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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 04 June 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending in this application. Claim 21 is new; claim 10 is cancelled; claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently 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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes reasonably performed mentally or on pen and paper without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites the mental processes of a method for displaying search results, comprising:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (A person can mentally read search information with keywords.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (The obtaining is recited at a high level of generality such that a person can mentally obtain search results and organize them together with different features.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions are displayed in the information card (A person can readily, using pen and paper, write a simple table with search result dimensions. The claim does not recite what an information card is, and as such is merely just a grouping of data presented together which can be grouped by pen and paper.);
wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (These features merely describe the data being used; all of which are generic enough to be mentally processable by a person.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps recited beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate into a practical application. Additionally, it is noted that the receiving and displaying steps, although mental processes as set forth above, are also insignificant extra-solution steps of mere data gathering and outputting which does not integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP §2106.05(g).). The displaying of data in an “information card” is nothing more than displaying related pieces of information together. This does not improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to possible amount to significantly more.
As to claim 11, the claim recites the mental processes of a
method comprises:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (A person can mentally read search information with keywords.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (The obtaining is recited at a high level of generality such that a person can mentally obtain search results and organize them together with different features.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions (A person can readily, using pen and paper, write a simple table with search result dimensions. The claim does not recite what an information card is, and as such is merely just a grouping of data presented together which can be grouped by pen and paper.);
wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (These features merely describe the data being used; all of which are generic enough to be mentally processable by a person.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps recited beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate into a practical application. Additionally, it is noted that the receiving and displaying steps, although mental processes as set forth above, are also insignificant extra-solution steps of mere data gathering and outputting which does not integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP §2106.05(g).). The displaying of data in an “information card” is nothing more than displaying related pieces of information together. This does not improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the features of computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores a machine-readable instruction executable by the processor, when the computer device runs, the processor communicates with the memory by the bus, and a method for displaying search results is executed when the machine readable instruction is executed, merely recite generic computer components used to merely implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claim 12, the claim recites the mental processes of a method comprises:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (A person can mentally read search information with keywords.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (The obtaining is recited at a high level of generality such that a person can mentally obtain search results and organize them together with different features.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions are displayed in the information card (A person can readily, using pen and paper, write a simple table with search result dimensions. The claim does not recite what an information card is, and as such is merely just a grouping of data presented together which can be grouped by pen and paper.);
wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (These features merely describe the data being used; all of which are generic enough to be mentally processable by a person.).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no steps recited beyond the abstract idea to possibly integrate into a practical application. Additionally, it is noted that the receiving and displaying steps, although mental processes as set forth above, are also insignificant extra-solution steps of mere data gathering and outputting which does not integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP §2106.05(g).). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the features of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and a method for displaying search results is executed when the computer program is executed by a processor, merely recite generic computer components used to merely implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
As to claims 2, 13, and 21, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 11, and 12 above. In addition, the claims recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion. Therefore, this is more insignificant extra-solution activity.
As to claims 3 and 14, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite wherein the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions comprises different attribute characteristics of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions;
displaying the feature information of the objects, comprises:
under the consumption attribute dimensions, displaying feature information of an object that meets a preset requirement in a first format, and displaying feature information of an object that does not meet the preset requirement in a second format, (The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion. Therefore, this is more insignificant extra-solution activity.)
wherein the preset requirement comprises:
a comparison result of comparing an attribute characteristic of an object with an attribute characteristic of other objects under the consumption attribute dimensions meets a preset condition (This step does not require the claims to perform a comparison, but merely utilize the result in the display. As such, it is merely more data used in generating a display as insignificant extra-solution activity. Even if comparing were claimed, it is recited at a high level of generality to enable a person to perform comparisons mentally.).
As to claims 4 and 15, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite wherein in a case that the keyword corresponds to a same type of objects, the aggregation search result comprises (A person can mentally determine if keywords correspond to object types and determine to aggregate results accordingly.):
feature information of a plurality of objects belonging to the same type of objects under each of the consumption attribute dimensions (A person can mentally determine if keywords correspond to object types and determine to aggregate results accordingly. The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion. Therefore, this is more insignificant extra-solution activity.).
As to claims 5 and 16, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite wherein in a case that the keyword corresponds to a plurality of objects, the aggregation search result comprises (A person can mentally determine if keywords correspond to objects and determine to aggregate results accordingly.):
type information of the plurality of the objects matched with the keyword, and feature information of a plurality of the objects belonging to the object under the plurality of the consumption attribute dimensions under the type information of each type of the objects (A person can mentally determine if keywords correspond to objects and determine to aggregate results accordingly. The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion. Therefore, this is more insignificant extra-solution activity.).
As to claims 6 and 17, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite displaying a feature comparison result under the consumption attribute dimensions obtained based on feature information of the objects on the search result page, wherein the feature comparison result is used to indicate an object of which a corresponding feature comparison result under the consumption attribute dimensions meets a preset condition (The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion. Therefore, this is more insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims also do not require performing the comparison, but merely utilizing the result in the display. Even if the comparison operation were claimed, it’s recited at a high level of generality to be reasonably performed mentally by a person.).
As to claims 7 and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite in response to a triggering operation on feature information of any of the objects (The triggering operation is recited at a high level of generality to be performed mentally by a person, and in response the person performing actions.), displaying detailed information of the object on the search result page or other pages redirected, wherein the detailed information comprises purchasing entry information (The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion.).
As to claims 8 and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, and the feature information comprises evaluation information (This merely describes provided data usable by a person in implementing the abstract idea.);
the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page, comprises:
displaying, on the search result page, dimension information of the evaluation dimension, and the evaluation information of the objects under each evaluation attribute in a plurality of evaluation attributes (The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion.).
As to claims 9 and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, the claims recite wherein the consumption attribute dimension comprises a purchasing channel dimension, and the feature information comprises purchasing link information (This merely describes provided data usable by a person in implementing the abstract idea.);
the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page, comprises:
displaying, on the search result page, dimension information of the purchasing channel dimension, and the purchasing link information of the object under each purchasing channel in a plurality of the purchasing channels (The above limitations merely recite steps as to how information is presented on the search result page. These features do not result in any improvement to the display or how it functions. Rather they just provide more information together as a possible benefit, but this would apply even outside of a computer if this information was merely sent to the user in some other fashion.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (previously presented)(US 2008/0319849 A1) in view of Howard et al. (previously presented)(US 2013/0311909 A1), hereinafter Howard.
As to claim 1, Rapoport discloses a method for displaying search results, comprising:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (Figs. 2 and 3, #302; [0041], [0051]; A request for pricing using text specifying a product or product type for purchase, i.e. a consumption intention, is received.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (Fig. 2; [0033], [0040]-[0042], Feature information is obtained from database server 118 and aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information corresponding to dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions are displayed in the information card (Fig. 2; [0040]-[0042], Obtained dimension information is aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information in corresponding dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc. The claim provides no details as to what the structure of an “information card” is, and as such is interpreted as merely a generic area of displaying results, at best, but not necessarily required, in a rectangular format like a card. Fig. 2 displays a rectangular table area 208 of results analogous to the claimed “information card” on a search results page 200.);
.
Rapoport does not specifically disclose wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes.
However, Howard discloses wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (Figs. 4 and 11; [0052], [0060], A results page for a given product/object includes an evaluation dimension split up into multiple evaluation attributes corresponding to the product/object such as seller rating, product customer rating, and brand rating formation. Under each evaluation attribute is feature information comprising corresponding evaluation information, i.e. the respective ratings (customer, overall, seller).).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rapoport with the teachings of Howard by modifying Rapoport such that the interface of Rapoport is expanded to include various rating features and corresponding rating information, like displayed for products of Howard, such as under a single consolidated evaluation dimension (i.e. as a new column), for each product in the results of Rapoport. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user to quickly view and compare, others’ feedback regarding experiences with the retailers and products so as to make better informed purchase decisions (Howard, Figs. 4 and 11; [0060]).
As to claim 11, Rapoport discloses a computer device, comprising:
a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores a machine-readable instruction executable by the processor, when the computer device runs, the processor communicates with the memory by the bus, and a method for displaying search results is executed when the machine readable instruction is executed (Fig. 1; [0029], [0032]), and the method comprises:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (Figs. 2 and 3, #302; [0041], [0051]; A request for pricing using text specifying a product or product type for purchase, i.e. a consumption intention, is received.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (Fig. 2; [0033], [0040]-[0042], Feature information is obtained from database server 118 and aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information corresponding to dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions are displayed in the information card (Fig. 2; [0040]-[0042], Obtained dimension information is aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information in corresponding dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc. The claim provides no details as to what the structure of an “information card” is, and as such is interpreted as merely a generic area of displaying results, at best, but not necessarily required, in a rectangular format like a card. Fig. 2 displays a rectangular table area 208 of results analogous to the claimed “information card” on a search results page 200.);
.
Rapoport does not specifically disclose wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes.
However, Howard discloses wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (Figs. 4 and 11; [0052], [0060], A results page for a given product/object includes an evaluation dimension split up into multiple evaluation attributes corresponding to the product/object such as seller rating, product customer rating, and brand rating formation. Under each evaluation attribute is feature information comprising corresponding evaluation information, i.e. the respective ratings (customer, overall, seller).).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rapoport with the teachings of Howard by modifying Rapoport such that the interface of Rapoport is expanded to include various rating features and corresponding rating information, like displayed for products of Howard, such as under a single consolidated evaluation dimension (i.e. as a new column), for each product in the results of Rapoport. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user to quickly view and compare, others’ feedback regarding experiences with the retailers and products so as to make better informed purchase decisions (Howard, Figs. 4 and 11; [0060]).
As to claim 12, Rapoport discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and a method for displaying search results is executed when the computer program is executed by a processor (Fig. 1; [0029], [0032]), and the method comprises:
receiving search information, wherein the search information comprises a keyword having a consumption intention (Figs. 2 and 3, #302; [0041], [0051]; A request for pricing using text specifying a product or product type for purchase, i.e. a consumption intention, is received.);
obtaining an aggregation search result, wherein the aggregation search result comprises feature information of objects under a plurality of consumption attribute dimensions, the consumption attribute dimensions are determined based on a category of the keyword, and the objects match with the keyword (Fig. 2; [0033], [0040]-[0042], Feature information is obtained from database server 118 and aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information corresponding to dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc.); and
displaying the aggregation search result in a form of an information card on a search result page, wherein dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions are displayed in the information card (Fig. 2; [0040]-[0042], Obtained dimension information is aggregated into a unified result display. E.g. based on a user searching for pricing information related to a typed product (i.e. a category of the keyword), a pricing display is shown with matching products and feature information in corresponding dimensions such as vendor, price, shipping cost, etc. The claim provides no details as to what the structure of an “information card” is, and as such is interpreted as merely a generic area of displaying results, at best, but not necessarily required, in a rectangular format like a card. Fig. 2 displays a rectangular table area 208 of results analogous to the claimed “information card” on a search results page 200.);
.
Rapoport does not specifically disclose wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes.
However, Howard discloses wherein the consumption attribute dimensions comprise an evaluation dimension, the evaluation dimension comprises a plurality of evaluation attributes, the feature information comprises evaluation information, and different objects correspond to different evaluation attributes (Figs. 4 and 11; [0052], [0060], A results page for a given product/object includes an evaluation dimension split up into multiple evaluation attributes corresponding to the product/object such as seller rating, product customer rating, and brand rating formation. Under each evaluation attribute is feature information comprising corresponding evaluation information, i.e. the respective ratings (customer, overall, seller).).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rapoport with the teachings of Howard by modifying Rapoport such that the interface of Rapoport is expanded to include various rating features and corresponding rating information, like displayed for products of Howard, such as under a single consolidated evaluation dimension (i.e. as a new column), for each product in the results of Rapoport. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user to quickly view and compare, others’ feedback regarding experiences with the retailers and products so as to make better informed purchase decisions (Howard, Figs. 4 and 11; [0060]).
As to claims 2, 13, and 21, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 11, and 12 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses wherein the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page, comprises:
displaying the dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions in a first area of the search result page; and
in response to a triggering operation for any of the dimension information, displaying the feature information of the objects under the dimension information in a second area; or,
on the search result page, according to an arrangement sequence of the consumption attribute dimensions, sequentially displaying dimension information corresponding to the consumption attribute dimensions respectively and feature information of the objects corresponding to the consumption attribute dimensions respectively, wherein the dimension information and the feature information of the objects under each consumption attribute dimension are displayed in adjacent positions (Fig. 2; Consumption attribute dimensions, e.g. Store, Shipping, Price, etc. are sequentially displayed horizontally, and their corresponding feature information displayed adjacently underneath.).
As to claims 3 and 14, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses wherein the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions comprises different attribute characteristics of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions (Fig. 2, [0042], E.g. sorting feature information for given dimensions. [0047], Also, displaying best or optimal discounts.).
Rapoport does not disclose.
displaying the feature information of the objects, comprises:
under the consumption attribute dimensions, displaying feature information of an object that meets a preset requirement in a first format, and displaying feature information of an object that does not meet the preset requirement in a second format, wherein the preset requirement comprises:
a comparison result of comparing an attribute characteristic of an object with an attribute characteristic of other objects under the consumption attribute dimensions meets a preset condition.
However, Howard discloses displaying the feature information of the objects, comprises:
under the consumption attribute dimensions, displaying feature information of an object that meets a preset requirement in a first format, and displaying feature information of an object that does not meet the preset requirement in a second format (Figs. 8, 22, 27, and 28; [0057], [0070], [0073]-[0074]; A user can view comparison information regarding consumption attribute dimensions’ feature information, such as item, price, rating, etc.; between identified product pages from a search. If the feature information for the corresponding consumption attribute dimension is the same or different (i.e. meeting preset requirements), they can be highlighted accordingly.), wherein the preset requirement comprises:
a comparison result of comparing an attribute characteristic of an object with an attribute characteristic of other objects under the consumption attribute dimensions meets a preset condition (Figs. 8, 22, 27, and 28; [0057], [0070], [0073]-[0074]; A user can view comparison information regarding consumption attribute dimensions’ feature information, such as item, price, rating, etc.; between identified product pages from a search. If the feature information for the corresponding consumption attribute dimension is the same or different (i.e. meeting preset requirements comprising comparisons of being the same or not.), they can be highlighted accordingly.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rapoport with the teachings of Howard by modifying Rapoport such that the user can select multiple identified products or services in the aggregated results to compare like in Howard. Said artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to enable a user of Rapoport to better understand true pricing and tradeoffs between found products and services (Howard, [0069]).
As to claims 4 and 15, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses wherein in a case that the keyword corresponds to a same type of objects, the aggregation search result comprises:
feature information of a plurality of objects belonging to the same type of objects under each of the consumption attribute dimensions ([0041], I.e. in the case of searching a “product type”.).
As to claims 5 and 16, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses wherein in a case that the keyword corresponds to a plurality of objects, the aggregation search result comprises (Fig. 2 which shows a plurality of matching objects with corresponding feature information for each under respective plurality of consumption attribute dimensions.):
type information of the plurality of the objects matched with the keyword, and feature information of a plurality of the objects belonging to the object under the plurality of the consumption attribute dimensions under the type information of each type of the objects (Fig. 2; [0040], Type information displayed in 204 indicating the type prices/filter items in the example, but also has types of deals, stored/coupons, free stuff, etc. The dimensions and feature items for each object/product/service is displayed underneath.).
As to claims 6 and 17, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses displaying a feature comparison result under the consumption attribute dimensions obtained based on feature information of the objects on the search result page, wherein the feature comparison result is used to indicate an object of which a corresponding feature comparison result under the consumption attribute dimensions meets a preset condition (Fig. 2, [0042], E.g. sorting feature information for given dimensions, thus presenting products with feature values, e.g. lowest cost, first. [0043] The products displayed all having an attribute dimension meeting a preset condition corresponding to price 218 and/or with further keywords.).
As to claims 7 and 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses in response to a triggering operation on feature information of any of the objects, displaying detailed information of the object on the search result page or other pages redirected, wherein the detailed information comprises purchasing entry information ([0063], Upon the use electing an item for purchase, redirecting the user to the identified vendor’s website to purchase the identified product or service.).
As to claims 8 and 19, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport, as previously modified with Howard, discloses
the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page (Rapoport, Fig. 2; Howard, Figs. 4 and 11, As previously combined, the results of Rapoport include an addition column with information including various ratings (e.g. customer, brand, and store) associated with the product.), comprises:
displaying, on the search result page, dimension information of the evaluation dimension, and the evaluation information of the objects under each evaluation attribute in a plurality of evaluation attributes (Figs. 4 and 11; [0052], [0060], Results include seller rating information for respective sellers matching the searched product as well as product ratings from customers and brand rating. The evaluation information being displayed as filled stars under each respective evaluation attribute (e.g. customer, brand, seller).).
As to claims 9 and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 11 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses wherein the consumption attribute dimension comprises a purchasing channel dimension, and the feature information comprises purchasing link information ([0063], E.g. the “add to” dimension allowing the user to select a displayed feature information link to add a selected product or service to the user’s shopping cart.);
the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page, comprises:
displaying, on the search result page, dimension information of the purchasing channel dimension, and the purchasing link information of the object under each purchasing channel in a plurality of the purchasing channels ([0063], E.g. the “add to” dimension allowing the user to select a displayed feature information link for the item’s vendor, among a plurality of other add to cart options for other venders, to add a selected product or service to the user’s shopping cart.).
As to claim 21, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12 above. In addition, Rapoport discloses the displaying dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions and the feature information of the objects under the consumption attribute dimensions on a search result page, comprises:
displaying the dimension information representing the consumption attribute dimensions in a first area of the search result page; and
in response to a triggering operation for any of the dimension information, displaying the feature information of the objects under the dimension information in a second area; or,
on the search result page, according to an arrangement sequence of the consumption attribute dimensions, sequentially displaying dimension information corresponding to the consumption attribute dimensions respectively and feature information of the objects corresponding to the consumption attribute dimensions respectively, wherein the dimension information and the feature information of the objects under each consumption attribute dimension are displayed in adjacent positions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. For Examiner’s response, see discussion below:
(a) At pages 10-11, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 USC §101, Applicant argues that the independent claims, as currently amended, are directed to statutory subject matter. Applicant argues that the claimed “information card” cannot be considered an abstract idea independent from computers, and displaying the results in the form of an information card involves computer-specific technical contents. Applicant further argues that claimed displaying integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application in the field of computer network search and online consumption, and delivers a technical improvement enabling users to more rapidly identify information.
As to (a), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As claimed, an “information card” is nothing more than a grouping of search result information. A person can mentally group result information together. Displaying data generated mentally organized as part of the abstract idea is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Applicant’s arguments to the field of computer network search and online consumption is nothing more than attempting to generally link the use to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h). At best, Applicant’s rationale of enabling a user to make better decisions just demonstrates that the “practical application” is to enable further mental processing of a person, and is just really furthering the abstract idea already claimed.
(b) At pages 12-13, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 USC §102, Applicant argues that the amended features are not taught by Rapoport. Applicant argues that Howard also does not disclose or render obvious the amended features, stating that the retailer rating is the evaluation information for a retailer instead of a searched product.
As to (b), Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, updated as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments, Rapoport discloses the newly claimed “information card” as the table where the products and corresponding product related information is displayed. Rapoport discloses evaluation information corresponding to products as various review types. E.g. the seller information is brought up specifically as a place that sells the product being searched, and is therefore is evaluation information of the product. Likewise, the customer ratings and brand rating corresponding to the product are as well. As all of these are information generated in relation to specific products found for a user, it would have been obvious to include the rating information along with the other product information in the results of Rapaport as discussed above.
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 JAMES E RICHARDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/James E Richardson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights