DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 4/30/2026 with the request for continued examination.
Examiner notes that this Application is a continuation in part of 15/373696.
Examiner further notes that 15/373696 claims priority from three different provisional applications, with the earliest claimed priority date of 12/9/15.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed 4/30/2026 added a series of limitations to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 that are directed to the internal operation of the recited Boyer-Moore search algorithm and to fuzzy logic matching. The original disclosure supports some of these limitations. Specifically, the specification describes pre-search processing in which the search query is parsed, cleansed of extraneous tokens, and truncated (Paragraphs 55 and 70; Fig. 8, element 805), and further describes that a search algorithm, such as the Boyer-Moore algorithm, “is executed for each term that was determined from the pre-search step 805” (Paragraph 56; Fig. 8, element 810). The specification likewise describes a fuzzy logic algorithm that applies a grammar dictionary to parse one or more key data attribute values within a result set to determine a match relevance score, and fuzzy matching logic using one or more distance algorithms to increase match hit rates on look-up key values based on acceptable distance matching thresholds (Paragraph 40).
The amended claims, however, go beyond this disclosure and recite a specific species of implementation that the as-filed disclosure does not describe. The original disclosure identifies the Boyer-Moore algorithm by name and discloses executing it against product data in a product database, but is entirely silent as to the internal mechanics of the algorithm. Nowhere does the disclosure describe preprocessing a pattern string being searched and skipping sections of text to decrease a number of comparisons and enable the algorithm to run faster as the pattern length increases. Nowhere does the disclosure describe comparing the user query data search terms to a subset of text which is less than all of the text, comparing the characters at different alignments such that only a subset of alignments are searched, while other alignments are skipped, or comparing an end of a pattern of text to characters in the text instead of checking every character of the text. These limitations recite textbook properties of the Boyer-Moore algorithm as affirmative method steps, but the as-filed disclosure conveys possession only of the use of the algorithm generally, not of any particular implementation of its internal comparison operations. The disclosure of a genus does not convey possession of a later-claimed species. See MPEP 2163.05. The failure to meet the written description requirement commonly arises when the claims are changed after filing to use claim language which is not synonymous with the terminology used in the original disclosure, and the introduction of limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure is a violation of the written description requirement. See MPEP 2163.05, 2163.05(II).
Additionally, each of the newly added comparing steps and each of the newly added fuzzy logic steps recites operating upon product descriptions on the webpages that describe the candidate products. The as-filed disclosure does not describe searching, parsing, or comparing text of product descriptions residing on webpages. The disclosure describes searching for product data stored in a product database (Paragraphs 35 and 39), including short description and long description fields of marketplace items (Fig. 8, element 810), and describes parsing key data attribute values within a result set (Paragraph 40). Webpages appear in the disclosure only as the medium by which query results are displayed to the user and by which the query is input via a browser. The recitation that the claimed comparisons and fuzzy parsing are performed upon product descriptions located on webpages that describe the candidate products therefore introduces an implementation not described in the as-filed disclosure.
Further, the amended claims recite that the fuzzy matching logic is applied to increase a price incentive amount. The as-filed disclosure describes the fuzzy matching logic as increasing match hit rates on look-up key values (Paragraph 40); it does not describe the fuzzy matching logic operating to increase a price incentive amount, and no other portion of the disclosure links the distance-based string matching of Paragraph 40 to any increase in a price incentive amount. While Paragraph 65 describes that a user purchase large enough to satisfy a threshold thereby increases the price incentive amount, that disclosure concerns the quantity of a completed purchase at the point of sale; it does not describe the fuzzy matching logic, or any matching operation, as increasing a price incentive amount.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite substantially identical limitations and are rejected on the same basis. Dependent claims 2-18 incorporate the unsupported subject matter of claim 1 through their dependency and are rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors and from an organization, a search query for one or more products, which constitutes a process. Claim 19 recites one or more non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage mediums having instructions stored thereon, which constitutes an article of manufacture. Claim 20 recites a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory memories, which constitutes a machine. Claims 2-18 depend from claim 1 and likewise constitute processes. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the statutory categories of a process, an article of manufacture, and a machine, respectively. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 19, and 20, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) processing the user query data to cleanse the user query data of extraneous tokens, truncating characters in the user query data and removing non-essential characters in the user query data; (2) determining that the search query is associated with the organization, wherein the organization is a business entity that purchases a plurality of candidate products from a supplier and receives structured price incentives from a contract between the organization and the supplier; (3) conducting a query of the plurality of candidate products using the search query to determine potential matches to candidate products based on the user query data by preprocessing a pattern string being searched and skipping sections of text to decrease a number of comparisons; (4) comparing the user query data search terms to a subset of text which is less than all of the text in the description of the product on webpages that describe candidate products such that less comparisons are conducted; (5) comparing the characters at different alignments in product descriptions on webpages that describe the candidate products such that only a subset of alignments are searched, while other alignments are skipped; (6) comparing an end of a pattern of text to characters in the text of the product descriptions on the webpages that describe candidate products to a subset of the text which is less than all of the text and instead of checking every character of the text; (7) applying a grammar dictionary to parse one or more data attribute values within the product descriptions on the webpages that describe the candidate products to determine a match relevance score; (8) increasing match hit rates on look-up key values based on acceptable distance matching thresholds between the data attribute values and one or more potential matches of the product descriptions to increase a price incentive amount; (9) determining the product descriptions that satisfy the acceptable distance matching thresholds; (10) obtaining a query result set that is responsive to the search query based on the descriptions of the product, the attributes of the product, organization defined search parameters and prices of the plurality of the candidate products, wherein the query result set includes the plurality of candidate products that are suitable substitutes for each other; (11) identifying the plurality of the candidate products of the result set that satisfy at least one of social, governance or diversity (SGD) factors for the organization; (12) assigning a weighting to at least one of the SGD factors based on the scores; (13) first ranking the plurality of the candidate products to create a ranked query result, by assigning a higher rank to the one or more candidate products that meet the at least one of the SGD factors; (14) identifying the plurality of the candidate products of the result set that are also associated with structured price incentives from the contract between the organization and the supplier; (15) obtaining the structured price incentives, a status of the structured price incentives and a volume from the contract needed to meet the fulfillment criteria for the benefit; (16) determining the remaining number of products in the structured price incentives from purchase history data that are needed for meeting the fulfillment criteria for the benefit; and (17) second ranking the plurality of the candidate products by assigning a higher rank to the plurality of the candidate products that meet the remaining number of products for the fulfillment criteria for the benefit provided by the structured price incentives for the organization.
As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of comparing query text against product descriptions to identify matching and substitute products, and scoring, weighting, and ranking the substitute products based on organization preferences, which is aptly categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, including sales activities, marketing, and business relations between an organization and its supplier) as well as a mental process (observations, evaluations, and judgments comparing text, assessing matches, and ranking alternatives that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: receiving, by the one or more processors and from an organization, a search query for one or more products; receiving, by the one or more processors, scores for the at least one of the SGD factors to be applied to the plurality of the candidate products; receiving, by the one or more processors, from a user the SGD factors (claim 18); and displaying, by the one or more processors, an indication associated with the one or more candidate products, the structured price incentives, a status of the structured price incentives, a projected price adjustment, a projected savings and a volume needed to meet the fulfillment criteria. The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) (“[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: one or more “processors” (claims 1, 19, 20); a “database” of the plurality of candidate products (claims 1, 19, 20); one or more non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage “mediums” (claim 19); and one or more tangible, non-transitory “memories” (claim 20). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
The claims additionally recite software elements including: a “Boyer-Moore algorithm” for conducting the query of the database of the plurality of candidate products; a “fuzzy logic algorithm” for applying the grammar dictionary to parse the one or more data attribute values; and a “fuzzy matching logic” that uses one or more “distance algorithms” for increasing the match hit rates on the look-up key values. Each of these elements is a software function operating on the generic hardware identified above, and the claims invoke each merely as a tool to perform the abstract data analysis of comparing, matching, and ranking the substitute products. Recitation of a judicial exception with mere instructions to implement it using existing software tools on a computer does not integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The recitation of the Boyer-Moore algorithm, the fuzzy logic algorithm, and the fuzzy matching logic with its distance algorithms amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract text comparison, matching, and ranking evaluations using pre-existing software tools executed on generic computer components, which is not sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The remaining additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering and output as discussed above (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and to generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of computerized product search for organizations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Rather than integrating the exception, the claims merely use generic computer components and invoked software tools to gather query and score data, perform the comparison, matching, weighting, and ranking evaluations of the abstract idea, and output a ranked result with associated price incentive information for display.
Step 2B: Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements directed to extra-solution activity amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-18 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and further limit the abstract idea as follows: determining the weighting of the SGD factors (claim 2); ranking further based on a multi-factor weighting of the SGD factors or the price incentive factors (claim 3); associating each of the candidate products with the SGD factors or the price incentive factors (claim 4); satisfying a threshold of the SGD factors (claim 5); specifying that the SGD factors include social factors or governance factors (claim 6); determining candidate products that satisfy price incentive factors (claim 7); specifying totals, amounts, tiers, and thresholds of the price incentives (claims 8-12, 15, 17); specifying particular governance and social factor categories (claims 13-14); replacing candidate products with substitute products (claim 16); and receiving the SGD factors from a user (claim 18). These limitations further specify the commercial ranking scheme and the evaluations and judgments identified above, and therefore further define the abstract idea itself rather than introducing any additional elements beyond those already addressed; the receiving of claim 18 constitutes extra-solution data transmission as discussed above. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, and are ineligible for at least the reasons set forth with respect to the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Withdrawal of Prior Art Rejections
The amendments to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 disclose various features, including: conducting the claimed query using a Boyer-Moore algorithm by preprocessing a pattern string being searched and skipping sections of text; comparing operations restricted to a subset of text which is less than all of the text, to a subset of alignments, and to an end of a pattern of text; applying, via a fuzzy logic algorithm, a grammar dictionary to parse data attribute values of product descriptions to determine a match relevance score; and fuzzy matching logic using one or more distance algorithms and acceptable distance matching thresholds, all in combination with the identification, weighting, first ranking, and second ranking of candidate products based on SGD factors and on structured price incentives under a contract between the organization and a supplier.
An updated search of the prior art directed to these newly added limitations was conducted. The search did not identify any reference, or reasonable combination of references, that discloses or renders obvious the claimed combination as amended.
The examiner notes the state of the art as follows.
The internal mechanics recited in the amended claims are documented properties of the Boyer-Moore string searching algorithm as published in 1977, and distance-based fuzzy matching with thresholds is documented in the approximate string-matching literature. See Boyer, R.S. and Moore, J.S., "A Fast String Searching Algorithm," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 20, No. 10, pp. 762-772 (October 1977), at p. 762 (Abstract, stating that the algorithm inspects fewer than all of the characters of the searched string and exhibits improved speed as the pattern length increases) and pp. 762-765 (describing comparison beginning at the rightmost end of the pattern and the use of precomputed skip information to skip portions of the searched text); Navarro, G., "A Guided Tour to Approximate String Matching," ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 31-88 (2001), at pp. 31-35 (defining the approximate string matching problem as locating matches within a maximum allowed number of errors under a distance function, including the edit (Levenshtein) distance). Neither publication concerns product search, procurement, or price incentives; each documents the recited algorithmic mechanics in the abstract.
Duxbury (US 2008/0027934) discloses a method of searching for one or more patterns in a text using Boyer-Moore methodology (Abstract; claim 1), including skip heuristics that permit locating a search pattern "whilst only examining a subset of the characters within the text" and comparison of the pattern with the text from right to left (Paragraph 3), the mismatch rule and the bad character rule applied to determine the position of the next match attempt upon a mismatch (Paragraphs 6-9), and forming a skip value for each ngram and skipping over the right hand most ngram (claim 4). Duxbury is directed to generic pattern searching for information retrieval applications (Paragraph 2); it contains no disclosure of product search, procurement, candidate products, or price incentives.
Kamotsky (US 10,565,188) discloses a search engine adaptable for an electronic commerce website that partitions a search query into sub-phrases and matches the sub-phrases against product attribute fields, such as brand, color, and product type, in a search index, applying configured match constraints to identify legitimate matches (Abstract; claim 1; FIGS. 2-3; Detailed Description example matching the query "pink sweater" against COLOR and PRODUCT_TYPE field values). Kamotsky, however, contains no disclosure of the recited Boyer-Moore comparison operations (no skipping of alignments, no comparison of an end of a pattern, no restriction to a subset of text), no disclosure of fuzzy matching using distance algorithms or acceptable distance matching thresholds, and no disclosure of ranking candidate products by SGD factors or by structured price incentive fulfillment criteria.
Lightner (US 9,208,204) discloses fuzzy-score matching that compares a search query against records of an entity co-occurrence knowledge base using string metrics including Levenshtein distance and selects the closest-matching records as ranked search suggestions (Abstract; FIG. 2, fuzzy-score matching step 208 and selection step 210; Detailed Description identifying Levenshtein distance, strcmp95, and ITF scoring as the string metrics employed). Lightner operates on query autocomplete suggestions against an entity knowledge base; it contains no disclosure of parsing data attribute values of candidate product descriptions with a grammar dictionary to determine a match relevance score, no disclosure of fuzzy matching directed to increasing a price incentive amount, and no product procurement or price incentive context.
Accordingly, the identified art documents the recited algorithms individually, but no reference discloses the claimed combination of the recited Boyer-Moore comparison operations and fuzzy distance matching applied to candidate product data in an organization procurement search together with the recited SGD factor first ranking and the second ranking based on the remaining number of products needed to meet structured price incentive fulfillment criteria, and neither the prior art of record nor the updated search supports a rejection of the claimed combination as amended. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
However, as set forth above, the newly added limitations are subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as lacking written description support in the as-filed disclosure. Applicant is placed on notice that the withdrawal of the prior art rejections is occasioned solely by newly added subject matter that lacks written description support. Should applicant address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by canceling or amending the unsupported limitations, prosecution will be reopened as to the prior art, and rejections over the prior art, including the references previously applied, may be reintroduced as necessitated by such amendment. See MPEP 2163.06(I).
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not relied upon in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Helminen et al. (20150199718), directed to selecting content items using entities and search results.
Ismalon et al. (20090119261), directed to a method for ranking search results.
Akerman et al. (20140236678), directed to a method to enhance search via transactional data.
Book et al. (20120246004), directed to a method for customer interaction.
Cheung et al. (20030101126), directed to position bidding in a pay for placement database search system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are rendered moot in view of the withdrawal of the prior art rejections, as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. As an initial matter, the limitations upon which Applicant's eligibility arguments principally rely are newly added limitations that are subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth above. Nevertheless, the newly added limitations have been fully considered in the eligibility analysis, and even assuming arguendo that they were supported by the as-filed disclosure, they would not render the claims eligible for the reasons described below.
Applicant first asserts that the claimed use of the Boyer-Moore search algorithm improves the functionality of the computer by allowing the computer to perform quicker and more efficient searches. This argument is unpersuasive. The asserted efficiency is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer or any other technology; it is a consequence of performing fewer comparisons on less data. Under the claims, the user query data is first cleansed of extraneous tokens, truncated, and stripped of non-essential characters, and the recited comparisons are then confined to a subset of text which is less than all of the text and to a subset of alignments. Reducing the volume of data examined, and then observing that the examination completes more quickly, does not constitute a technical solution or a technical improvement; it is no different than filtering a large dataset down to a subset and asserting that the computer has thereby been made more efficient. Nothing in the claims or the disclosure describes any change to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Moreover, the speed characteristics Applicant attributes to the invention (preprocessing the pattern, skipping text, and running faster as the pattern length increases) are properties of the Boyer-Moore algorithm itself, which Applicant expressly acknowledges existed prior to the claimed invention. A claim that invokes an existing algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract comparison and ranking of substitute products amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The examiner additionally notes that the disclosure describes imposing a maximum term length for Boyer-Moore optimization (Fig. 8, element 805), that is, limiting the pattern length, which is not consistent with an invention predicated on exploiting improved performance as pattern length increases.
Applicant similarly asserts that the claimed fuzzy matching logic improves the functionality of the computer by increasing match hit rates on look-up key values, and that the fuzzy logic uses machine learning and artificial intelligence. These arguments are unpersuasive. Increasing the rate at which query terms are matched to product descriptions is an improvement, if at all, in the abstract data analysis itself (better identification of matching and substitute products for the commercial ranking scheme), not an improvement in the functioning of the computer on which that analysis runs. An asserted advance that lies in the abstract idea is not a practical application of it. See MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d). As to machine learning and artificial intelligence, no such limitation appears in the claims; the claims recite a fuzzy logic algorithm applying a grammar dictionary and fuzzy matching logic using distance algorithms, and attorney argument cannot import unclaimed technology into the eligibility analysis.
Applicant next asserts that, under Step 2A, Prong Two, examiners should give weight to all additional elements whether or not they are conventional. The examiner agrees with this statement of the guidance, and the rejection reflects it. Specifically, each additional element, including the recited algorithms, has been identified and evaluated individually and in combination in the Prong Two analysis without regard to conventionality, and conventionality is addressed only in the Step 2B Berkheimer analysis of the extra-solution activity. Giving the elements weight, however, does not compel the conclusion that they integrate the exception. For the reasons set forth in the rejection, the additional elements amount to invoking existing software tools and generic computer components to perform the abstract idea, insignificant extra-solution activity, and a general link to a technological environment.
Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention provides the practical applications of increasing match hit rates, removing undesired products from the results, and reordering products based on certain criteria. This argument is conclusory because it restates the abstract idea itself: identifying matching and substitute products and ranking or reordering them according to organization preferences is the commercial ranking scheme identified at Prong One, not an additional element that applies it in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Applicant also asserts that the claimed invention cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind because the volume of data is unmanageable by a human, citing databases of medical supplies extending into tens of thousands of items. This argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims recite no data volume; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited processing and comparing encompass evaluating a query against a modest set of product descriptions, and each recited operation (disregarding extraneous characters in a query, comparing query terms to portions of a product description rather than every character, and judging whether similar strings refer to the same product) is an observation, evaluation, or judgment of the kind that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Indeed, the processing step is not even tied to the one or more processors. That a computer can perform these evaluations more quickly, or upon more data, than a human does not preclude the mental process grouping, as the claims merely recite otherwise mental evaluations performed on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Applicant's reliance on Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc. is misplaced. The district court decision Applicant cites was reversed on appeal, with the Federal Circuit holding the claims at issue invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea. See Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 680 F. App'x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The decision therefore does not support eligibility here.
Applicant's reliance on XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics and Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. is likewise unpersuasive. In XY, the claims were directed to an improved method of operating a flow cytometry apparatus to physically sort particles, a technological process whose mathematical refinements improved the operation of the sorting technology itself. In Packet Intelligence, the claims solved a technological problem within computer networks by enabling the identification of disjointed connection flows belonging to the same conversational flow in network traffic. In contrast, the present claims do not improve any physical process, apparatus, or network technology; they compare query text to product descriptions and rank commercial substitute products according to organization preferences and price incentive fulfillment. Grouping products that share attributes for purposes of a purchasing decision is a commercial evaluation, not a technological solution analogous to those in the cited decisions.
Finally, Applicant asserts that dependent claims 2-18 are eligible for the same reasons as the independent claims, in addition to their own eligible features. Because the arguments with respect to the independent claims are unpersuasive for the reasons above, and because the dependent claims further define the abstract idea as set forth in the rejection, this argument is likewise unpersuasive.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights