DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is responsive to amendment filed on 7/8/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-19 are pending.
Claims 2, 5, 11, 14, 20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously made and the amended claims filed on 7/8/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the claim amendment and upon further consideration, the rejections are being updated accordingly.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that the cited determining limitations are directed to a series of thought processes, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and information evaluation.
E.g. limitation of “determining a current inquiry mode as an exploration mode for full-scale inquiry, in response to determining that the state information indicates the input zone being in a blank state” as claimed is a thought process that can be performed mentally with determining a current inquiry based on evaluating the gathered information (i.e. determining that the state information indicates the input zone being in a blank state).
In addition, the intended inventive concept may be “the inquiry mode be adjusted in real time according to a state of the input zone in the inquiry component, the inquiry mode is automatically switched, and the corresponding inquiry result is fed back according to the switched inquiry mode” as stated by the Applicant. However, nowhere in any claim recite any limitation on adjusting the inquiry mode in real time, or automatically switching the inquiry mode, nor feeding back the inquiry result.
Instead, the claims recite a series of determining steps that are directed to a series of thought processes, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. Mental process is directed to one of the abstract ideas groups as set forth by Prong One in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Additionally, the claims recite additional insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two, and also would be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B. This is nothing more than providing information and does not provide any integration into a practical application.
The types of information materials, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception. The claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims, and fail to integrate the judicial exception into practical application according to Prong Two in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because the claimed elements or their combination do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, in view of Step 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the computing elements (such as memory, processor, computer program, display) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Thus, the claims remained rejected for directed to an abstract idea without significantly more; see rejections below for detail.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that that amendments raise new issues; see rejection below for detail.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments, it is submitted that the prior art cannot be applied due to the indefinite issues raised by the amendments
Furthermore, it is submitted that all limitations in claims--including those not specifically addressed in the Applicant’s remarks--are properly addressed. The reason is set forth in the rejections; see below for detail.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a mental process in the limitations of “…detecting state information of an input zone…determining a current inquiry mode as an exploration mode in response determining that the state information…. determining the current inquiry mode as a search mode in response to determining that the state information … updating an inquiry component style on a display based on the determined inquiry mode… determining all of data in a database corresponding to the inquiry component to be a data inquiry result…determining the data inquiry result based on the content information…” These limitations could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information since the cited steps are directed to a series of thought processes. Mental process is directed to one of the abstract ideas groups as set forth by Prong One in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The limitation of “...outputting the data inquiry result…” is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two, and also would be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B. This is nothing more than providing information, and does not provide any integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements (e.g. state information, content information of the input zone, text, a full scale inquiry, matching inquiry, data in a database, data inquiry result) are directed to types of information materials, which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims. Hence, the claims do not include additional elements or the combination of the elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate the judicial exception into practical application according to Prong Two in Step 2A of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because the claimed elements or their combination do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, in view of Step 2B of the 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it is determined that the computing elements (such as memory, processor, computer program, display) in the claims amount to no more than usage of a generic computing system having a generic computing components, which fails to provide an inventive concept or significantly more than abstract idea because the elements do not necessary improve the functional of a computing system or an improvement to a technical field since network computing is well known.
Dependent claims 3-5, 6, 12-13 and 15 further recite the mental process include addition limitations with a series of determining steps that that are thought processes, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. The additional elements (e.g. input style, single-line input) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Dependent claims 7 and 16 further recites an additional limitation of “displaying the content information…” which is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two, and also would be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B. This is nothing more than providing information, and does not provide any integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 further recite the mental process include addition limitations with “…obtain all input instructions…determining the preset information…”, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information. The additional elements (e.g. all input instructions, preset information) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 further recites the mental process include addition limitations with “…determining whether a database corresponding to.…determining the input style…”, which could be done mentally based on gathered information and evaluating the information since the determining steps are merely thought processes. The additional elements (e.g. target data, single-line input) in the limitations are directed to types of information materials. The information materials which do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort design to monopolize exception, because the claimed steps could be performed in a same manner to achieve the same outcome with other types of information other than the ones being used in the claims as stated above.
Thus, for at least the reasoning above, the pending claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Limitation of “wherein the state information comprises content information of the input zone” recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively indicates that the input zone contains content information, which means that the input zone is in a filled state and is being indicated by the state information as claimed.
Limitation of “determining a current inquiry mode … determining that the state information indicates the input zone being in a blank state” is contradicting with the cited limitation above. Blank state means that the input zone is empty with no content, yet there’s content information in the input zone as indicated by the state information in the cited limitation above. It is unclear how the state information could indicate the input zone being in a blank state when the state information includes content information of the input zone as claimed.
Also, the limitation of “the current inquiry mode” for matching inquiry in the determining the current inquiry mode step of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 is referred to “a current inquiry mode” cited in the determining inquiry mode for full-scale inquiry.
The matching inquiry and full-scale inquiry are two different search modes with the zone input being in two different states as claimed, it is unclear how the matching inquiry and full-scale inquiry both could be the determined current mode as claimed.
In addition, the limitation of “the data query result” for the matching inquiry recited in the determining the data inquiry result based on the content information step recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively is referred to “a data inquiry result “cited in the determining all of data in a database step for the full-scale inquiry.
The matching inquiry and full-scale inquiry are two different search modes with different forms of data processing as claimed, it is unclear how two different search modes be used to determine the same data inquiry result as claimed, i.e. it is unclear how could the same outcome (i.e. data inquiry result) be achieved with two different modes.
Each of the dependent claims is being rejected for incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claim it depends on respectively.
Conclusion
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 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 Michelle Owyang whose telephone number is (571)270-1254. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached at (571)272-4085. 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.
/MICHELLE N OWYANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights