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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination for filed on 05/07/2026 for the application No. 18/692,648. Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 22-29 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 22-29 have been rejected as follow
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, recites in limitations the terms “a second interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In other words, the claim is rejected for being indefinite because it is ambiguous, a second interface without claiming a first interface is not clear.
As to claims 2-5, they depend of claim 1 and they do not cure the deficiencies set forth above. Therefore, these dependent claims are also rejected for failing to clarify the term which renders the claims indefinite.
As to claim 26, recites in limitations the term “intent-specific”. It is rejected because it is ambiguous. It is not clear if this specific spelling with hyphen between two words has a special meaning. The disclosure does not refer to the term.
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 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 22-29 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “determining a search intent of the user based on the first information; determining a target advertised vendor based on the search intent; … generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent, wherein the content is associated with the first information;”
The “determining, generating” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. A search method to accurately help a user to obtain a searched-for- thing through searching application. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “receiving, …, first information; transmitting the automatically generated content to the terminal for display ….”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data).
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure: “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface. T
the term automatically”
These elements are recited in a very generic way. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not reflect any technical improvement on the functioning of the computer or technical field and details of how implement the invention to achieve the improvement. The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Therefore, the Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the supplementary or additional elements in the claim, “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically””amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that a supplementary or additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Again, in this step, the additional elements in the claims under consideration are:
performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically”They were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“receiving, …, first information; transmitting the automatically generated content to the terminal for display ….”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically” were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 9: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 22: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a terminal device (a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 23: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a server (a system).
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 16 and 22- 29, the claims recite elements such as “wherein before displaying, the second interface, the method further comprises: extracting, by the server, a keyword in the first information; determining, by the server, at least one advertised vendor based on the keyword in the and a pre-stored correspondence between the keyword and the at least one advertised vendor; and determining, by the server, the target advertised vendor from the at least one advertised vendor based on a bidding rule”, etc. The Examiner notes that new dependent claims were amended and all were considered. Specifically, claim 25 introduces the feature “using a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model”. This feature and the combination “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically” were considered. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by PG. Pub. No. 20090299853 (Jones).
As to claims 1, 9, and 22, Jones discloses a method performed by a server (Fig. 1 and 19 and associated disclosure), and comprising:
a) receiving, from a terminal, first information;
(“[0122] As illustrated in FIG. 2, a process 200 for performing an information search is provided. The process 200 may be operative on any or all elements of the system 100 (FIG. 1).
[0123] In operation 205, a determination is made as to whether a request is received [first information]. For example, if a search query is submitted via voice, or SMS to a server, or an email is received at an email address, or if an Instant Message (IM) is received at a IM service account associated with the search system 130 (FIG. 1…”, paragraphs 122-123 and Figs 1-2
“[0155] The process 400 and the process 500 may be used to provide a search result(s) which may include and/or exclude various types of information from consideration by a guide(s) and/or a resource(s) performing a search. For example, using a first search process which excludes consideration of compensation, and a second search process which includes consideration of compensation may be advantageous in selecting a result to be presented to a user. Human judgment may be employed to determine whether a result which has a high economic value is to be preferred over a result which is closer to the intent of a request.”, paragraph 155.
“…For example, a user might submit a request regarding a type of product, and might indicate intent to purchase the product. …. `vendor` who may provide an item(s) and/or service(s) to a user. A user may confirm the intent to make a purchase…”, paragraph 280);
b) determining a search intent of the user based on the first information;
(“[0155] The process 400 and the process 500 may be used to provide a search result(s) which may include and/or exclude various types of information from consideration by a guide(s) and/or a resource(s) performing a search. For example, using a first search process which excludes consideration of compensation, and a second search process which includes consideration of compensation may be advantageous in selecting a result to be presented to a user. Human judgment may be employed to determine whether a result which has a high economic value is to be preferred over a result which is closer to the intent of a request.”, paragraph 155.
“…For example, a user might submit a request regarding a type of product, and might indicate intent to purchase the product. …. `vendor` who may provide an item(s) and/or service(s) to a user. A user may confirm the intent to make a purchase…”, paragraph 280.
“[0281] If a request is received, a unique identifier may be associated with the request and with a user submitting the request. A determination is made as to whether a request includes an indication of the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)….”, paragraph 281);
c) determining a target advertised vendor (see Fig. 14 and associated disclosure) based on the search intent;
(“[0284] A user request(s) may be determined to include a request to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s). An item(s) and/or service(s) to be purchased may be identified, and a request may be associated with a categorization [Examiner interprets as based on matching a keyword in the first information ], a keyword(s), a profile(s) and/or other information which may be used to select a number of advocates [vendor] to respond to a request to purchase or `purchase request…”, paragraph 284.
“0328] In operation 2050 information of a transaction is recorded. In at least one embodiment, the search system database 1920 (FIG. 19) and/or the vendor system database 1980 is updated. For example, information associated with a request, …, a vendor , etc. associated with a categorization(s), keyword(s) [Examiner interprets as advertised vendor based on matching a keyword in the first ]… etc. may be recorded and/or associated and information of the associations may be recorded in the search system database 1920 and/or the vendor system database 1980…”, paragraph 328.
See also bidding rule, “0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. For example, even if an advertiser has the highest bid for a keyword, if the search result associated with the advertiser has a low merit ranking, …”, paragraph 6.
“[0072] A system and method for selection of item(s) which may include commercial consideration(s) is described. A user of a search service submits a request for information. A response or search result which may be influenced by commercial considerations is delivered… a search result, which may be an advertisement and/or other sponsored search result….”, paragraph 72.
“…current bids for placement of advertisements within an interface and/or other resource(s) available to a guide(s) might be provided to an advertiser(s), who might make decisions based on that information”, paragraph 89);
d) automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent, wherein the content is associated with the first information; and
([0336] In operation 2115 an offer is selected. An offer may be selected responsive to a user request determined to indicate intent to make a purchase. An offer may be an offer to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s). Any number of offers may be selected. For example, a purchase request may be compared to a database of purchase requests, which may be associated with one or more offers, which may be selected based on a rating and/or ranking of an offer associated with a request(s). Any information associated with a request may be used to select an offer(s). For example, a keyword(s), category(ies), user(s), profile(s), guide(s), etc. which may be associated with a request may be associated with a ranking of an offer, which may be used at least in part to select an offer. Any or all selected offers may be provided to a user. An offer may be static information and/or may be dynamically generated based on information of a request.[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent] ….”, paragraph 336.
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items.[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent], etc. An algorithm is applied to the content of each item and a ranking is assigned to the item. When a query is entered by a user, the search system analyzes the query to extract keywords contained in the query and presents items such as web pages and/or advertisements .[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent] in an order related to the ranking”, paragraph 490);
e) transmitting the automatically generated content to the terminal for display in a second interface.
(“[0076] If multiple result(s) are associated with a request(s) the result(s) may be ranked to determine an order in which the result(s) may be presented to a user(s) [Examiner interprets as a second interface]. A ranking of a result(s) may be based on any type of information associated with the result(s). A request is identified and may be assigned a unique identifier. Information such as a category(ies), geographic information and/or a profile(s) may be selected to be associated with a request which may be used in processing of the request….. An indicator of items such as a category(ies), keyword(s) or keyphrase(s) or `interests`, geographic information, time information, previous activities and/or other information associated with a request may be provided to a guide(s) selected to respond to the request. …”, paragraph 76.
“…A result with a higher ranking may be presented first in a list of search results presented in a browser window or other types of user interface [Examiner interprets as a second interface]. Such systems may produce a so-called `organic` search result[Examiner interprets as a second interface]. …”, paragraph 5.
“0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. For example, even if an advertiser has the highest bid for a keyword, if the search result associated with the advertiser has a low merit ranking, …”, paragraph 6.
“[0072] A system and method for selection of item(s) which may include commercial consideration(s) is described. A user of a search service submits a request for information. A response or search result which may be influenced by commercial considerations is delivered… a search result, which may be an advertisement and/or other sponsored search result….”, paragraph 72.
See also “[0075] A query or search query or search request or "request" may include a keyword(s), a category(ies), a fully formed question(s), a statement(s), any type of media, implicit data such as information associated with a user identifier(s) and/or device(s). A request may include any media which may be provided by a user. A request may receive a response or search result or `result` which is produced automatically ….”, paragraph 75).
As to claim 9, it comprises the same limitation than claim 1 above , therefore is rejected in similar manner. Further, the claim comprises
transmitting, in response to an operation of the user on the first interface, a server;
(see Figs 4 or 5 and associated disclosure.
[0016] FIG. 3 is flowchart of processing a query from a system server perspective.
[0034] FIG. 21 is a flowchart of a process of handling a request from a system server perspective.
See also “vetted request” in Fig. 53 and associated disclosure, and “search target” in Fig. 54 and associated disclosure,
“0671] In operation 5345 a vetted query or vetted request is provided to a searcher (a number of guides). A vetted query or vetted request is a request which has been associated with a structured query and a category….”, paragraph 671 and “[0680] In operation 5410 information of an interest or `search target` is obtained. A `search target` is any item(s) which may be recognized in a search process. For example, a keyword(s), an image, an audio file, and/or other information which is to be compared to and/or used to evaluate and/or process information associated with a search is obtained….”, paragraph 680); and
As to claim 22, it comprises the same limitation than claims 1 and 9 above , therefore is rejected in similar manner. Further, the claim comprises
A terminal device (see Fig. 1 elements 135, 140 and 160 and associated disclosure) , comprising: at least one memory, configured to store instructions (Fig. 1 elements 120 and 130); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the terminal device to (paragraphs 4-5).
As to claim 23, it comprise the same limitations than claim 1 above, therefore is rejected in similar way,
Further, the claim comprises at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the server to (see Jones paragraphs 4-5 and paragraph 84),
d) extract a keyword in first information;
(“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc. An algorithm is applied to the content of each item and a ranking is assigned to the item. When a query is entered by a user, the search system analyzes the query to extract keywords contained in the query and presents items such as web pages and/or advertisements in an order related to the ranking”, paragraph 490);
e) determine at least one advertised vendor based on the keyword and a pre-stored correspondence between the keyword and the at least one advertised vendor; and
(“[0379] The request guide ID field 2420 may include information of a guide(s) who are associated with a request. …. which may have been used to determine the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)”, paragraph 379 and Fig. 24 .
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490.
See also, “[0082] A user may be associated with a keyword(s), category(ies) and/or other information which may be used at least in part to select a guide(s) and/or an advertisement(s) to respond to a request. A user may provide information which may be associated with the user, which may be used to select an advertisement(s) …”, paragraph 82.
“0308] When a vendor is registered with the search system 1930 the vendor may be associated with one or more keywords, categories, and/or other information. For example a keyword(s) or category(ies) may be selected by a vendor, …”, paragraph 308 and Fig. 19.
“[0286] A vendor(s) …. a keyword(s), a tag(s), transactions(s), etc. and may be presented with information of …contact a vendor(s) based on information indicated in a system database”, paragraph 286);
c) determine the target advertised vendor from the at least one advertised vendor based on a bidding rule.
(“ [0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm [Examiner equates on a bidding rule] which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. ..”, paragraph 6.
“[0274] An advertiser may be provided with information of … a keyword(s), a category(ies), a profile, etc. which may allow an advertiser to bid for placement of advertisements….”, paragraph 286).
wherein a product or service of the target advertised vendor is automatically generated based on the search intent.
([0336] In operation 2115 an offer is selected. An offer may be selected responsive to a user request determined to indicate intent to make a purchase. An offer may be an offer to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s). Any number of offers may be selected. For example, a purchase request may be compared to a database of purchase requests, which may be associated with one or more offers, which may be selected based on a rating and/or ranking of an offer associated with a request(s). Any information associated with a request may be used to select an offer(s). For example, a keyword(s), category(ies), user(s), profile(s), guide(s), etc. which may be associated with a request may be associated with a ranking of an offer, which may be used at least in part to select an offer. Any or all selected offers may be provided to a user. An offer may be static information and/or may be dynamically generated based on information of a request.[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent] ….”, paragraph 336.
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items.[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent], etc. An algorithm is applied to the content of each item and a ranking is assigned to the item. When a query is entered by a user, the search system analyzes the query to extract keywords contained in the query and presents items such as web pages and/or advertisements .[Examiner interprets as automatically generating content for a product or a service of the target advertised vendor based on the search intent] in an order related to the ranking”, paragraph 490);
As to claims 2 and 10, Jones discloses
Claim 2:
wherein determining the target advertised vendor comprises:
a) extracting, by the server, a keyword from the first information;
(“[0005] Search systems typically use keywords in order to rank and/or rate a search result to be provided to a user…”, paragraph 5.
“[0082] A user may be associated with a keyword(s), category(ies) and/or other information which may be used at least in part to select a guide(s) and/or an advertisement(s) to respond to a request….”, paragraph 82.
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490);
b) determining, by the server, at least one advertised vendor based on the keyword and a pre-stored correspondence between the keyword and the at least one advertised vendor; and
((“[0379] The request guide ID field 2420 may include information of a guide(s) who are associated with a request. For example, if a guide obtains a result(s) responsive to the request `Request1`, an identifier of the guide may be indicated in the request guide ID field 2420. …. and `Guide2` may have responded to the question `Is there availability for Sunday?` which may have been used to determine the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)”, paragraph 379 and Fig. 24 .
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490.
See also, “[0082] A user may be associated with a keyword(s), category(ies) and/or other information which may be used at least in part to select a guide(s) and/or an advertisement(s) to respond to a request. A user may provide information which may be associated with the user, which may be used to select an advertisement(s) …”, paragraph 82.
“0308] When a vendor is registered with the search system 1930 the vendor may be associated with one or more keywords, categories, and/or other information. For example a keyword(s) or category(ies) may be selected by a vendor, …”, paragraph 308 and Fig. 19.
“[0286] A vendor(s) …. a keyword(s), a tag(s), transactions(s), etc. and may be presented with information of …contact a vendor(s) based on information indicated in a system database”, paragraph 286);
c) determining, the target advertised vendor based on the search intent and the keyword.
(“ [0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. ..”, paragraph 6.
“[0274] An advertiser may be provided with information of … a keyword(s), a category(ies), a profile, etc. which may allow an advertiser to bid for placement of advertisements….”, paragraph 286.
“[0379] The request guide ID field 2420 may include information of a guide(s) who are associated with a request. For example, if a guide obtains a result(s) responsive to the request `Request1`, an identifier of the guide may be indicated in the request guide ID field 2420. …. and `Guide2` may have responded to the question `Is there availability for Sunday?` which may have been used to determine the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)”, paragraph 379 and Fig. 24 and “[0489] An advocate(s) may complete a purchase transaction based on acceptance of a binding offer from a vendor(s) by a user(s). An advocate(s) may be bonded and certified, or may have other credentials which may be required for an advocate to serve a need of a user. ….”, paragraph 489).
Claim 10:
a) receiving a pre-stored introduction of the target advertised vendor (Fig. 13 element 1310 and Fig. 29 element 2930) from the server;
(“0308] When a vendor is registered with the search system 1930 the vendor may be associated with one or more keywords, categories, and/or other information. For example a keyword(s) or category(ies) may be selected by a vendor, …”, paragraph 308 and Fig. 19.
“[0379] The request guide ID field 2420 may include information of a guide(s) who are associated with a request. For example, if a guide obtains a result(s) responsive to the request `Request1`, an identifier of the guide may be indicated in the request guide ID field 2420. …. and `Guide2` may have responded to the question `Is there availability for Sunday?` which may have been used to determine the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)”[Examiner interprets as a pre-stored introduction of the target advertised vendor ], paragraph 379 and Fig. 24
“[0286] A vendor(s) …. a keyword(s), a tag(s), transactions(s), etc. and may be presented with information of …contact a vendor(s) based on information indicated in a system database”, paragraph 286);
b) displaying, by the terminal, the introduction in a first area of the second interface
(“…A result …may be presented first in a list of search results presented in a browser window or other types of user interface [Examiner interprets as a first area of the second interface]. Such systems may produce a so-called `organic` search result …”, paragraph 5.
“0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. For example, even if an advertiser has the highest bid for a keyword, if the search result associated with the advertiser has a low merit ranking, …”, paragraph 6.
“[0072] A system and method for selection of item(s) which may include commercial consideration(s) is described. A user of a search service submits a request for information. A response or search result which may be influenced by commercial considerations is delivered… a search result, which may be an advertisement [Examiner equates to determine at least one advertised vendor ]and/or other sponsored search result[Examiner equates to determine at least one advertised vendor ….”, paragraph 72.
See also displaying the introduction in a first area of the second interface, (Figs. 15 at least element 1515a, 16 at least element 1639a, 17 at least element 1729a and associated disclosure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 8, 11-13, 16, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20090299853 (Jones) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20180189823 (XIE).
As to claims 3, 11 and 24, Jones discloses
Claim 3:
Wherein determining the target advertised vendor based on the search intent and the keyword comprises:
a) determining at least one advertised vendor corresponding to the search intent based on a pre-stored correspondence between search intents and advertised vendors;
(“[0379] The request guide ID field 2420 may include information of a guide(s) who are associated with a request. For example, if a guide obtains a result(s) responsive to the request `Request1`, an identifier of the guide may be indicated in the request guide ID field 2420. …. and `Guide2` may have responded to the question `Is there availability for Sunday?` which may have been used to determine the intent to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s)”, paragraph 379 and Fig. 24 .
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490);
See also, paragraphs 82, 286 and 308 and Fig. 19);
b) extracting the keyword from the first information; and
(“[0082] A user may be associated with a keyword(s), category(ies) and/or other information which may be used at least in part to select a guide(s) and/or an advertisement(s) to respond to a request….”, paragraph 82.
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490);
c) determining, the target advertised vendor from the at least one advertised vendor based on matching the keyword and a bidding rule.
(“[0284] A user request(s) may be determined to include a request to purchase an item(s) and/or service(s). An item(s) and/or service(s) to be purchased may be identified, and a request may be associated with a categorization [Examiner interprets as based on matching a keyword in the first information ], a keyword(s), a profile(s) and/or other information which may be used to select a number of advocates [vendor] to respond to a request to purchase or `purchase request…”, paragraph 284.
“0328] In operation 2050 information of a transaction is recorded. In at least one embodiment, the search system database 1920 (FIG. 19) and/or the vendor system database 1980 is updated. For example, information associated with a request, …, a vendor , etc. associated with a categorization(s), keyword(s) [Examiner interprets as advertised vendor based on matching a keyword in the first ]… etc. may be recorded and/or associated and information of the associations may be recorded in the search system database 1920 and/or the vendor system database 1980…”, paragraph 328.
See also bidding rule, “0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. For example, even if an advertiser has the highest bid for a keyword, if the search result associated with the advertiser has a low merit ranking, …”, paragraph 6.
“[0072] A system and method for selection of item(s) which may include commercial consideration(s) is described. A user of a search service submits a request for information. A response or search result which may be influenced by commercial considerations is delivered… a search result, which may be an advertisement and/or other sponsored search result….”, paragraph 72.
“…current bids for placement of advertisements within an interface and/or other resource(s) available to a guide(s) might be provided to an advertiser(s), who might make decisions based on that information”, paragraph 89).
Claim 11:
wherein the system further comprises:
further comprising, after receiving the automatically generated content from the server, rendering, based on the received automatically generated content to display, in a second area of the second interface, the product or the service of the target advertised vendor associated with the first information
(“…A result …may be presented first in a list of search results presented in a browser window or other types of user interface [Examiner interprets as a second interface]. Such systems may produce a so-called `organic` search result …”, paragraph 5.
“0006] In algorithmic search systems it has been shown to be beneficial to rank search results as well as sponsored search results based on an algorithm which incorporates both compensation to the search system provider, or other commercial considerations, and the merits of the search result. For example, even if an advertiser has the highest bid for a keyword, if the search result associated with the advertiser has a low merit ranking, …”, paragraph 6.
“[0072] A system and method for selection of item(s) which may include commercial consideration(s) is described. A user of a search service submits a request for information. A response or search result which may be influenced by commercial considerations is delivered… a search result, which may be an advertisement [Examiner equates to determine at least one advertised vendor ]and/or other sponsored search result[Examiner equates to determine at least one advertised vendor ….”, paragraph 72
“[0490] In general search engines are keyword driven systems. Keywords are generated from a user request and matched to target documents, advertisements, etc. This practice is generally established by such services as Google.RTM. or Dogpile.RTM.. The use of keywords allows a search engine to produce relevant items by using various methods of ranking items, etc….”, paragraph 490);
Claim 24:
a) determine a copy template based on the search intent and the keyword;
(Jones discloses “copy template” in multiple instances,
“[0219] The resource access info field 1220 may include access information associated with a resource. For example, a URL associated with a web page may be indicated in the resource access info field 1220. A password, a login ID, a template for submitting a search query, an API for submitting and/or receiving information and/or any other information [Examiner interprest as determine a copy template based on the search intent and the keyword] which may be utilized to access a resource may be indicated in the resource access info field 1220. Information contained in the resource access info field 1220 may be used to provide access to a resource(s) for a guide(s), a user(s) and/or the search system 130 (FIG. 1)….”, paragraph 219 and Fig. 12.
“[0407] The resource access info field 2720 may include access information associated with a search resource. For example, a URL associated with a web page may be indicated in the resource access info field 2720. Information of a password, a login ID, a template for submitting a request, an API for submitting and/or receiving information or any other information…”, paragraph 407 and Fig. 27.
“[0626] The resource access info field 4920 may include access information associated with a search resource. For example, a URL associated with a web page may be indicated in the resource access info field 4920. A password, a login ID, a template for submitting a search query, an API for submitting and receiving information or any other information …”, paragraph 626 and Fig. 49.
‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as determining, by the server, a copy template, paragraph 663 and Fig. 38);
b) fill the copy template based on a name of the target advertised vendor, the keyword, and a pre-stored expression library to generate a copy;
(‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38). An exact match may be determined to be found based on equivalence tables of any elements of a search query….”, paragraph 663 and Figs. 38 and 53.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“0661] In operation 5310 a request is compared to a database. The database may include information of requests. A database may include previous request(s) and/or result(s), advertisement(s), resource(s) and/or any data processed in association with operation(s) of the system 3800 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as filling, by the server and based on a name of the target advertised vendor, the keyword, and a pre-stored expression library, the copy template to generate a copy; ]…”, paragraphs 661-665.
“[0666] The determination in operation 5325 may be made based on various criteria. In at least one embodiment, a searcher may select one or more suggested structured query(ies), and if a result(s) are associated with the structured query(ies) it may be determined that a result is found. For example, a structured query may be associated with a resource, which may produce a result based on submitting a request based at least in part on the structured query to a resource(s), which may associate a result(s) with the structured query…”, paragraph 666.
“[0667] In operation 5330 a vetted request (query) is constructed [Examiner interprets as … a copy template ]. A process for construction of a vetted query is further described herein below with respect to FIG. 52. Control is passed to operation 5335 and process 5300 continues”, paragraph 667);
c) select an image material from a material library of the target advertised vendor based on the keyword; and
( “…resource might include printed materials, images, video, and/or audio information, a software application(s), any information accessible to a guide(s), and advertiser(s) and/or a user(s), a database(s), and/or any combination thereof….”, paragraph 106 and Fig. 1.
“[0633] The advertisement description field 5010 may include information of a description associated with an advertisement. For example, a description of an advertisement may be presented to a guide(s) in order that … may select an advertisement to be associated with a search request. Using the example illustrated in FIG. 50, `jazz music from the jazz archive` is the advertisement description associated with the advertisement `Advert1`. Any type of information such as text, audio, video, images, etc. may be indicated in the advertisement description field 5010”, paragraph 633 and Fig. 50).
Although, Jones discloses
“multiple result(s) are associated with a request(s) the result(s) may be ranked to determine an order in which the result(s) may be presented to a user(s). A ranking of a result(s) may be based on any type of information associated with the result(s”, paragraph 76.
filling, by the server and based on a name of the target advertised vendor, the keyword, and a pre-stored expression library, the copy template to generate a copy, paragraphs 661-665. And at least “[0667] In operation 5330 a vetted request (query) is constructed [Examiner interprets as … a copy template ]. A process for construction of a vetted query is further described herein below with respect to FIG. 52. Control is passed to operation 5335 and process 5300 continues”, paragraph 667. Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses:
d) typeset the copy and the image material for transmission to the terminal
(XIE that is in the business of “A system and method for generating advertisement automatically “, see abstract. and paragraph 2.
“[0096] In some embodiments, the server 110 may include a processing engine 112. The processing engine 112 may process information and/or data related to performing one or more functions described in the present disclosure. The processing engine 112 may analyze a request from an ad generation requester terminal 130. In some embodiments, the processing engine 112 may perform .. functions (e.g., a web search, a map search, etc.) after determining the one or more segments….”, paragraph 96.
“[0097] The network 120 may facilitate exchange of information and/or data. In some embodiments, one or more components in the online advertisement service system 100 (e.g., the server 110, the ad generation requester terminal 130, the user terminal 140, the storage 150) may send information and/or data to other component(s) in the online advertisement service system 100 via the network 120. For example, the server 110 may access and/or obtain a plurality of advertisements or advertisement templates from the storage 150 via the network 120. For example, the server 110 may transmit the one or more advertisements or advertisement templates to the ad generation requester terminal 130…”, paragraph 130.
“0170] In some embodiments, the generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may access a plurality of information components corresponding the plurality of advertisement elements from the database. In some embodiments, the generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may access a plurality of information components in the layout templates. An advertisement element may correspond to an advertisement region of the layout template. The generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may determine the location of the advertisement element in the advertisement template accordingly. In some embodiments, the advertisement element may be located at a known location in the layout template,…”, paragraph 170 and Fig. 4.
“0195] Referring back to step 1001, in response to the determination that the location of the advertisement element is known in the layout template, the generating module 410 (e.g., the determination unit) may perform step 1005. In 1005, the generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may determine the advertisement template based on a typesetting method. The typesetting method may include a top alignment, a bottom alignment, a left alignment, a right alignment, a top left alignment, a top right alignment, a bottom left alignment, a bottom right alignment, a horizontal center alignment, a vertical center alignment, an absolute center alignment (horizontal center alignment and vertical center alignment), the wide of the advertisement element same with the advertisement template,…”, paragraph 195 and Figs. 10 and 12 and associated disclosure.
Further XIE teaches sending, the typeset copy and the image material to the terminal, see Fig. 5 element 502, Fig. 6 element 606 and associated disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
As to claims 4 and 12, Jones discloses
Claim 4:
a) determining, a copy template based on the search intent and a keyword extracted from the first information;
( Jones discloses a “vetted request [Examiner interprets as a copy template ]” see Figs. 52 and 53 and associated disclosure.
See also “[0075] A query or search query or search request or "request" may include a keyword(s), a category(ies), a fully formed question(s), a statement(s), any type of media, implicit data such as information associated with a user identifier(s) and/or device(s). A request may include any media which may be provided by a user. A request may receive a response or search result or `result` which is produced automatically ….”, paragraph 75.
“…a template for submitting a search query, …”, paragraphs 219, 407 and
‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as determining, by the server, a copy template ]”, paragraph 663 and Fig. 38);
b) filling, based on a name of the target advertised vendor, the keyword, and a pre-stored expression library, the copy template to generate a copy;
(‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38). An exact match may be determined to be found based on equivalence tables of any elements of a search query….”, paragraph 663 and Figs. 38 and 53.
“0661] In operation 5310 a request is compared to a database. The database may include information of requests. A database may include previous request(s) and/or result(s), advertisement(s), resource(s) and/or any data processed in association with operation(s) of the system 3800 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as filling, by the server and based on a name of the target advertised vendor, the keyword, and a pre-stored expression library, the copy template to generate a copy; ]…”, paragraphs 661-665.
“[0667] In operation 5330 a vetted request (query) is constructed [Examiner interprets as … a copy template ]. A process for construction of a vetted query is further described herein below with respect to FIG. 52. Control is passed to operation 5335 and process 5300 continues”, paragraph 667);
c) selecting, an image material from a material library of the target advertised vendor based on the keyword; and
(paragraph 633 and Fig. 50).
Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses:
d) typesetting, the copy and the image material to generate the content;
(see at least “the advertisement template based on a typesetting method”,
paragraph 195 and Figs. 10 and 12 and associated disclosure);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
Claim 12:
Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses:
wherein the automatically generated content comprises a typeset copy and one or more image materials generated by the server, and further comprising:
receiving the typeset copy and the one or more image materials from the server; and
(XIU teaches, “[0097] The network 120 may facilitate exchange of information and/or data. In some embodiments, one or more components in the online advertisement service system 100 (e.g., the server 110, the ad generation requester terminal 130, the user terminal 140, the storage 150) may send information and/or data to other component(s) in the online advertisement service system 100 via the network 120. For example, the server 110 may access and/or obtain a plurality of advertisements or advertisement templates from the storage 150 via the network 120. For example, the server 110 may transmit the one or more advertisements or advertisement templates to the ad generation requester terminal 130…”, paragraph 130. paragraph 195 and Figs. 10 and 12 and associated disclosure);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses:
b) rendering the typeset copy and the one or more image materials to display the product or the service
(see XIU Fig. 5 element 502, Fig. 6 element 606 and associated disclosure); and
performing, by the terminal, rendering to display the product or the service
“[0003] An advertisement, such an internet advertisement, may include some image and background related to a product or service”, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
As to claim 13, Jones discloses
Text Region in a GUI interface
(see “[0250] The search activity window 1608 [text region ] may include any number of search controls 1610. The `Send My Question` search control 1610a may cause a search request to be created based at least in part on information indicated in the GUI 1600”, paragraph 250 and Fig. 16).
Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses:
displaying the typeset copy in a text region of the second interface ; and
(see XIU Fig. 5 element 502, Fig. 6 element 606 and associated disclosure); and
performing, by the terminal, rendering to display the product or the service
“[0003] An advertisement, such an internet advertisement, may include some image and background related to a product or service”, paragraph 3).
XIE teaches a “text region of an interface” because a text region can be placed in any desirable alignment of a GUI, “…the generating unit) may determine the advertisement template based on a typesetting method. The typesetting method may include a top alignment, a bottom alignment, a left alignment, a right alignment, a top left alignment, a top right alignment, a bottom left alignment, a bottom right alignment, a horizontal center alignment, a vertical center alignment, an absolute center alignment (horizontal center alignment and vertical center alignment)…”, paragraph 195 and Figs. 4 and 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
Jones does not expressly disclose the word typesetting but XIE discloses
b) displaying the one or more image materials in an image region of the second interface, wherein the text region and the image region are arranged according to a typesetting pattern received from the server.
(see XIE Fig. 5 element 502, Fig. 6 element 606 and associated disclosure. “[0003] An advertisement, such an internet advertisement, may include some image and background related to a product or service”, paragraph 3.
“[0195] Referring back to step 1001, in response to the determination that the location of the advertisement element is known in the layout template, the generating module 410 (e.g., the determination unit) may perform step 1005. In 1005, the generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may determine the advertisement template based on a typesetting method. The typesetting method may include a top alignment, a bottom alignment, a left alignment, a right alignment, a top left alignment, a top right alignment, a bottom left alignment, a bottom right alignment, a horizontal center alignment, a vertical center alignment, an absolute center alignment (horizontal center alignment and vertical center alignment), the wide of the advertisement element same with the advertisement template, the height of the advertisement element same with the advertisement template, the area of the advertisement element same with the advertisement template, or the like, or any combination thereof. After determining the location of the advertisement element in the layout template, the generating module 410 (e.g., the generating unit) may insert the information components corresponding to the advertisement element into the advertisement region using the typesetting method based on the determined location in the advertisement template. The generating module 410 (e.g., the determination unit) may determine the advertisement template by inserting the information components into the corresponding regions of the advertisement template”, paragraph 195 and Figs. 4 and 10.
“[0077] FIG. 11A illustrates an exemplary information component in a layout template according to some embodiments of the present disclosure;
[0078] FIG. 11B illustrates an exemplary information component in an advertisement template according to some embodiments of the present disclosure”, Figs. 11A and 11B and associated disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate XIE’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide typesetting functionality in order to offer generation and dispatch of advertisements to users (XIE paragraphs 2-3).
As to claims 8, 16 and 29, Jones discloses
Claim 8:
wherein the search intent comprises at least one of: movies, television, shopping, food, games, beauty maintenance, parents and children, or travel.
(“…While text-based searching may use words, phrases or other elements, other forms of information [search intent] might also be utilized in a search. For example, if a request indicated visual, audio, or other types of media which may be compared to any elements of a resource, such elements or `atoms` might be used individually and/or in combination to rank and/or rate an item(s)”, paragraph 77.
”[0243] The advertising window 1510 may present any sort of sponsored result(s). Any number of advertising window(s) might be displayed in the GUI 1500. The sponsored result indicators 1515 may be used to indicate information of a sponsored result(s), and may provide access to a web page and/or other information of a sponsored result(s). The `Iron Man Movie` sponsored result indicator 1515a may indicate a website associated with a search request which has a high ranking…”, paragraph 243 and Fig. 15).
Claims 16 and 29:
wherein the search intent first information comprises at least one of text, an image, or a video, and
(“…While text-based searching may use words, phrases or other elements, other forms of information [search intent] might also be utilized in a search. For example, if a request indicated visual, audio, or other types of media which may be compared to any elements of a resource, such elements or `atoms` might be used individually and/or in combination to rank and/or rate an item(s)”, paragraph 77);
the search intent is automatically determined by the server from the first information and comprises at least one of: movies, television, shopping, food, games, beauty maintenance, parents and children, or travel.
(”[0243] The advertising window 1510 may present any sort of sponsored result(s). Any number of advertising window(s) might be displayed in the GUI 1500. The sponsored result indicators 1515 may be used to indicate information of a sponsored result(s), and may provide access to a web page and/or other information of a sponsored result(s). The `Iron Man Movie` sponsored result indicator 1515a may indicate a website associated with a search request which has a high ranking…”, paragraph 243 and Fig. 15).
As to claim 26, Jones discloses
wherein the at least one memory stores the expression library comprising a plurality of connection expressions and a plurality of intent-specific expressions organized by search intent category; and
(“The system includes a database which records and maintains information of the various elements of the system. The database includes records associated with guides, users, advertisers, resources, as well as information of search requests, search sessions, keywords, categories [Intent-specific], profiles and other information which may be used to select items and to allow the system to respond to a user request…”, paragraphs 74-75);
filling the copy template comprises selecting expressions from the expression library based on the search intent and inserting the selected expressions into variable fields of the copy template.
( ‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as determining, by the server, a copy template ]”, paragraph 663 and Fig. 38)
As to claim 27, Jones discloses
a) wherein the at least one memory stores a template database comprising a plurality of copy templates organized into template ranges corresponding to different search intent categories
(“[0075] A query or search query or search request or "request" may include a keyword(s), a category(ies), a fully formed question(s), a statement(s), any type of media, implicit data such as information associated with a user identifier(s) and/or device(s). A request may include any media which may be provided by a user. A request may receive a response or search result or `result` which is produced automatically and/or using the assistance of a number of guides. A result may be any type of information which is provided responsive to a request. A result(s) may or may not be associated with a sponsor or "advertiser…”, paragraph 75); and
b) determining the copy template comprises: determining a template range corresponding to the search intent
(“[0075] A query or search query or search request or "request" may include a keyword(s), a category(ies), a fully formed question(s), a statement(s), any type of media, implicit data such as information associated with a user identifier(s) and/or device(s)….”, paragraph 75); and
c) selecting a specific copy template from the template range based on whether the keyword is present in a pre-stored information library (see search system database 3820 FIG. 38 ) associated with the target advertised vendor.
(“[0219] The resource access info field 1220 may include access information associated with a resource. For example, a URL associated with a web page may be indicated in the resource access info field 1220. A password, a login ID, a template for submitting a search query, …”, paragraph 219 and
“0407] The resource access info field 2720 may include access information associated with a search resource. For example, a URL associated with a web page may be indicated in the resource access info field 2720. Information of a password, a login ID, a template for submitting a request,…”, paragraph 407.
‘[0663] In at least one embodiment, an exact match of a request to a request or search query indicated in the database is used to determine whether a match to a request is found. An exact match may be determined to be found based on a modified version of a request. For example, an original search query might be deconstructed and element(s) of the deconstructed query might be combined with other information in order to produce a search query which matches a search query indicated in the search system database 3820 (FIG. 38) [Examiner interprets as determining, by the server, a copy template ]”, paragraph 663 and Fig. 38)
As to claim 28, Jones discloses
wherein the bidding rule specifies at least one of: a payment mode based on user interaction or exposure rate, or a payment standard specifying an advertisement fee predetermined by the target advertised vendor;
(“[0432] The vendor user payment information field 3015 may include information of a payment method associated with a user. The vendor user payment information field 3015 may include information provided by the search system 1930 (FIG. 19). For example, as payment information may be sensitive information, user payment information provided to a vendor may for example be a proxy provided by the search system. For example, if a user has provided payment information to the search system, the search system may make a purchase from a vendor(s) on behalf of a user using payment information other than that provided by the user. In such an instance, aggregated sales might be charged to a payment account associated with the search system 1930,…”, paragraph 432).
and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the target advertised vendor by selecting a vendor having a highest advertisement fee that has not exceeded a predetermined threshold.
(Jones teaches criteria , “[0086] A user request is received and may be compared to a database of queries or requests. If an exact match and/or an indexed exact match is identified, a result(s) associated with the matching query(ies) may be returned to a user. If a suitable match is not identified, a guide may be selected. Any or all information associated with a request may be compared to information associated with an index. For example, keywords of a request may be compared to keywords or `interests` associated with an index of categories. Likewise, geographic information associated with a request, such as an area code, zip code, street address, or GPS coordinates, etc. may be compared to a database of locations, which may include names of places, which are ranked according to proximity or other criteria. Any reference items which may be associated with a request may be used to determine whether a request is a match to a request”, paragraph 86; “….For example, a search for a sponsored link(s) might have different selection criteria than a search for organic links, which might have different selection criteria than a search for organic and/or sponsored images, text, audio, media, etc. In at least one embodiment, an organic and a sponsored selection of a guide(s) are performed”, paragraph 87).
Claims 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20090299853 (Jones) in view of US PG. Pub. No 20230088171 (CAI).
As to claim 25, Jones does not disclose but CAI discloses
wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the search intent by:
a) performing embedding on the first information using a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model to generate an embedded representation of the first information;
(“the search recommendation model is a bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) model. The method further includes performing vectorization processing on the sample user behavior group sequence and the masked sample user behavior group sequence, to obtain a vector sequence”, paragraphs 22 and 24).
b) processing the embedded representation using a multi-layer perception neural network; and
(“The deep neural network (DNN), also referred to as a multi-layer neural network”, paragraphs 97 and 109);
d) classifying the first information into one of a plurality of search intent categories based on an output of the multi-layer perception neural network.
(“… in search results next time the user inputs the “single-player game” or the search word similar to the “word game”. Similarly, if a category of an App that the user clicks at this time changes, a change of a recent hobby of the user can be captured by using the search recommendation model in the present disclosure, to obtain dynamically adjusted sorted search results”, paragraph 229.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate CAI’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide BERT model in order to offer “ dynamically adjusted sorted search results” (CAI, paragraph 229 and abstract).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20090299853 (Jones) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20220284064 (Shaw).
As to claim 5, Jones discloses
wherein the expression library comprises a plurality of [natural language] expressions organized by at least one of: part of speech, search intent category, or expression type;
(“…commercial information associated with item(s) which may be indicated in a search space associated with for example, a keyword(s) or `interest`, a categorization(s), a tag(s), etc [Examiner interprets as determining…a search intent of the user ]. which may be associated with … a request(s)…”, paragraph 90.
“[0099] A "category" or "taxonomy branch" or "categorization" is a unique node within an index which may be associated with any number of items. If a request is associated with a category, items associated with the category may be more likely to be selected responsive to the request”, paragraph 99.
“0100] A "path term" is a word or phrase which may be used to define a category in an index. A "path root term" is a top-level node within a taxonomy. A "proper path" is a sequence of path terms which defines a category which begins with a path root term. A "path snippet" is a sequence of path terms which does not begin with a path root term. A "guide topic" or "interest" is a word or phrase which may be associated with a category which may be used at least in part to associate an item such as a query with a category”, paragraphs 100 and “when responding to a request associated with the category “, paragraph 197.
“0547] An index 4000 is illustrated in FIG. 40. Top-level elements or nodes of the index tree (also referred to as `path root terms`) represent broad categories of information which are intended to encompass as much information as possible without overlapping each other. Path root terms such as the path root terms "arts" 4005, "geography" 4007 and "shopping" 4010 may be a limited set of words and/or phrases which may be used to classify or categorize information such as a search request, a guide, an advertisement, a search result, etc.” paragraph 547.
“[0548] A word(s) or phrase(s) associated with lower-level nodes may appear in multiple locations within an index or database. Such words and/or phrases may be referred to as `topics`. For example, words and/or phrases such as the path terms "music" 4015, "jazz" 4020, "painting" 4025, "clothing" 4030, "rock" 4035, "classical" 4040, "artists" 4060 and/or others may be utilized in any path defined in the index 4000. A subset of information is defined by specifying `path terms` which may follow a subset relationship (i.e., an added word and/or phrase defines a more specific set of information which is contained within the preceding set of information). An example of this relationship is designated by the notation "arts>music>jazz" indicating that "jazz" is a subset of "music" which is a subset of "arts", paragraph 548).
Jones does not expressly disclose but Shaw discloses
natural language expressions
(“…For example, the search algorithm can include components such a spell check component configured to generate an accurate spelling correction associated with a search query, a natural language processing (NLP) filtering component configured to infer or identify a correct NLP filter search results based on processing of a meaning and context of one or more words or phrases of a search query, and a direct response or “direct answers” component configured to provide a direct response to a search query.”, paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Shaw’s teaching with the teaching of Jones. One would have been motivated to provide Natural language processing functionality in order to improve search results (Shaw paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 05/07/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants argues (Remarks 11-15)
ClaimRejections-35 U.S.C § 101
Claims 1-16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, the Office Action takes the position that, with
regard to Step 2A - Prong 1 analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea because they recited
"a search method to accurately help a user to obtain a searched-for-thing" and found the terminal,
input box, server, and second interface to be "recited in a very generic way." The claims have been
amended and now explicitly require specific automated operations….
In response the Examiner asserts that a prima facie of unpatentability has been established. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant amended the claims but the amendment is not enough to overcome 101 rejection.
The Examiner looked both the instant claims and the specification to elaborate Examiner's facially sufficient analysis above. The Examiner considered each limitation or element in the claims individually and as a whole according with the guidelines published in published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c).
The detail contained in the claims No strongly suggests they amount to a practical application of an idea, rather than effectively claiming the idea itself. The facially sufficient analysis in this case, presents why the elements in the claims are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and also are considered to be no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims recite a specific technological
solution of providing automated determination of search intent from user input, followed by
automated generation of customized content based on that intent. This is a technological solution to
an internet-specific technical problem similar to the claims found eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels. com, L.P., 773 F .3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"). In addition,
the amended claims improve search system functionality in concrete, technical ways. Accuracy is
improved: "
In response the Examiner again asserts that the detail contained in the claims no strongly suggests they amount to a practical application of an idea, rather than effectively claiming the idea itself.
The Examiner agrees that the instant application is in compliance with the utility requirement. The claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible (see complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above).
Furthermore, applicant argues that the instant claims are similar than DDR. The instant claims do not accomplish technical advantages as DDR. DDR accomplishes technical advantages such as creating a page that “looks like” a different online store when the customer clicks in a hyperlink to get more information, and not redirecting the customer outside of the host website of the vendor when the customer clicks in a hyperlink. So, DDR Applicant does not only concerns with the “business challenge" that he is solving such as retaining visitor claims and not let them go but also DDR accomplishes technical advantages such as claiming a process involving stored data concerning the visual elements responsible for the "look and feel" of the host website, where, upon clicking an ad for a third-party merchant’s product, the customer is directed to a hybrid page generated by the host website that is a composite of the third-party merchant’s product information and the look and feel elements of the host website. "For example, the generated composite web page may combine the logo, background color, and fonts of the host website with product information from the merchant." DDR fact pattern is distinguishable from the instant application fact pattern. Again, the instant application does not accomplish technical advantages as DDR.
Regarding Step 2A - Prong 2, even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea,
they do not fail to integrate the concept into a practical application through specific additional
elements that improve computer-related technology. The USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance (and subsequent updates, including the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility) identifies indicators of integration, such as improving computer
functionality, using particular machines, or applying the exception in a meaningful way. The
amended claims do not merely use generic hardware. The claimed server explicitly requires
specialized operations. The server is required to determine search intent (independent claim 1) e.g.
using Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) embedding models and
multi-layer perception neural networks (claim 25). The server is required to determine a target
advertised vendor based on the search intent ( claim 1 ), e.g. based on a pre-stored correspondence
between search intents and advertised vendors ( claim 3). The present claims further require template
database access (claim 27), expression library processing (claims 5, 26), access vendor-specific
image libraries and typesetting ( claim 24). Such levels of technical specificity distinguishes the
claims from "using a computer as a tool" and places them squarely within the improvements to
computer technology recognized as eligible
The Examiner clarifies that the office is not rejecting this case because its functionality is performed with generic technology such as “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically”. Although this invention has structure, the instant claims do not have additional elements that transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. The Examiner notes that new dependent claims were amended all were considered. Specifically, claim 25 introduces the feature “using a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model”. This feature and the combination “performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface, the term automatically” were considered , given the broadest reasonable interpretation as a whole and individually. The facially sufficient analysis concluded, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g), or the combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
as for example inMcRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims using specific rules for automated processing
are eligible where they "incorporated ... a specific process" rather than claiming the idea itself). In
addition, the claims perform a concrete technical transformation of user input data. Raw first
information received by the server is parsed to identify keywords via word segmentation or feature
extraction, intent is classified, vendor matching is required, an intent-based template is selected, a
template is filled with vendor name, keyword, and expression library elements to generate natural
language advertising copy, and customized content is transmitted to the terminal. This data
transformation from raw user input to dynamically generated, relevance-optimized advertising
content is a concrete technical result, not an abstract idea applied on a generic computer. The present
claims now provide extensive technical detail, not generic computer implementation.
MPEP at least in 2106.05 and 2106.06 discusses court decisions and the topic of improvements to the functionality of a computer. In reconsidering step 2A, the Examiner has determined that the claims still recite an abstract idea, “a search method to accurately help a user to obtain a searched-for- thing through searching application”, and are not directed to an improvement in computer-related technology or a specific way of achieving a desired outcome or end result. In reconsidering step 2B, the Examiner has determined the additional elements,“performed by a server”; from a terminal; in a second interface. the term automatically”. These elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
The McRO court cautioned that courts "must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facially expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea.
Notable Points from McRO: the Examiners should consider the claim as a whole under Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guidance (the Examiner in the instant case considered the claims as a whole), and should not overgeneralize the claim or simplify it into its "gist" or core principles, when identifying a concept as a judicial exception (Again, in the instant case, the Examiner analyzed both the claims and the specifications). The Examiner asserts that the instant Application does not accomplish technical advantages as McRO case. The instant claims claim an idea itself.
A prima facie of unpatentability has been established. The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal arguments to overcome the prima facie case.
Applicants argues (Remarks 15-19)
Claim Rejections-35 U.S. C § 102
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being
anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0299853 ("Jones"). Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15
are canceled. Claims 2 and 3 depend from independent claim 1, claims 10, 11 and 16 depend from
independent claim 9, claims 22 and 23 are independent, and claim 24 depends from independent
claim 23. Therefore, claims 1-3, 8-11, 16, and 22-24 will be allowable over Jones if independent
claims 1, 9, 22 and 23 are allowable over Jones. According to MPEP § 2131, "[a] claim is anticipated
only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.
The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal evidence to overcome the prima facie case of anticipation and obviousness. Further, the elements of this instant Application are old and well known at the time of the invention. The effective filing date (EFD) of this application is 9/15/2021, where the field of search is very crowded.
The prior art used herein, anticipates the instant claims and also the combination of prior art set for the rejection produce results that are predictable. Again, the claims are broad and the search shows that there is a lack of novelty in the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of a right to a patent. Furthermore, amend the claims introducing 112(b), is not the way to advance prosecution in this case.
…Jones is a human-guided system, it cannot
anticipate claims requiring automated server processing. The Office Action (page 32) asserts that
"regarding allegations that the primary reference Jones does not disclose automated process, this
limitation is not in the claims…."
In response Jones is a strong reference that anticipates some of the limitations in the amended claims. Other limitations are obvious and are not novel in view of jones and the other prior art used in this rejection.
Regarding to allegation that “automated server processing”, Jones’s system has many advantages which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. Those adventages cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Al least in paragraph 75 Jones discloses the term “automatically”,
[0075] A query or search query or search request or "request" may include a keyword(s), a category(ies), a fully formed question(s), a statement(s), any type of media, implicit data such as information associated with a user identifier(s) and/or device(s). A request may include any media which may be provided by a user. A request may receive a response or search result or `result` which is produced automatically and/or using the assistance of a number of guides. A result may be any type of information which is provided responsive to a request. A result(s) may or may not be associated with a sponsor or "advertiser".
The Office Action equates Jones's "category"
or "interest" with the claimed "search intent." This is incorrect both functionally and structurally.
The "categories" of Jones are hierarchical taxonomy nodes used to organize the search index. They
are classification labels assigned to structure the index, not automatically determined contextual
understanding of user intent. (See e.g. Jones paragraph [0099]). The claimed "search intent" is
automatically determined from the content of the user's first information. Jones contains no
disclosure of automatically analyzing user input to determine what type of content (movies, food,
shopping, travel) the user wants….
In response Jones’s reference teaches a strong system with functionality to categorize search intents. See for example a request associated with the category “…advertisement might be presented to a guide(s) in an order reflecting that information, or a search facility associated with a guide(s) might be influenced by commercial information associated with item(s) which may be indicated in a search space associated with for example, a keyword(s) or `interest`, a categorization(s), a tag(s), etc [Examiner interprets as determining…a search intent of the user ]. which may be associated with … a request(s)…”, paragraph 90.
“[0099] A "category" or "taxonomy branch" or "categorization" is a unique node within an index which may be associated with any number of items. If a request is associated with a category, items associated with the category may be more likely to be selected responsive to the request [Examiner interprets as a search intent of the user based on the first information].”, paragraph 99.
[0197] The categorization guide interest ID field 1020 [Examiner interprets as a search intent of the user based on the first information] may include information of one or more interests or keywords associated with a guide associated with the categorization indicated in the categorization record ID field 1005. The information indicated in the categorization guide interest ID field 1020 may be compared to information indicated in a search request 1020 [Examiner interprets as a search intent of the user based on the first information] which is associated with the categorization identified in the categorization record ID field 1005. A match between information associated with a search request and information indicated in the categorization guide interest ID field 1020 may modify a ranking of a guide when selecting a guide to respond to a request. In at least one embodiment, the categorization guide ID field 1010 and the categorization guide interest ID field 1020 may be linked by for example a pointer. Using the example illustrated in FIG. 10, … when responding to a request associated with the category `arts>music>jazz`. Similarly a request associated with `arts>music>jazz` which contained the keyword or interest `sara montes` is received, … might be selected to respond to the request, … are associated with the interest ,…”, paragraph 197.
Claim Rejections-35 U.S. C § 103
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jones
in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0189823 ("Xie"). Claims 6 and 14 have been
canceled. Claims 4 and 5 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 12 and 13 depend from
independent claim 9. Therefore, claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 will be allowable over the combination of
Jones in view of Xie if independent claims 1 and 9 are allowable over the combination of Jones and
Xie. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City noted that an
obviousness determination begins with a finding that "the prior art as a whole in one form or
another contains all" of the elements of the claimed invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 22 (U.S. 1966). The Applicant respectfully asserts that the cited prior art
fails to disclose all of the limitations set forth in claims 4, 5, 12 and 13, and consequently does not
render obvious claims 4, 5, 12 and 13. As discussed above, independent claims 1 and 9 are not
anticipated by Jones because Jones is a human-guided system, it cannot anticipate claims requiring
automated server processing.
In response the Examiner asserts that the prior art used to reject instant claims, discloses all the limitations in a prima facie of obviousness and anticipation. There is not novelty at all in the instant claims. The amended new claims have been considered and there is not novelty in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Using SGML to create complex interactive documents for electronic publishing”. IEEE. 1997. This article discloses “In creating complex interactive documents, some technical communicators use software products that emphasize format and style in displaying pages. This approach limits the communicator's ability to repackage the information presented in electronic versions and increase its interactive use, which is a key benefit of the structure-based approach offered by using Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). In a number of projects that render mathematical, scientific, and engineering texts electronically, using SGML allows the technical communicator to make equations interactive and to automate links to references. The author sketches out problems associated with page description approaches to displaying electronic pages and discusses the comparative benefits of SGML.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights