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
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 10/29/2025 for the application No. 18/692,648. Claims 1-16 and 22-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-16 and 22-24 have been rejected as follow,
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. Applicant filed certified patent document, Application number 202111083013.6, on 09/15/2021. However, a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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 1-16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-16 and 22-24 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 “b) requesting, … and in response to an operation of the user … to search for the first information; “
The “requesting” 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, “a) receiving, … first information from a user …; and c) displaying, …, wherein the [display]… comprises an introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target advertised vendor, that is associated with the first information.” 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:
“using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”. 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,
“using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”, 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:
“using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”, 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:
“a) receiving, … first information from a user …; and c) displaying, …, wherein the [display]… comprises an introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target advertised vendor, that is associated with the first information.” 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 “using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”, 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 “using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”, 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 2-8, 10-16 and 24, 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. 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 1-3, 7-11, 15-16 and 22-24 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 comprising (see abstract and Fig. 1):
a) receiving, by a terminal, first information from a user in an input box of a first interface;
(“[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. 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) [Examiner interprets as a first interface ] is received at a IM service account associated with the search system 130 (FIG. 1…”, paragraphs 122-123 and Figs 1-2);
b) requesting, by the terminal and in response to an operation of the user on the first interface, a server to search for the first information
(see Figs 4 or 5 and associated disclosure.
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
c) displaying, by the terminal, a second interface, wherein the second interface comprises an introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target advertised vendor, that is associated with the first information.
(“[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.
As to claim 22, it comprises the same limitation than claim 1 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, Jones discloses
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 paragraphs 4-5 and paragraph 84).
a) extract a keyword in first information;
(see Figs 4 or 5 and associated disclosure. See also “vetted request” in Fig. 53 and associated disclosure and “search target” in Fig. 54 and associated disclosure.
“…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.); and
b) 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
(“…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);
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 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).
As to claims 2 and 10, Jones discloses
wherein before displaying, the second interface, the method further comprises:
a) extracting, by the server, a keyword in 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);
b) 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
(“[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.
“[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, by the server, 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 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).
As to claims 3, 11 and 24, Jones discloses
a) determining, by the server, a search intent of the user based on the first information;
(“…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);
b) determining, by the server, at least one advertised vendor based on the search intent
(“…For example, information of compensation provided by an advertiser(s) might be presented …. Likewise, if a particular advertisement(s) has received high conversion rates, the advertisement might be presented to a guide(s) in an order reflecting that information, or a search facility associated …. 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. which may be associated with … a request(s)”, paragraph 90);
and c) determining, by the server , the target advertised vendor from the at least one advertised vendor based on matching a keyword in the first information 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).
As to claims 7 and 15,Jones discloses
wherein the first information is a text, an image, or a video.
(“[0005] Search systems typically use keywords [first information is a text] in order to rank and/or rate a search result to be provided to a user…”, paragraph 5.
“…While text-based searching may use words, phrases or other elements, other forms of information 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.
“[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);
As to claims 8 and 16, Jones discloses wherein
the search intent comprises movies, television, shopping, food, 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).
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 4, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14 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 4 and 12, Jones discloses
a) determining, by the server, a copy template (Jones discloses a “vetted request [Examiner interprets as a copy template ]” see Figs. 52 and 53 and associated disclosure) based on the search intent and the keyword;
(“[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 219 and Fig. 38)
PNG
media_image1.png
740
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b) 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;
(‘[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_image3.png
822
686
media_image3.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) selecting, by the server, an image material from a material library of the target advertised vendor based on the keyword in the first information;
(“[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) typesetting, by the server, the copy and the image material
(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);
e) sending, by the server, 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 5 and 13, Jones does not disclose but XIE discloses
receiving, by the terminal, the typeset copy and the image material
(see 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 claims 6 and 14, Jones does not disclose but XIE discloses wherein the method further comprises:
a) sending, by the server, the introduction to the terminal; and b) receiving, by the terminal, the introduction
(see Fig. 4 element 420, Fig. 5 element 502, Fig. 6 element 606 and associated disclosure).
c) performing, by the terminal, rendering to display the introduction.
(see at least “…the displaying of an ad may include displaying an ad at a site of a landing page at the user terminal, …”, paragraph 219).
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 rendering functionality in order to offer generation, dispatch and display of advertisements at a landing page (XIE paragraph 219).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 10/29/2025 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
The objection of claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn because Applicant amendment.
Applicants argues (Remarks 11-12)
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 2, 3 and 7
depend from independent claim 1, claims 10, 11, 15 and 16 depend from independent claim 9, claim
22 is independent, and claim 24 depends from independent claim 23. Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-11,
15, 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 Applicant respectfully asserts that Jones fails to teach each and every element of independent
claims 1, 9, 22 and 23, and consequently fails to anticipate claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 22-24
because Jones fails to disclose displaying, by the terminal, a second interface, wherein the second
interface comprises an introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service
of the target advertised vendor that is associated with the first information. Independent claim 1 reads:…
In response the Examiner asserts that applicant presented only minor amendments to overcome objection and decided to argue intensively, instead of narrow the claims to differentiate from the prior art of record and move this case forward. The instant claims are so broad that the main reference Jones reads in the claims.
The Examiner notes that claiming an invention is not merely an exercise in semantics, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For example, while the Applicant uses the phrase “ c) displaying, by the terminal, a second interface, wherein the second interface comprises an introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target advertised vendor, that is associated with the first information”, in claim 1; Jones explicitly presents a second user interface when Jones teaches, “…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 . Such systems may produce a so-called `organic` search result. …”, paragraph 5.
Again, Jones teaches a second interface with results based on any type of information associated with the results that were based on the first information, “…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). 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.
Jones is directed to human-assisted search system where user requests are processed with the aid of human "guides" who select and rank search results, influenced by commercial or sponsorship information. Jones is limed to teaching receiving user input in an interface, requesting a server to search, and displaying a second interface with potentially sponsored vendor information. However, Jones does not disclose an automated process wherein the displayed content specifically includes "an
introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target
advertised vendor that is associated with the first information" generated via the claimed server
steps. In contrast, Jones teaches selection and display relying on human guide intervention, not
automated vendor targeting.
In response the Examiner asserts that applicant is arguing features that are not in the claims.
…The process disclosed by Jones is centered around human guides
manually selecting results influenced by sponsorships, not .generating displayed content using
automated server processes. Accordingly, Jones does not anticipate independent claims 1, 9, 22
and 23, and consequently also fails to anticipate dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 24.
As such, it is respectfully submitted that the rejections must be withdrawn…
First of all, in response to Applicant’s comments concerning features and advantages in Jones, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art 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).
Secondly, regarding to allegations that the primary reference Jones does not disclose automated process, this limitation is not in the claims.
Further, although the alleged “automated process” is not in the claims, the Examiner points out that Jones positively recites automated process results, see at least “A request may receive a response or search result or `result` which is produced automatically ….”, paragraph 75.
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 4-6 depend from
independent claim 1, and claims 12-14 depend from independent claim 9. Therefore, claims 4-6 and
12-14 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
12
Atty. Docket: 4901-80200 (92001507US04)
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-
6 and 12-14, and consequently does not render obvious claims 4-6 and 12-14. As discussed above,
independent claims 1 and 9 are not anticipated by Jones because Jones fails to teach or suggest
displaying, by the terminal, a second interface, wherein the second interface comprises an
introduction of a target advertised vendor and comprises a product or a service of the target
advertised vendor that is associated with the first information.
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 lack of novelty on the claimed invention therefore there is a loss of a right to a patent.
Non-Finality of Next Office Action
The independent claims have not been amended. Dependent claims 12 and 13 are currently
amended to correct informalities only. The Applicant would point out the rules regarding finality of
office actions. Specifically, MPEP § 706.07(a) states that the next office action, if it is not an
allowance, should not be final if changes in the grounds of rejection are not necessitated by
amendment. Should the Examiner insist on making the next office action final with changed grounds
for rejection not necessitated by amendment, the Applicant requests a telephone conference Examiner and the Supervisory Patent Examiner to clarify the finality issue, and thereby potentially
avoid a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181.
In response the Examiner asserts that again, applicant presented only minor amendments to overcome objection and decided to argue intensively, instead of narrow the claims to differentiate from the prior art of record and move this case forward. The instant claims are so broad that the main reference Jones anticipates the claims and also the combination Jones and XIE makes obvious the claims.
The applicant is invited to make a proposal amendment and call the Examiner to set up an interview to move this case forward.
Applicants argues (Remarks 8-12)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S. C § 101
Claims 1-16 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
interpreted as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, the Office Action takes
the position that, with regard to Step 2A - Prong 1 analysis, the "requesting" limitations recite
"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." With
regard to Step 2A - Prong 2, the Office Action asserts that the additional claim elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful
limits on practicing the abstract idea and as a whole the claims do not integrate the method of
organizing human activity into a practical application. With regard to Step 2B analysis, the Office..The Applicant respectfully disagrees. Regarding Step 2A - Prong 1, the claims, when read
as a whole, are not "directed to" an abstract idea. Instead, they require a specific, integrated process
for enhancing search functionality through dynamic, server-generated content rendering on a
terminal device. Interpreted as a whole, independent claims 1, 9, 22, and 23 require receiving first
information from a user (text, image, or video see e.g. paragraph 0011) into an input box on a first
interface, triggering a server search, and displaying a second interface with a targeted vendor's
introduction and associated product/service. The dependent claims further require precise technical
operations such as extracting keywords, determining search intent (movies, television, shopping,
food, etc. see e.g. paragraph 0019), selecting vendors via pre-stored correspondences and bidding
rules, generating copy using templates and expression libraries, selecting image materials,
typesetting, sending data to the terminal, and rendering for display. This is not an abstract idea where
the claims merely match ads to user data using generic computing. The present claims specify a
technical workflow for real-time content creation and presentation….
In response the Examiner asserts that a prima facie of unpatentability has been established. Further, 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 101 analysis presented above is facially sufficient, and 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).
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. Applying
the Guidance to the present claims, it can be seen that the claims as a whole recite an ordered
combination of elements, input on terminal, server processing with specific data structures, and
rendering on a display. This combination of required claim elements presents an integrated solution,
not extra-solution activity akin to mere data gathering or display….
In Step 2A - Prong 2 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), it was determined that the instant claims are not integrated into a Practical Application. The claim recites additional limitations, besides of the abstract idea identified in this case (A search method to accurately help a user to obtain a searched-for- thing through searching application), “using by a terminal, in an input box of a first interface, a server to search, a second interface”. 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).
Next , Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. At this point, under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claims provide a technological advancement in search systems by enabling dynamic,
automated generation and rendering of customized content in response to determined user intent,
matches keywords to vendors using pre-stored correspondences and bidding rules, fills copy
templates with expression libraries, selects and typesets image materials, and sends them for terminal
rendering. This creates a seamless second interface that integrates vendor introductions and
products/services directly associated with the user input, improving latency and relevance. This
mirrors Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) in
which an improved user interface for displaying summarized data was found to be eligible because
it enhanced device efficiency and usability. Similar to DDR Holdings, the claims solve a network specific
problem of inefficient static ad delivery in search environments by enabling real-time, intent driven
content composition without manual intervention. Moreover, the present claims require a
distributed client-server architecture where the terminal handles input/reception/rendering, and the
server performs the more computationally intensive tasks. This is not generic computing….
In response the Examiner asserts per MPEP 2106 an invention must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework, see also (2019 PEG), but also with the MPEP 2111 that provides that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. It seems that applicant wants that the Examiner reads limitations from the specification into 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.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 2/15/2026