a content modifier engine, a memory and a computing device" which are "additional elements', the remainder of
the claims have been identified as part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied
using a general-purpose computer (i.e., processing device coupled to a data storage
device executing software). In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step
2a, Prong 2 the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements'.
Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea
itself. Thus, the "additional elements" as a whole are just a processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejection has been maintained. The argument is not persuasive.
14. Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-16, 18-22 and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a) have been withdrawn.
15. The previously applied reference of Gross (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0010270) in view of Liang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,613,004) do not teach “forming an input vector including (i) the one or more search terms of the search query; and (ii) at least a portion of the third-party content and/or information related to the third party, and processing the input vector with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine the custom text content.”
16. An updated search found:
17. Sharma (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/00156520) discloses advertisers can generate revenue (or credits) from an advertising network by allowing relevant ads to be shown with their properties (e.g., a document such as a Web page), and allow an ad delivery system to serve relevant ads. For example, the advertiser document may include at least one supplemental advertisement determined using search query information entered earlier by a user device. As another example, the advertiser document may include at least one supplemental advertisement determined using a correlation or association of the advertiser's advertisement and the supplemental advertisement (see at least the Abstract).
18. Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,990,634) discloses augmenting Web-based search results with relevant content received from third-party applications. Each of a plurality of third-party applications is registered to obtain an indication of entity types associated with the each registered third-party application. A user input including at least a search query is received. The search query is communicated to those third-party applications that are identified as being relevant to the search query. Search results that are relevant to the user input are received from the relevant third-party applications and are presented on a results page (see at least the Abstract).
19. However, these references do not teach or suggest forming an input vector including (i) the one or more search terms of the search query; and (ii) at least a portion of the third-party content and/or information related to the third party, and processing the input vector with one or more configured and trained machine learning models to determine the custom text content.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
21. Dhillon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,954,469) discloses techniques for creating, managing, and using query templates to facilitate the execution of relationship queries are provided. Example embodiments provide a Query Template System "QTS", which enables users, a system, program code, or other people or code to define search tips (i.e., predefined searches) through the generation of query templates that can be used by other users or code, to perform relationship searches using IQL. In one embodiment, the QTS includes a QT editor, a QT dispatcher, a QT creation and index management system, and one or more QT data repositories and indexes. These components cooperate to create and maintain query templates and to search for and retrieve matching query templates (see at least the Abstract).
22. Cook,Jr. et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,473,470) discloses a software program and associated web-based portal is provided for industry-specific product comparison. The program and an associated web portal allows the user the ability to search multiple manufacturers' catalogs and to enter a query based upon customized search criteria. Query results are returned of products that satisfy the user's search criteria. The query is made available to manufacturers whose products are identified in the query results and a communication link is provided whereby such manufacturers can contact the user to discuss the product identified in the search. The user can respond using the message board associated with the web portal. The program and portal can also integrate updates to pump manufacturers' catalogs and can also produce best-fit solutions for users' design criteria (see at least the Abstract).
23. 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.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached on 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 08/19/2026
Prosecution Insights