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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method, performed by at least one processor, for improving the ranking and displaying of product categories based on a search query, the method comprising: training a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results; obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query; calculating features of the one or more words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories; calculating, by the trained classification model, information on at least one product category related to the search query based on the features of the one or more words and the search query; calculating a plurality of product category related scores based on an appearance of one or more words from the search query in specific product categories regardless of the appearance frequency of the one or more words in the plurality of product categories to predict a query-related product category more accurately through the classification model, and thereby provide a search result that matches the user's intention; and displaying a plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user based on the plurality of product category related scores, wherein a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related scores”.
The limitations of “A method, performed by information on at least one product category related to the search query based on the features of the one or more words and the search query; calculating a plurality of product category related scores based on an appearance of one or more words from the search query in specific product categories regardless of the appearance frequency of the one or more words in the plurality of product categories to predict a query-related product category more accurately through the classification model, and thereby provide a search result that matches the user's intention; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “at least one processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “at least one processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “training a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results” and “by the trained classification model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query” and “displaying a plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “training a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results” and “by the trained classification model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query” and “displaying a plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the distribution information comprises:
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calculating of the features of the one or more words comprises: calculating an importance of the one or more words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories and features of the search query; and calculating the features of the one or more words by applying the importance to the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories as a weight”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the calculating of the importance of the one or more words comprises: calculating the feature of each of the one or more words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories; calculating, by a language model, the features of the search query; and calculating, by an attention model, the importance of the one or more words based on the features of each of the one or more words and the features of the search query”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calculating of the features of the one or more words comprises: selecting a predetermined number of words from the one or more words based on a number of product categories in which each of the one or more words appears in plural pieces of product data; calculating an importance of each of the selected words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories of the selected words and the features of the search query; and calculating features of the selected words by applying the importance of each of the selected words to the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories as a weight”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calculating of the features of the one or more words comprises: calculating an average value of category appearance frequencies related to each of the one or more words based on an appearance frequency of the one or more words in each of the plurality of product categories in plural pieces of product data; and obtaining the features of the one or more words based on the calculated average value”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of the one or more words included in the search query comprises: calculating the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories of each of the one or more words or each of the words in which two or more of the one or more words are combined, and wherein the calculating of the features of the one or more words comprises calculating the features of the one or more words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories of each of the one or more words or each of the words in which two or more of the one or more words are combined”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: adjusting ranking information of a product search result for the search query based on a probability for the calculated at least one product category”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A method, performed by at least one processor, for training a classification model for a search query, the method comprising: training the classification model for executing a category classification for the search query based on first training data including a category probability based on product names; and training the classification model based on second training data including a category probability based on a user's selection of the product search result for the search query, wherein the training of the classification model for executing a category classification for the search query comprises: obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query; calculating features of the one or more words based on distribution information on each of the plurality of product categories; calculating, by the classification model, a probability for at least one product category related to the search query based on the features of the one or more words and the search query; calculating a plurality of product category related scores based on an appearance of one or more words from the search query in specific product categories regardless of the appearance frequency of the one or more words in the plurality of product categories to predict a query-related product category more accurately through the classification model, and thereby provide a search result that matches the user's intention; and displaying the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user based on the plurality of product category related scores, wherein a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related scores”.
The limitations of “A method, performed by scores, wherein a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related scores”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “at least one processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “at least one processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “training the classification model for executing a category classification for the search query based on first training data including a category probability based on product names; and training the classification model based on second training data including a category probability based on a user's selection of the product search result for the search query” and “by the classification model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query” and “displaying the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “training the classification model for executing a category classification for the search query based on first training data including a category probability based on product names; and training the classification model based on second training data including a category probability based on a user's selection of the product search result for the search query” and “by the classification model” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining distribution information on each of a plurality of product categories of one or more words included in the search query” and “displaying the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first training data is generated based on a probability of each of a plurality of product names being included in product meta information related to a plurality of product categories”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the second training data is generated based on a category probability of a product selected by a user among search results for a plurality of queries”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory and configured to execute at least one computer readable program included in the memory, wherein the at least one program includes instructions to: train a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results; obtain distribution information on each of a plurality of categories of one or more words included in a search query, calculate features of the one or more words based on the distribution information on each of the plurality of categories, calculate, by the trained classification model, information on at least one category related to the search query based on the features of the one or more words and the search query, and calculate a plurality of product category related scores based on an appearance of one or more words from the search query in specific product categories regardless of the appearance frequency of the one or more words in the plurality of product categories to predict a query-related product category more accurately through the classification model, and thereby provide a search result that matches the user's intention; and display the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user based on the product category related scores, wherein a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related score”.
The limitations of “scores, wherein a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related score”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps. The “information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “train a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtain distribution information on each of a plurality of categories of one or more words included in a search query” and “display the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “an information processing system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional element of “train a classification model using training data based on information on whether a user selects one or more product search results corresponding to one or more search queries or based on product information associated with the one or more product search results” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtain distribution information on each of a plurality of categories of one or more words included in a search query” and “display the plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of product categories displayed to the user are of “displayed in an order based on the product category related scores” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “displayed in an order based on the product category related scores” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The information processing system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the plurality of product categories displayed to the user are
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim is eligible at Step 2A because the claims “recite calculating a plurality of product category related scores based on an appearance of one or more words from the search query in specific product categories regardless of the appearance frequency of the one or more words in the plurality of product categories and displaying a plurality of product categories from a product search result to a user based on the plurality of product category related scores, where a search ranking of the plurality of product categories displayed to the user is adjusted based on the plurality of product category related scores” and that these “steps are meaningful because they improve the product categories displayed to a user by providing the most relevant categories regardless of whether a product category has a large appearance frequency or a low appearance frequency and predict a query-related product category more accurately through the classification model, and thereby provide a search result that matches the user's intention” (see applicant arguments, pages 9-10). Applicant appears to be arguing specifically under Step 2A, Prong Two, which requires identifying whether the claim recites any additional elements beyond the judicial exception, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The applicant has not specifically mentioned any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, the applicant does discuss the “displaying” step, which is identified in the 35 USC 101 rejections of record as the additional element of “insignificant extra-solution activity” related to data output. In addition, the applicant appears to be arguing that the consideration for integration into a practical application is as described in MPEP § 2106.05(a), or specifically that “the steps are meaningful because they improve the product categories displayed to a user by providing the most relevant categories” (applicant arguments, page 10). However, even assuming that this display step is really integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, MPEP § 2106.05(a) requires that the specification includes a technical explanation of the asserted improvement and that the claim reflect such an improvement. The applicant has not discussed the specification at all in their arguments, nor specifically identified how the claim reflects such an improvement. Therefore, based upon not adhering to the requirements of Step 2A, Prong Two, for integration into a practical application, the applicant arguments are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are allowable over the prior but have outstanding 35 USC 101 rejections that must be resolved.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights