DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated July 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10-11, and 17 have been amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A computing system, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a first search query; processing the first search query with a search engine to determine a plurality of first search results responsive to the first search query; providing the plurality of first search results for display within a search results interface; obtaining a text input and a selection of an image search result of the plurality of first search results, wherein the image search result is descriptive of a particular object comprising one or more particular details; generating a multi-modal prompt input, wherein the multi-modal prompt input comprises a prompt image and prompt text, wherein the prompt image is associated with the image search result, and wherein the prompt text is descriptive of a request to render the particular object without the one or more particular details; processing the prompt image and the prompt text with an image generation model to generate a model-generated image, wherein the image generation model comprises a machine-learned generative transformer model, wherein the model-generated image is descriptive of a model-generated object, wherein the model-generated object comprises predicted pixels descriptive of the particular object without the one or more particular details; processing the model-generated image with an embedding model of the search engine to generate an embedding and query a database for embedding neighbors to determine one or more second search results; and providing the one or more second search results for display with the search results interface.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including filtering content. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to search for clothing, art, movies, and/or music (Specification ¶0003). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, a database, and a search results interface.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-10 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-10 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-10 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-10 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-10 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 11-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-10, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks pp. 8-12), the examiner disagrees. Applicant alleges without support that a prima facie case of patent ineligibility has not been established by the rejection. The rejection directly follows the MPEP to determine that the claims are not patent eligible, and the Patent Trials and Appeals Board and the Federal Circuit have affirmed the examiner 100% of the time on this issue.
Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem by citing to the specification which describes the problem as searching for clothing, art, movies, and/or music being difficult. Searching for clothing, art, movies, and/or music is not a technical problem. Furthermore, the paragraphs cited in applicant’s remarks contain many features not claimed, and to the extent the invention can be implemented as an abstract process or with tangible, technical, and non-abstract limitations the examiner recommends reciting such technical features in the claims similar to the recommendation made during the interview on 6/4/2026. Applicant has mischaracterized this interview in the remarks as discussing the cited art and ways to clarify and distinguish the claims from the cited art. However, no such discussion took place because there is not a prior art rejection on record. Instead, as reflected on the record by the Examiner’s Interview Summary, the §101 rejection was discussed and the examiner recommended reciting more additional elements in the form of specific hardware integrated into the existing claim steps or limitations directed to improvements to the user interface.
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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights