DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 11/20/25.
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.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 12/9/15, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1-7, 12-14, and 16-20 have been amended.
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 § 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.
Independent claims 1, 19, and 20, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) determining that the search query is associated with an organization; (2) determining a result set responsive to the search query based on product descriptions, product attributes, organization defined search parameters and prices of a plurality of candidate products in a database, wherein the query result set includes the plurality of candidate products that are suitable substitutes for each other; (3) 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; (4) assigning a weighting to at least one of the SGD factors based on the scores; (5) 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; and (6) reordering the one or more candidate products based on a weighting of the one or more candidate products by the organization. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of selecting, scoring/weighting, ranking, and reordering substitute products based on organization preferences (including SGD/price-incentive criteria), which is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (commercial interactions/marketing/sales activity and business relations) as well as a mental process (evaluating factors and preferences, applying scores/weights, and ranking alternatives). 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 one or more processors, 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”; and “providing, by the one or more processors, the reordered plurality of the candidate products, the descriptions, images or videos associated with the plurality of candidate products, the product attributes, the organization defined search parameters and the prices of the one or more candidate products to an electronic display for display.” Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. (See Accenture, 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: (1) “one or more processors” (claims 1, 19, 20), (2) a “database” of candidate products (claims 1, 19, 20), (3) “organization defined search parameters” (claims 1, 19, 20), and (4) an “electronic display” for display (claims 1, 19, 20). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than field-of-use limitations (applying the abstract idea to product search/ranking for organizations using SGD/price-incentive criteria), with generic computer components (processors, databases, and displays) to automate the mental processes of applying factor scores/weights and ranking/reordering substitute products. 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., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, 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. Rather, the claims merely use generic computer components to obtain product information, apply organization-defined scoring/weighting criteria (including SGD and price incentive criteria), and output a reordered ranked list for display.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data. 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 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-18 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and further limit the abstract idea with non-functional descriptive features as follows: determining the weighting of SGD factors (claim 2); multi-factor weighting based on SGD/diversity/price incentive factors (claim 3); associating products with SGD/price incentive factors (claim 4); satisfying a threshold of SGD factors (claim 5); specifying that SGD includes social/governance factors (claim 6); determining products that satisfy price incentive factors (claim 7); specifying totals/amounts and thresholds for incentives (claims 8-12, 15, 17); specifying particular governance/social factor categories (claims 13-14); replacing candidate products with substitute products (claim 16); and receiving at least one SGD factor from a user (claim 18). These claims merely specify particular implementation details or variations on the fundamental commercial practice of ranking and recommending substitute products based on organization-defined preferences, ESG/SGD criteria, and/or price incentives. They do not recite any additional functional computer operations beyond generic scoring/weighting and ranking/reordering of information, and do not affect an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself, in database/search technology, or in any other technical field. The dependent claims merely add further detail to the abstract idea of product selection/ranking based on preferences and incentives without providing significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro et al. (US 8,359,245 B1) in view of Crosby et al. (US 2003/0028527 A1) and further in view of Argue et al. (US 2014/0089133 A1).
Claims 1 and 19-20: Ballaro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a search query for one or more products; (col. 7, ll. 10–17. The search engine “allows the user to search through the hosted product index … to find a product,” which corresponds to receiving a product search query);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the search query is associated with an organization (col. 7, ll. 1–6; col. 7, ll. 18–23. Ballaro discloses authentication determining a user profile including an “associated organization,” and further discloses that search results are processed/displayed based on business rules set for the user and the user’s organization, which associates the search activity with the organization.);
determining, by the one or more processors, a result set responsive to the search query based on product descriptions, product attributes, organization defined search parameters and prices of a plurality of candidate products in a database (col. 7, ll. 14–23; col. 35, l. 1 – col. 36, l. 35. Ballaro discloses generating search results by searching tokenized product data stored in a product database, and Ballaro’s catalog/price database structures include item attribute data and price data usable to determine the query-responsive result set.); and
providing, by the one or more processors, the reordered plurality of the candidate products, the descriptions, images or videos associated with the plurality of candidate products, the product attributes, the organization defined search parameters and the prices of the one or more candidate products to an electronic display for display. (col. 7, ll. 18–23; col. 35, l. 1 – col. 36, l. 15. Ballaro discloses that search results are displayed to the user, and Ballaro’s catalog database includes item attribute data and item image data for catalog items, which are provided for display along with associated pricing information.)
Ballaro does not explicitly describe a method “wherein the query result set includes the plurality of candidate products that are suitable substitutes for each other.”
Argue, however, discloses a method wherein the query result set includes the plurality of candidate products that are suitable substitutes for each other (Abstract; Paragraphs 0046–0049, 0059. Argue discloses determining potential substitutes for a product using a substitution database that relates an item to potential substitutes and associated attributes, determining a score for each potential substitute based on the attributes, and determining/providing a set of recommended substitutes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Argue with those of Ballaro. One would have been motivated to do this in order to present, within an organization procurement catalog search, alternative purchasable items that can substitute for each other so that the organization/user can select an acceptable alternative when preferred items are unavailable or less desirable.
Next, neither Ballaro nor Argue discloses a method for “identifying, by the one or more processors, 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.”
Crosby, however, discloses a method for identifying, by the one or more processors, 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 (Paragraphs 2-4 and 29-31. Crosby describes using social responsibility categories/factors to evaluate items/companies and using the selected factors in connection with presenting results responsive to a search.)
The Bellaro/Argue combination also does not appear to explicitly disclose “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 [and] assigning, by the one or more processors, a weighting to at least one of the SGD factors based on the scores.”
Crosby, however, discloses a method for 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 [and] assigning, by the one or more processors, a weighting to at least one of the SGD factors based on the scores (Paragraphs 29 and 34-37. Crosby describes discloses obtaining/using factor ratings (scores) and applying user-selected weights to categories/factors to compute weighted scores used for evaluation.).
Finally, the Bellaro/Argue combination does not appear to explicitly describe a method for ranking, by the one or more processors, 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; and reordering, by the one or more processors, the one or more candidate products based on a weighting of the one or more candidate products by the organization.
Crosby, however, discloses a method for ranking, by the one or more processors, 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; and reordering, by the one or more processors, the one or more candidate products based on a weighting of the one or more candidate products by the organization (Paragraphs 28-40. Crosby discloses sorting/ordering results based on the computed weighted score (derived from weighted social responsibility factors) and providing/displaying the ranked results.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Crosby with those of Ballaro/Argue. One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow an organization using an electronic procurement catalog search (including substitute-result-set functionality) to apply organization policy/preferences (e.g., social/governance/diversity priorities) via weighted factors to reorder search results so that preferred-compliant products are presented more prominently.
Claim 2: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue combination discloses those limitations cited above. Crosby, however, further discloses determining, by the one or more processors, the weighting of the at least one of the SGD factors. (Paragraphs 25, 29, and 34. Crosby teaches weighting social responsibility categories based on user-selected importance values (e.g., “high/medium/low/none”), and explicitly describes that the process “weights each of the categories chosen by the user” and “collects the category weights submitted by the user.”).
The rationale for combining Crosby with Ballaro and Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 3: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue combination discloses those limitations cited above. Crosby, however, further discloses a method wherein the ranking the plurality of candidate products to create the ranked query result is further based at least in part on a multi-factor weighting of at least one of the SGD factors, the diversity factors or the price incentive factors. (Paragraphs 2, 25, 34, and 37. Crosby teaches ranking based on multiple social responsibility categories/factors (including diversity-type considerations), where the process “weights each of the categories chosen by the user,” collects category weights, generates a “weighted factors list,” and then multiplies each factor’s rating by its weight and totals the factors to produce a final value used to sort/rank results.).
The rationale for combining Crosby with Ballaro and Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 4: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue combination discloses those limitations cited above. Crosby, however, further discloses a method wherein each item is associated with the set of categories. Paragraphs 2-3; Claim 1. The categories are social responsibility categories and include “Diversity” (i.e., an SGD-type factor), which teaches associating each candidate product/item with at least one SGD factor/category.).
The rationale for combining Crosby with Ballaro and Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 5: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Crosby, however, further discloses a method wherein determining the subset of the plurality of candidate products that satisfy the SGD factors. (Paragraphs 4, 25-26, and 34-37. Crosby teaches presenting social responsibility categories and corresponding factors, receiving user-selected category weights and factor selections, generating a weighted factors list, determining factor ratings for companies, multiplying each factor rating by its corresponding weight, and summing the weighted factor values to determine a total score/final value for each company/item).
Argue, on the other hand, further discloses wherein the determining the subset of the plurality of candidate products that satisfy the SGD factors includes satisfying a threshold of the SGD factors (Paragraphs 64-65. Argue teaches determining scores for potential substitutes and forming a recommended set by comparing each score to a score threshold and including the potential substitute when its score exceeds the score threshold).
The rationale for combining Crosby, Argue, and Ballaro is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 6: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue combination discloses those limitations cited above. Crosby, however, further discloses a method wherein the SGD factors include at least one of social factors or governance factors. (Paragraphs 2, 4, 27, and 29-30; Fig. 2A and 4B. Crosby teaches that the categories/factors used to rank items/companies are “areas of social responsibility,” and provides example social-responsibility categories such as Environment, Animals, Diversity, Women’s rights, and Community (i.e., social factors), with further factor-level detail within categories (e.g., Hiring Practices with factors such as Minority Workers and Female CEO).
The rationale for combining Crosby with Ballaro and Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 18: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby combination discloses those limitations cited above. Crosby, however, further discloses a method for receiving, by the one or more processors, from a user at least one of the SGD factors. (Paragraphs 4, 30, and 34. Crosby discloses “displaying a set of factors for each category when selected by the user where each factor [is] capable of being chosen by the user,” and that “the factors are chosen by the user,” which corresponds to the claimed user-provided “SGD factors.” Crosby further describes receipt of the user’s selected factors by disclosing collating the user input, including that “Process 14 collects (84) a count of the factors submitted for each category by the user.”).
The rationale for combining Crosby with Ballaro and Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 7-8, 10-12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro/Crosby/Argue in view of Lawe (20070022007).
Claim 7: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the determining the plurality of candidate products further includes determining the plurality of candidate products that satisfy price incentive factors.
Lawe, however, discloses a method wherein the determining the plurality of candidate products further includes determining the plurality of candidate products that satisfy price incentive factors. (Paragraphs 21 and 91. Lawe discloses a shopping search portal that enables buyers to search for items offering a reward (rebate) and further discloses ranking the results based on an incentive/reward percentage (e.g., “ranking results by highest percentage reward”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to incorporate Lawe’s incentive/rebate-percentage ranking/selection feature into the Ballaro/Crosby/Argue method of determining the subset (so that the subset is further determined based on candidate products satisfying price incentive factors). One would have been motivated to do this in order to incentivize the user by prioritizing financially advantageous items (e.g., higher rebate / lower effective cost).
Claim 8: The Ballaro/Crosby/Argue/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further describes a method wherein the price incentive factors include at least one of a total to fulfill the price incentive or a price incentive amount. (Paragraphs 40-41, 91, and 106-108; Fig. 12B. Lawe describes a rebate percentage used for ranking results and reward amounts due recorded in an open mass pay file that holds buyer rewards due.).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Crosby/Argue is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 10: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method wherein the ranking is further based on price incentive factors, and wherein a first price incentive eligible product is more indicative of importance than a second price incentive eligible product when the number of the first price incentive eligible products sold is closer to fulfillment than the second price incentive eligible product. (Fig. 12B. The products with higher discounts are presented higher on the list of products to be purchased. The first (higher) price incentives are “more important” than the lower ones because they’re indicative of higher discounts.).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Argue/Crosby is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 11: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method wherein the ranking is further based on price incentive factors, and wherein a ranking of a price incentive eligible product is more indicative of importance than a second product of the query result when the second product is not associated with a price incentive structure. (Fig. 12B. The products are ranked according to the highest discounts. This is indicative of a greater importance than other products because they have lower discounts associated with them.).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Argue/Crosby is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 12: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method wherein the ranking is further based on price incentive factors, and wherein the price incentive factors include a tiered price incentive structure, wherein the tiered price incentive structure includes two or more tiers, and wherein each of the tiers includes a total to fulfill the tier and a tier price incentive amount (Paragraphs 92 and 113; Fig. 12B, step 86; Fig. 4A; and Claim 9. Lawe discloses that “all matching seller item results are rank-ordered in descending order by the rebate percentage being offered to the identified buyer,” such that “the seller offering the greatest reward percentage to the buyer is shown first,” i.e., the ranking is based on a price incentive factor (rebate percentage); and progressive rebate percentages by purchase sequence—e.g., “the second transaction will be 4, the third transaction will be 6, the fourth will be 8 and all subsequent qualifying purchases will be for 10,” and “the transaction number field… dictates the percentage applied,” which corresponds to tiers keyed to a required transaction count (“total to fulfill”) and an associated rebate percentage (“tier price incentive amount”)).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Argue/Crosby is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 15: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method wherein the price incentive factors comprise data that alters a purchase price of a product based on at least one of a tier, a volume, a rebate or an administrative fee. (Paragraph 21. The price incentive factor is in the form of a rebate.).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Argue/Crosby is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 17: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method wherein the ranking is further based on a fulfillment score, and wherein the fulfillment score is determined based on a price incentive structure for one or more of the candidate products. Fig. 12B; Claims 7 and 10. Lawe teaches that matching seller item results are “rank-ordered in descending order by the rebate percentage being offered” such that the seller offering the greatest reward percentage is shown first (Fig. 12B), and further teaches that the rebate reward is recorded in a mass pay file and sent to a payment transfer agent for processing/fulfillment (claim 7), including that items are presented/ranked in descending order of the percentage (claim 10).).
The rationale for combining Lawe with Ballaro/Argue/Crosby is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe in view of Ross (10740780).
The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lawe, however, further discloses a method in which price incentives are presented to the user with further consideration being given to their previous purchases (Paragraph 32).
The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe combination, however, does not appear to explicitly describe a method wherein the ranking is further based on price incentive factors, and wherein the price incentive factors are based on a number of the one or more products that have been purchased to date, a value of the one or more products that have been purchased to date or a total to fulfill a price incentive threshold value for the one or more products.
Ross, however, discloses a method wherein the ranking is further based on price incentive factors, and wherein the price incentive factors are based on a number of the one or more products that have been purchased to date, a value of the one or more products that have been purchased to date or a total to fulfill a price incentive threshold value for the one or more products. (Claim 1. The incentives are provided to a user based on a total amount spent by the shopper against a selected threshold spend amount requirement.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Ross with those of Ballaro/Argue/Crosby/Lawe. One would have been motivated to do this in order to encourage a customer to make multiple purchases over a period of time.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro/Argue/Crosby in view of Official Notice.
Claim 13: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not explicitly describe a method wherein the governance factors include a entity leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.
Official Notice is taken that, in the art of evaluating corporate governance, governance factors commonly include leadership (e.g., board/executives), executive compensation, audits/internal controls, and shareholder rights, as such factors are well-known and routinely used to assess corporate governance.
Claim 14: The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not explicitly describe a method wherein the social factors include labor practices, product safety, data protection, privacy management and the entity relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and communities where the entity operates.
Official Notice is taken that, in the art of evaluating an entity using social factors (e.g., social/ESG-type scoring, enterprise evaluation, or other “social factor” analysis), such social factors commonly include (i) labor practices (and related workforce/employee practices), (ii) product safety (including customer health and safety considerations), (iii) data protection and privacy management (including management of consumer/employee data and privacy practices), and (iv) the entity’s relationships with key stakeholders including employees, suppliers, customers, and communities in which the entity operates, because these categories are well-known, conventional “social” evaluation dimensions that are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known in the relevant art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro/Argue/Crosby in view of Grant (20150012363).
The Ballaro/Argue/Crosby combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not explicitly describe a method further comprising replacing, by the one or more processors, one or more of the result products in the subset of the plurality of the candidate products with one or more substitute products.
Grant, however, discloses a method further comprising replacing, by the one or more processors, one or more of the result products in the subset of the plurality of the candidate products with one or more substitute products. (Paragraph 125. One of the product results in the list is substituted with another.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Grant with those of Ballaro/Argue/Crosby. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide the user with content that is more relevant to them (Grant, Paragraph 125).
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 sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101 are unpersuasive.
First, Applicant asserts the claimed invention is analogous to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 (Relocation of Icons on a GUI) and contends Example 37 was “not a mental process because it inextricably involves computer technology.” However, the USPTO’s own sample rejection for Example 37 explains that the “determining” and “ranking” limitations, as drafted, can still be treated as mental processes under a broadest reasonable interpretation when they merely recite generic computer components (e.g., “by a processor”) without reciting technological details that preclude practical performance in the mind. Here, the claimed “receiving … a search query,” “receiving … scores,” and “providing … to an electronic display for display” are properly characterized as data gathering and output/presentation, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity, rather than the focus of the abstract idea itself.
Further, Example 37’s eligible-claim analysis turns on a specific manner of automatically arranging GUI icons (e.g., moving the most-used icons closest to the “start” icon) to address a UI-navigation problem, with claim language tied to icon placement on a GUI in that specific manner. In contrast, applicant’s claims focus on ranking and reordering substitute products based on organization-defined criteria (SGD factors, scores/weights, and price incentive factors), which is a commercial ranking/recommendation scheme (a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process) rather than a technological improvement to GUI functionality or computer operation.
Applicant also asserts the claimed invention is analogous to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 2 (Generating a Composite Web Page) and argues the claims “store elements … then … merge” data and provide access to merged data on an electronic display. Example 2 is based on DDR Holdings and is treated as eligible because it recites a specific way to automatically generate a composite web page that combines “look and feel” elements of a host site with merchant content to solve an Internet-centric problem (retaining website visitors), not merely because it stores data, retrieves data, and displays data. Applicant’s claims do not recite generating a composite web page with host-site “look and feel,” do not recite the DDR-style outsourcing/composite-page mechanism, and instead recite (at a high level) selecting/ranking/reordering product search results using organization criteria and then presenting the results—i.e., the type of conventional data processing and result presentation that does not, without more, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims “integrate” the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they weight/rank results, remove undesired products, and reorder products based on criteria. This argument is conclusory because it restates the abstract idea (applying scores/weights/criteria to reorder results) rather than identifying an additional element (or ordered combination) that improves computer functionality, effects a particular transformation, or otherwise applies the exception in a manner that meaningfully limits it beyond generic computer implementation and extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the rejection under Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two) is maintained, and the additional elements remain generic computer components performing conventional receiving/storing/retrieving/ranking/output functions, which do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by the amendments.
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 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
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621