DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 19 May 2026.
Claims 15, 17, 20, 22-24, 26, 29, and 31-34 are amended.
Claims 21 and 31 are canceled.
Claims 1-14 were previously canceled.
Claims 15-20, 22-29, and 31-34 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20, 22-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 15-20 & 22-23 are directed to a method, claims 24-29 & 31-32 are directed to a device (system), and claims 33-34 are directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of a search request for a commerce recommendation. Specifically, representative claim 15 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving a search instruction for a first page that displays a search and a multimedia content, wherein the search instruction is generated by detecting a trigger of the search or the multimedia content;
determining, in response to the search instruction, a product included in the multimedia content displayed on the first page;
displaying, on a second page, at least one commerce recommendation word, the commerce recommendation word being generated based on the product and a keyword corresponding to at least one commerce attribute feature, wherein displaying, on a second page, at least one commerce recommendation word comprises:
displaying, a first region of the first page, a first commerce recommendation word, the firs region being a region corresponding to the search:
displaying, in a second region of the second page that is different from the first region, a second commerce recommendation word;
wherein a correlation between the first commerce recommendation word and the product is greater than a correlation between the second commerce recommendation word and the product;
receiving a trigger operation for the at least one commerce recommendation word, and initiating based on the at least one commerce recommendation word a search request.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 15 recites the abstract idea of a search request for a commerce recommendation, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 15 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite determining a product included in a multimedia content displayed on the first page, displaying at least one recommendation word, where the commerce recommendation word is generated based on the product and a keyword corresponding to at least one of the product attribute features, displaying a first commerce recommendation word in a first region corresponding to the search, displaying in a different separate region a second commerce recommendation word, correlating the first recommendation word and the product when the correlation is greater than the second recommendation word and the product, and receiving and initiating a search request based on at least one of the commerce recommendation words.
Thus, representative claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 15 includes the additional elements: a search box, the search box, and e-commerce (i.e., electronic commerce) recommendation word.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element is described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 15 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., a search request for a commerce recommendation) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional element is merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional element merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and as such, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination with other claimed features, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a search box, the search box, and e-commerce (i.e., electronic commerce), recited in independent claim 15 is recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 15 does not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 15 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 15 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 15 is ineligible.
Independent claims 24 and 33 are similar in nature to representative claim 15 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 15. It is noted that in independent claim 24 includes the additional elements of a computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus; wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; during operation of computer device, the processor communicates with the memory via the bus; the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps, and independent claim 33 includes the additional element of a computer-readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon, the computer programs, when executed by a processor, perform steps. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements recited in claims 24 and 33, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 24 and 33 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 24 and 33 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 24 and 33, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 24 and 33 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 16-20, 22-23, 25-29, 31-32, and 34, depending from claims 15, 24, and 33 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 24 and 33, nor the representative independent claim 15. The claims of 16-20, 22-23, 25-29, 31-32, and 34 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a video and the video (claims 18 & 27). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements of claims 18 and 27 as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 18 and 27 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 18 and 27 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29, 31-32, and 34 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 16-20, 22-23, 25-29, 31-32, and 34 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 15, 17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26, 28-29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, A., et al. (Patent No US 8,504,437 B1), in view of Hanlon, J., et al. (Patent No. US 9,483,789 B1).
Claim 15-
Agarwal discloses an information recommendation method (Agarwal, Col. 5, ln. 18 “search service 102”), comprising:
receiving a search instruction for a first page that displays a search box and a multimedia content, wherein the search instruction is generated by detecting a trigger of the search box or the multimedia content; (Agarwal, see: Col. 4, ln. 36-38 disclosing “System 100 receives user input, typically in a control (e.g., a search query box) that is” and ln. 45 disclosing “user input is evaluated as the input is received” and ln. 48-49 disclosing “In return, the search service can provide suggestions along with other content”; and see: Col. 5 ln. 1-3 disclosing “receives the user input” and ln. 4-6 disclosing “ads, navigational links, static content, video content [i.e., multimedia content]…can be displayed”; Also see Col. 14, ln. 33-37 disclosing “the query that will trigger an answer box of a category” and “triggered by queries issued by the user”);
determining, in response to the search instruction for a first page, a product included in the multimedia content displayed on the first page (Agarwal, see: Col. 5 ln. 1-3 disclosing “receives the user input” and “associated content [i.e., a product] can be included” and ln. 4-6 disclosing “ads, navigational links, static content, video content [i.e., included in the multimedia content]…can be displayed” and ln. 24-26 disclosing “application running on the client device 104, such as coupled to…the user’s Web browser”);
displaying, on a second page, at least one e-commerce recommendation word, the at least one e-commerce recommendation word being generated based on the product and a keyword corresponding to at least one e-commerce attribute feature, wherein displaying, on a second page at least one e-commerce recommendation word comprises (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 9-12 disclosing “content items can appear on the user’s screen [i.e., second page] in an answer box” and ln. 13-15 disclosing “one or more content items can be included along with the suggestions or presented” and ln. 42-43 disclosing “can be of the form of words or phrase that embody the request” and “as evaluated as a portion of that requested is entered [i.e., being generated]”; and see: Col. 7, ln. 14 disclosing “content item can be an answer” and ln. 16 “’where can I buy Macintoshes online?’” and ln. 35-36 disclosing “including ads [i.e., one e-commerce recommendation word] associated with keywords or other criteria”):
displaying, in a first region of the second page, a first e-commerce recommendation word, the first region being a region corresponding to the search box (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 5-10 disclosing “answer box adjacent to (e.g., directly below) an input control (e.g., search query box)” and “content items can appear on the user’s screen [i.e., second page] in an answer box” )”; and Col. 6, ln.13-15 disclosing “if the user enters a search string 204 such as ‘New York’ in a browser query field” and ln. 22-24 disclosing “the suggestions 205 are related to the user's prefix (i.e., partial input) of ‘New York’ are ‘New York City’ [i.e., first e-commerce word]”; Also see FIG. 2);
displaying, in a second region of the second page that is different from the first region, a second e-commerce recommendation word (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 9-10 disclosing “content items can appear on the user’s screen [i.e., second page] in an answer box adjacent to (e.g., directly below) [i.e., different than the first region] an input control (e.g., search query box)”; and Col. 6, ln. 13-15 disclosing “if the user enters a search string 204 such as ‘New York’ in a browser query field, one or more suggestions 205 related to New York can be returned” and ln. 25-29 disclosing “additional content items 206 include a single ad, an advertisement for the New York Times which consists of a display of the news publisher's home page Uniform Resource Locator (URL) www.newyorktimes.com [i.e., second e-commerce word] and a newspaper icon 207 [i.e., a second region of the second page”);
wherein a correlation between the first e-commerce recommendation word and the product is greater than a correlation between the second e-commerce recommendation word and the product (Agarwal, see: Col. 3, ln. 33-38 disclosing “determine if the candidate is sufficiently relevant to a suggestion by way of comparison toa threshold. Ranking functions including applying a function to each candidate to determine if the sum of the probability if all suggestions to which the candidate matches is above a threshold old” and ln. 46-48 disclosing “Relevant suggestions can be identified before a user completes his or her search query [i.e., first e-commerce recommendation word and the product]”);
receiving a trigger operation for the at least one e-commerce recommendation word, and initiating, based on the at least one e-commerce recommendation word search request (Agarwal, see: Col 5, ln. 7-8 disclosing “an input control (e.g., a search query box) on the user’s computer screen” and ln. 52-55 disclosing “the information returned by the search service 102 can be based on…the user’s input in order to provide targeted content”; and Col. 7, ln. 14 disclosing “content item can be an answer” and ln. 16 “’where can I buy Macintoshes online?’” and ln. 35-36 disclosing “including ads [i.e., one e-commerce recommendation word] associated with keywords or other criteria”).
Although Agarwal discloses that a correlation between the first e-commerce recommendation word and the product suggested is greater than a correlation between any of the second e-commerce recommendation words, Agarwal does not specifically state that the second page displays this correlation, as now required in the amended claim language. Agarwal does not disclose:
displaying comprising: a correlation between the first recommendation and the product is greater than a correlation between the second recommendation and the product;
Hanlon, however, does teach:
displaying comprising: a correlation between the first recommendation and the product is greater than a correlation between the second recommendation and the product (Hanlon, see: Col. 2, ln. 19-34 teaching “a bundle ranking component to rank, or score, the set of potential product bundles relative to one another” and “matching component to select the highest ranking bundles based on a criteria and/or a threshold” and “a bundle presenter to present, display, or otherwise communicate the matching bundle(s)” and “may display the selected bundles on a user interface”; and see: Col. 8, ln. 20 teaching “matching component” and ln. 23-26 teaching “highest ranking bundles in the set of potential product bundles” and “score above a threshold opportunity score”; Also see: FIG. 2).
This step of Hanlon is applicable to the method of Agarwal, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing relevant product suggestions to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Agarwal, to include the features of displaying comprising: a correlation between the first recommendation and the product is greater than a correlation between the second recommendation and the product, as taught by Hanlon. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Agarwal to improve the relevancy when providing suggestions of items to a user to ultimately increase purchases (Hanlon, see: Col. 1, ln. 64-67 and Col. 2, ln. 1-4).
Claim 17-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses wherein the at least one e-commerce recommendation word is determined by:
obtaining candidate recommendation words associated with the product (Col. 7, ln. 14 disclosing “content item can be an answer” and ln. 16 “’where can I buy Macintoshes online?’” and ln. 35-36 disclosing “including ads [i.e., one e-commerce recommendation word] associated with keywords or other criteria”);
selecting, from the candidate recommendation words, a candidate recommendation word that matches a determined e-commerce attribute feature as the at least one e-commerce recommendation word (Agarwal, see: Col. 18, ln. 54-57 disclosing ‘the completion server can access the cache server 812 to identify one or more candidate content items” and Col. 20, ln. 62-63 disclosing “content selection process”; and see: Col. 21, ln. 6-14 disclosing “content selection process can be described in accordance with the following set of notations and terminology. For instance…the set of completions that matched p (2) c.sub.--{i}:=probability(completion C.sub.--{i}|prefix p), for each i (3) A_{j}:=the set of candidate content items that can be shown for p”).
Claim 19-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses wherein the multimedia content is an image-text content describing a product, and determining a product included in a multimedia content displayed on the first page (Agarwal, see: Col. 5 ln. 1-3 disclosing “receives the user input” and “associated content [i.e., a product] can be included” and ln. 4-6 disclosing “ads, navigational links, static content, video content…can be displayed”) comprises:
determining, based on product descriptive information in the image-text content, a product associated with the image-text content (Agarwal, see: Col. 8, ln. 4-7 disclosing “display data can include the suggestion itself, any identified additional content items and any renderable control, including…image. etc., that is associated”); and/or
performing product identification on an image in the image-text content, and determining a product identified (Agarwal, see: Col. 8, ln. 19-21 disclosing “answer box can contain the display data, including the suggestions and the additional content items identified by the suggest engine 21”).
Claim 20-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses further comprising:
when it is determined that the multimedia content includes a plurality of products, selecting, based on current behavior data for the first page and/or authorized historical behavior data of a user, a target product from the plurality of products to determine the at least one e-commerce recommendation word (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 48-49 “the user enters "bicyc", the system 100 can generate suggestions” and ln. 54-55 disclosing “user’s input in order to provide targeted content”; and see: Col. 21, ln. 32-33 disclosing “prefix to a content item” and “current state of user input”).
Claim 22-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses
wherein the at least one e-commerce recommendation word further includes a third e-commerce recommendation word determined based on the e-commerce attribute feature and irrelevant to the product (Agarwal, see: Col. 4, ln. 31-33 disclosing “Non-ad Web content an include links to web sites or other content, news, weather”);
displaying, on a second page, at least one e-commerce recommendation word comprises: displaying, in a third region of a second page, the third e-commerce recommendation word (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 9-12 disclosing “content items can appear on the user’s screen [i.e., second page] in an answer box” and ln. 42-43 disclosing “can be of the form of words or phrase that embody the request”).
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is directed to a system. Claim 24 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 15 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 24 also recites the features of a processor, a memory, and a bus; wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; during operation of computer device, the processor communicates with the memory via the bus; the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform steps, which are disclosed by Agarwal (Agarwal, see: Col. 29, ln. 41-51 “a processor” and “memory 1404” and “process instructions for execution within the computing device”). Claim 24 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 15.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is directed to a system. Claim 26 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 17 which is directed towards a method. Claim 26 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 17.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is directed to a system. Claim 28 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 19 which is directed towards a method. Claim 28 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 19.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is directed to a system. Claim 29 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 20 which is directed towards a method. Claim 29 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 20.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is directed to a system. Claim 31 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 22 which is directed towards a method. Claim 31 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 22.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. Claim 33 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 15 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 33 also recites the features of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon, the computer programs, when executed by a processor, perform steps, which are disclosed by Agarwal (Agarwal, see: Col. 29, ln. 42 “a storage device 1406”). Claim 33 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 15.
Claims 16, 23, 25, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, A., et al. (Patent No US 8,504,437 B1), in view of Hanlon, J., et al. (Patent No. US 9,483,789 B1), and Jain, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2014/0316930 A1).
Claim 16-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal further discloses wherein the e-commerce attribute feature is determined by:
determining, in accordance with a product type of the product, respective service providers matching the product type (Agarwal, see: Col. 18, ln. 13-14 “exact matching additional content (e.g., ads)” and ln. 19-20 disclosing “content providing system or by a content provider”);
determining, in accordance with the determined respective service providers, the e-commerce attribute feature meeting a recommendation condition (Agarwal, see: Col. 18, ln. 14-15 disclosing “matching additional content (e.g., ads), for example, without any attempt to match content that is a "fairly good" fit to the completion”).
Agarwal does not disclose:
current attribute state features;
Jain, however, does teach:
current attribute state features (Jain, see: paragraph [0019] teaching “recommendations” and “(e.g., documents that are about users as well as documents that are about items and their relations to different properties, such as which other items they are popular with, related to, as well as which regions or age groups they are popular in)”; and see: paragraph [0034] disclosing “may be presented with a ‘Popular in New York’ explanation (even if there is another possible explanation, such as ‘Popular among users of New York Metro app’”).
This step of Jain is applicable to the method of Agarwal, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing suggestions of content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Agarwal, to include the features of current attribute state features, as taught by Jain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Agarwal to improve suggestions for a user by providing relevant and personalized content that may not otherwise be recommended (Jain, see: paragraph [0018]).
Claim 23-
Agarwal in view of Hanlon teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses wherein initiating, based on the at least one e-commerce recommendation word, the search request comprises initiating, based on the at least one e-commerce recommendation word and content corresponding to the at least one e-commerce recommendation word, the search request, and the method, after initiating, based on the at least one e-commerce recommendation word and targeted content corresponding to the at least one e-commerce recommendation word, the search request, further comprises: displaying, under the targeted content of a third page, a search result corresponding to the at least one e-commerce recommendation word (Agarwal, see: Col 5, ln. 7-8 disclosing “an input control (e.g., a search query box) on the user’s computer screen” and ln. 52-55 disclosing “the information returned by the search service 102 can be based on…the user’s input in order to provide targeted content”; and Col. 7, ln. 14 disclosing “content item can be an answer” and ln. 16 “’where can I buy Macintoshes online?’” and ln. 35-36 disclosing “including ads [i.e., one e-commerce recommendation word] associated with keywords or other criteria”) .
Agarwal does not disclose:
a vertical domain content,
the vertical domain;
Jain, however, does teach:
a vertical domain content (Jain, see: paragraph [0019] teaching “provide real time recommendations with explanations across different content verticals with low latencies” and “The retrieval and ranking of the recommendations may then be separated into two phases, and only searching portions of the corpus (e.g., the various corpora or content verticals) that need to be searched”),
the vertical domain (Jain, see: paragraph [0019] teaching “provide real time recommendations with explanations across different content verticals with low latencies” and “The retrieval and ranking of the recommendations may then be separated into two phases, and only searching portions of the corpus (e.g., the various corpora or content verticals) that need to be searched”).
This step of Jain is applicable to the method of Agarwal, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing suggestions of content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method Agarwal, to include the feature of a vertical domain, as taught by Jain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Agarwal to improve suggestions for a user by providing relevant and personalized content that may not otherwise be recommended (Jain, see: paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is directed to a system. Claim 25 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 16 which is directed towards a method. Claim 25 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 16.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is directed to a system. Claim 32 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 23 which is directed towards a method. Claim 32 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 23.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 34 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 16 which is directed towards a method. Claim 34 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 16.
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, A., et al., in view of Hanlon, J., et al., and Lin, K., et al. (PGP No. US 2019/0253751 A1).
Claim 18
Agarwal in view of Jain teach the method of claim 15, as described above.
Agarwal discloses wherein the multimedia content is a video, and determining a product included in a multimedia content displayed on the first page (Agarwal, see: Col. 5 ln. 1-3 disclosing “receives the user input” and “associated content [i.e., a product] can be included” and ln. 4-6 disclosing “ads, navigational links, static content, video content [i.e., included in a multimedia content]…can be displayed”) comprises:
Agarwal does not disclose:
extracting text descriptive information in the video, and determining, based on the text descriptive information, a product associated with the video; and/or
identifying each entity in respective key frame images of the video, and determining a product in each entity identified.
Lin, however, does teach:
extracting text descriptive information in the video, and determining, based on the text descriptive information, a product associated with the video (Lin, see: paragraph [0022] teaching “data retriever 106 is further configured to extract product information transmitted by the video streaming server 122 with the media stream”; and paragraph [0023] teaching “The trigger sensor 110 is configured to analyze content depicted in the media stream to determine whether trigger conditions exist during streaming of the media content”; and see: Claim 5 teaching “textual information being partitioned into pages”); and/or
identifying each entity in respective key frame images of the video, and determining a product in each entity identified.
This step of Lin is applicable to the method of Agarwal as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing product information displayed in a video. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Agarwal, to include the features of extracting text descriptive information in the video, and determining, based on the text descriptive information, a product associated with the video, as taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the method of Agarwal to improve the access of product content that a user may purchase, via a platform that displays digital content in a live stream video (Lin, see: paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is directed to a system. Claim 27 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 18 which is directed towards a method. Claim 27 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 18.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, the Applicant’s remarks filed on 19 May 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claims 21 and 30, the objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 May 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 9-10 of the remarks stating that “amended Claim 15 as an example, Applicant asserts that it does not recite an abstract idea,” and “detecting the trigger of the search box and the multimedia content is obviously performed by a processor rather than a human,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a search request for a commerce recommendation, as stated in the Office Action above. The abstract idea in this case falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the steps in the claims are directed to sales activities or behaviors. The claims recite specific steps of determining a product included in a multimedia content displayed on the first page, displaying at least one recommendation word, where the commerce recommendation word is generated based on the product and a keyword corresponding to at least one of the product attribute features, displaying a first commerce recommendation word in a first region corresponding to the search, displaying in a different separate region a second commerce recommendation word, correlating the first recommendation word and the product when the correlation is greater than the second recommendation word and the product, and receiving and initiating a search request based on at least one of the commerce recommendation words and therefore these activities are related to sales activities or behaviors. Further, although claim 15 does not specifically recite a processor carrying these steps out, even if claim 15 recited a processor, merely “adding a generic computer, generic computing components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions,” and claiming that a processor is carrying these functions out, “does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection” (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 10 of the remarks stating “taking amended Claim 15 as an example, Applicant asserts that it recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements in claim 15 that are beyond the abstract idea, such as a search box, the search box, and e-commerce (i.e., electronic commerce) recommendation word, are recited at a high-level of generality, and are generically recited. The additional elements in this case, considered individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited computing components. Although the claims recite features of detecting a trigger of a search box or a multimedia content, a search instruction for a first page that displays the search box and the multimedia content can be generated, the features are not technically described in a manner that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are still recited generically. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 10 of the remarks stating “With respect to STEP 2B, taking amended Claim 15 as an example, Applicant asserts that it recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept. As stated above, the claims recite generic computing components and are being used to apply the abstract idea with the generically recited components. The claims recite generic computing components that carry out general or conventional type of computing functions, and as a result do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 May 2026, have been fully considered and the Examiner agrees in part. Particularly, the Examiner agrees that in light of the Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims, neither reference discloses nor teaches all of the limitation of wherein displaying, on a second page, at least one e-commerce recommendation word comprises: wherein a correlation between the first e-commerce recommendation word and the product is greater than a correlation between the second e-commerce recommendation word. The Examiner also partially agrees with the argument found on page 12 of the remarks stating “while the above content in Agarwal recites determining if the candidate is sufficiently relevant to a suggestion and the ranking functions, it never mentions that the ranking is for displaying, nor does it mention displaying content items with different correlations in different regions.” The Examiner notes that the reference of Agarwal does disclose wherein a correlation between the first e-commerce recommendation word and the product is greater than a correlation between the second e-commerce recommendation word and the product, as Agarwal describes that even before a user can complete a search query, the system can provide the most relevant suggestions to the user based on a sum of probability calculated with a threshold, and only providing suggestions that match and are above that threshold (Agarwal, see: Col. 3, ln. 33-38, ln. 46-48). Agarwal also discloses that based on the user input of the search query, and based on the determined relevant suggestions, the most relevant suggestions are listed in a separate area of the page, and another displayed content of a link website with an icon is also displayed in a separate area of the interface, as rendered in FIG. 2, and described in Col. 6, ln. 13-15 and ln. 25-29 of the reference. However, Agarwal does not specifically display the correlations based on the ranking. The Examiner is now relying on the reference of Hanlon to teach the amended limitation, as indicated in the Office Action above.
Next, in response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 12 of the remarks stating “Agarwal clearly does not disclose or suggest this technical features” referring to “displaying, in a second region of the second page, a second e-commerce recommend word,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference of Agarwal does teach the amended claim limitation because Agarwal not only provides, based on a beginning of a search query, relevant suggestions for the user, as described and rendered in FIG. 2, such as the suggestions of “New York City” in area of the page, but also provide another additional content suggestion of a New York Times publication link and a separate icon on a different area of the page (Agarwal, see: Col. 5, ln. 5-10 & Col. 6, ln.13-15; and FIG. 2, elements 205 and 207). Therefore the Examiner maintains that the reference of Agarwal does disclose the limitations and the reference of Hanlon has been introduced to teach the remaining amended limitations of the claim, and thus maintains the 103 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights