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 .
The instant office action having application number 18/651096, filed on April 30, 2024, has claims 1-21 pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024, 12/06/2024, 04/25/2025 and 08/1/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception—an abstract idea—without integrating the exception into a practical application and without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claims 1 recites A search engine server including a network interface, a processor and a memory for storing programming instructions executable on the processor; the network interface for connecting the processor to a network; the programming instructions comprising: receiving at least one historical data record; determining a first set of canonical parameters from the at least one historical data record including at least one base parameter; deriving a second set of canonical parameters from intention-elements within the respective at least one historical data record; the second set of parameters refining the at least one base parameter of the respective at least one historical data record; querying a master data domain of data based on the first set of canonical parameters and the second set of canonical parameters; extracting a sparse data domain from the master data domain based on the first set of canonical parameters and the second set of canonical parameters; and, caching the sparse data domain into an open search domain accessible to client devices connected to the network during subsequent open searches conducted via the client devices.
Claim 1 is nominally directed to a “search engine server” having a network interface, processor, and memory. The claim therefore falls within the machine category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The analysis proceeds to Alice/Mayo Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One — The Claim Recites an Abstract Idea
The following limitations recite the substance of the claimed information-processing concept:
“determining a first set of canonical parameters” from a historical data record, including a base parameter;
“deriving a second set of canonical parameters” from intention-elements in the historical data record, where the second set refines the base parameter;
querying a body of data using the first and second parameter sets; and
extracting a selected or “sparse” data domain based on those parameter sets.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations describe reviewing historical information, identifying characteristics or parameters in that information, refining an initial characteristic based on additional information, and selecting records that satisfy the resulting criteria. These are acts of observation, evaluation, judgment, and selection that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper at the level of generality claimed. They therefore fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas identified in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claim does not define a particular algorithm, data structure, indexing method, query-execution technique, cache-replacement policy, memory layout, or other technical mechanism that changes the character of these limitations. Terms such as “canonical parameters,” “intention-elements,” “master data domain,” “sparse data domain,” and “open search domain” label the information and results, but do not themselves impose a specific technological implementation. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two — No Integration into a Practical Application
The claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are: (1) a search engine server; (2) a generic network interface; (3) a generic processor; (4) a generic memory storing instructions; (5) receiving a historical data record; (6) querying a data domain; (7) extracting the selected data; (8) caching the selected data into an open search domain; and (9) making that domain accessible to networked client devices during later searches.
No improvement to computer functionality or another technology is claimed. The claim states a desired information-processing result—creating and caching a sparse domain for later searches—but does not recite how the server, database, index, memory, cache, or network is technically improved. It does not require a new cache structure, a new indexing arrangement, a nonconventional query plan, reduced memory operations, a particular distribution scheme, or a defined mechanism that produces measurable improvements in latency, throughput, storage, or reliability. Merely using parameter-based selection and caching to make information available for later searches uses the computer as a tool to carry out the abstract information-evaluation concept.
The recited machine is not a meaningful particular-machine limitation. The server, processor, memory, and network interface are described only by their ordinary functions and are not specially configured in a manner that meaningfully limits performance of the abstract idea. The claimed information evaluation is not tied to a particular machine integral to the claimed process beyond generic computer implementation.
Receiving and querying are insignificant data-gathering or implementation activity. Receiving the historical record supplies the information on which the abstract evaluation operates. Querying the master domain and extracting matching information merely apply the selected parameters to obtain the desired information. These limitations do not transform the information or impose a technological use beyond the abstract idea itself.
Caching is recited functionally and at a high level. The claim requires storing the selected sparse data domain so it can be accessed in later searches, but does not claim a specific technical manner of caching. Generic storage of the output of an abstract process is not, without more, a practical application. The phrase “open search domain” identifies the destination or availability of the information rather than a particular technological architecture.
The claim does not effect a transformation of a particular article. The claim manipulates and stores information. The data is not transformed into a different state or thing in the sense relevant to the machine-or-transformation consideration.
The claim merely limits the abstract idea to a technological environment. Limiting the information-evaluation concept to a search-engine server connected to client devices and a network does not meaningfully integrate the exception. The claim generally links the abstract idea to the field of networked search without reciting a technological implementation that changes how the computer itself operates.
Considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do no more than implement the abstract idea using generic computer components and ordinary data-receiving, querying, extracting, storing, and networking functions. The ordered combination likewise reflects the ordinary sequence of obtaining information, evaluating it to formulate criteria, locating matching information, and storing the result for later use. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A.
Step 2B — No Significantly More / Inventive Concept
The additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Generic processors, memories, servers, and network interfaces performing their ordinary functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. Likewise, receiving data, executing a query, extracting responsive data, storing or caching data, and providing network access are basic computer functions when claimed at this level of generality.
The claim does not recite an unconventional arrangement of components or a specific implementation that changes the operation of the server or search system. Rather, the alleged advance resides in the abstract rules for determining and refining parameters and using those parameters to select information. Appending conventional computer execution and generic caching to that abstract idea does not supply an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-21 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. Therefore claims 2-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-21 are depending on independent claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Gharachorloo et al. (US 7467131 B1) (hereinafter Gharachorloo).
As per claim 1, Gharachorloo discloses receiving at least one historical data record [The system stores information associated with previously submitted queries and previously generated search results. Cached entries and reuse information represent prior search activity. This is a reasonable, though construction-dependent, correspondence to a historical data record, Col. 5, line 57]; determining a first set of canonical parameters from the at least one historical data record including at least one base parameter [the search query is normalized prior to applying the hash function so that functionally identical search queries are hashed to the same search query identifier value. Normalization may include logically ordering terms in the search query in accordance with a predefined set of ordering rules, and may also include removing or changing punctuation and/or other characters in the search query in accordance with a set of normalization rules, Col. 4, line 1(The reference processes a query using initial or first search criteria and may generate a normalized query identifier. The initial query/criteria reasonably correspond to a base parameter and first parameter set.)]; deriving a second set of canonical parameters from intention-elements within the respective at least one historical data record; the second set of parameters refining the at least one base parameter of the respective at least one historical data record [generating an improved search result. The quality indicator 118 may include one or more values, and may specify one or more attributes of the cached search result. For instance, in some embodiments the quality indicator 118 specifies whether the cache search result is an improved search result or a standard search result., col. 4, line 50 (The reference processes a query using initial or first search criteria and may generate a normalized query identifier. The initial query/criteria reasonably correspond to a base parameter and first parameter set.)]; querying a master data domain of data based on the first set of canonical parameters and the second set of canonical parameters [an extended backend subsystem 410. The primary backend subsystem 402 includes a primary search controller server 404, a cache for storing query search results, and a standard database 106 of documents to be searched when generating a standard search result. The components of the primary backend subsystem 402 have been described above, with one exception. In particular, the primary search controller server 404 is configured to convey a search query to the extended backend subsystem 410 when it determines that an improved search result is to be generated, col. 6, line 42 (The reference expressly describes generating an improved search result using a second set of criteria, including modified criteria, additional databases or resources, and a greater search depth.)]; extracting a sparse data domain from the master data domain based on the first set of canonical parameters and the second set of canonical parameters [the "more extensive set of search criteria" is implemented by changing the mechanisms used to search a database of documents, for example by increasing the search depth to a larger search depth than the standard search depth, or by changing the way intermediate search results are pruned, so as to provide more result candidates to a query scoring function, thereby including in the improved search results documents that might ordinarily be excluded from the search results, col. 5, line 36; (The reference expressly describes generating an improved search result using a second set of criteria, including modified criteria, additional databases or resources, and a greater search depth.)]; and, caching the sparse data domain into an open search domain accessible to client devices connected to the network during subsequent open searches conducted via the client devices [the database 106 may be implemented with one or more document identifier servers 306 for storing the identification information of documents (e.g., indexes for mapping words (and in some embodiments for mapping phrases as well) to documents containing those words) and one or more document servers 308 for storing the actual documents of the database. Furthermore, the cache 108 may be implemented with one or more cache servers 310 for providing temporary storages of search results, col. 6, line 26 (The selected or improved search result is stored in a cache, including document identifiers and selected content/snippets. Cached results are retrieved and returned to users when the same or corresponding query is later submitted through the networked search system).].
As per claim 2, Gharachorloo discloses wherein the intention-elements are derived from an open query within the at least historical data record [The search engine system 100 includes an interface module 102, a search controller 104, a database 106, and a cache 108. The interface module 102 receives search query requests and sends search results in response to the search query requests, col. 2, line 65].
As per claim 3, Gharachorloo discloses wherein the open query is based on a natural language conversation [a user submitting the query, col. 7, line 9].
As per claim 7, Gharachorloo discloses wherein the first set of parameters is based on historical searches from the historical data records of the master data domain, the sparse data domain or the open search domain [the reuse count values for the caches search results may be stored in the cache and may be used to identify the frequency of certain search queries. The frequency of use of the cached search results may indicate recent hot queries, col. 7, line 53].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 101 rejection above.
The primary reason for objecting to claims 4-6 and 8-21 is because the prior arts of record do not teach or suggest wherein the master data domain is a travel database and the at least one base parameter includes an origin and the second set of parameters include at least one of a destination, a distance, a departure date, a budget, a stay duration, a flight duration, a seat class, an airline”; “wherein the programming instructions for extracting the sparse data domain further include: identifying and selecting neutral options from the master data domain based on predetermined criteria; and, filtering offers from the neutral options to form at least part of the sparse data domain.”; “wherein the extracting is based on a statically configured operation or dynamically adjusted in a feedback loop based on input from attached client devices accessing the search domain”; “wherein the master data domain is a restaurant reservation dining database and the base parameter is the date of the reservation”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOSHA ARJOMANDI whose telephone number is (571)272-9784. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am to 4:30pm EST.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
NOOSHA ARJOMANDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2166
August 6, 2026
/NOOSHA ARJOMANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights