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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 4/15/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 7, 11-13, and 17018, canceled no claims, and added new claims 19. Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 5 U.S.C. 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 each recites the first user review identified from a search of at least one review index, the second user review identified from a search of the at least one review index, and in response to receiving an indication, via the user interface, that a user review term from the first textual snippet or the second textual snippet was selected, causing a second query of the at least one review index to be executed with second query terms that include the user review term and a term from the first query terms. Identifying a first and second user reviews from a search of an index is evaluating those reviews and a mental processes, and executing a query of a review index with terms is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of causing a display, on a user interface, of a first textual snippet from a first user review related to a first entity, the first textual snippet including a first proper subset of text that is selectable, the first textual snippet received in response to a first query based on first query terms; causing a display, on the user interface, of a second textual snippet from a second user review related to a second entity different from the first entity, the second textual snippet including a second proper subset of text that is selectable, the second textual snippet received in response to the first query; and causing a display, on the user interface, of a third textual snippet from a third user review related to a third entity received in response to the second query, wherein the third entity is different from the first entity and the second entity, which are each output steps and insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 7 recites a processor and a memory and claim 13 recites a computer readable medium, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner could not find a discussion in the specification of any drawbacks or problems in the prior art but notes the specification paragraph 0003 states “systems and methods discussed herein enable searching within user-generated reviews across multiple entities of a particular type and/or discovering or generating results based on user-generated reviews,” and paragraphs 0035 states “the comparison layout is populated with snippets (e.g., portions of the user-generated reviews) that include the search term. For example, the search engine may obtain only relevant snippets from the user-generated reviews so users can see many reviews at once, and they do not have to sift through a long review to find the relevant sentence.” Examiner also notes these claims do not recite such a comparison layout, and the claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental process is not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the output steps are each recited broadly and amount to sending data across a network per specification figure 1 paragraphs 0051 and 0058, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor, memory, and computer readable medium are each still generic components of a computer. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental process.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 each recites wherein the first user review and the second user review are indexed and searchable in a review index associated with user reviews, and storing data in an index is routine and conventional per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 3, 9, and 15 each recites wherein the user review term is not included in the first query terms, and including a term in a query is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 4, 10, and 16 each recites wherein the second query terms include an additional search term that is not a known attribute of an entity type of the first entity or the second entity, and the third textual snippet includes the additional search term, and including a term in a query is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 5, 11, and 17 each recites causing the display of the first entity, the first textual snippet, the second entity, and the second textual snippet in a comparison layout on the user interface of a client device, and causing display of data as output is recited broadly and amounts to sending data across a network per specification figure 1 paragraphs 0051 and 0058, which is routine and conventional activity per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Claims 6, 12, and 18 each recites determining a first rank of the first entity based on the first user review and determining a second rank of the second entity based on the second user review, and wherein the display of the first user review above or left of the second user review is based on the first rank being higher than the second rank, and determining a rank is evaluating and a mental process.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruhl et al (US 20060143158), hereafter Ruhl, in view of Chatterjee et al (US 10,162,900), hereafter Chatterjee.
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 13, Ruhl teaches:
causing a display, on a user interface, of a first textual snippet from a first user review related to a first entity, the first user review identified from a search of at least one review index, the first textual snippet including a first proper subset of text that is selectable via the user interface, the first textual snippet received in response to a first query based on first query terms (paragraph 0089 figure 6A, query terms in search for product, paragraph 0092 figure 6B display first, second snippets from first, second reviews in 626, snippets and subsets of snippets selectable in 620, also paragraph 0094, paragraph 0035 figure 2B, index of reviews 248, 250, also paragraphs 0088, 0090);
causing a display, on the user interface, of a second textual snippet from a second user review related to a second entity different from the first entity, the second user review identified from a search of the at least one review index, the second textual snippet including a second proper subset of text that is selectable via the user interface, the second textual snippet received in response to the first query (paragraph 0089 figure 6A, query terms in search for product, paragraph 0092 figure 6B display first, second snippets from first, second reviews in 626, snippets and subsets of snippets selectable in 620, also paragraph 0094, paragraph 0035 figure 2B, index of reviews 248, 250, also paragraphs 0088, 0090);
in response to receiving an indication, via the user interface, that a user review term from the first textual snippet or the second textual snippet was selected, causing a second query of the at least one review index to be executed with second query terms that include the user review term and a term from the first query terms (figure 6C paragraph 0108 user review terms selected, paragraph 0115 figure 6C search within reviews of terms, plus initial query term for product); and
causing a display, on the user interface, of a third textual snippet from a third user review related to a third entity received in response to the second query, wherein the third entity is different from the first entity and the second entity (figure 6C displays snippet and third review of reviews matching second query).
Ruhl does not teach:
causing a display, on the user interface, of a second textual snippet from a second user review related to a second entity different from the first entity, the second user review identified from a search of the at least one review index, the second textual snippet including a second proper subset of text that is selectable via the user interface, the second textual snippet received in response to the first query; and
causing a display, on the user interface, of a third textual snippet from a third user review related to a third entity received in response to the second query, wherein the third entity is different from the first entity and the second entity.
Chatterjee teaches these things:
causing a display, on the user interface, of a second textual snippet from a second user review related to a second entity different from the first entity, the second user review identified from a search of the at least one review index, the second textual snippet including a second proper subset of text that is selectable via the user interface, the second textual snippet received in response to the first query (column 5 lines 37-52, column 36 lines 13-44 figure 18A showing different entities for search results and snippets 503 and 504 displayed); and
causing a display, on the user interface, of a third textual snippet from a third user review related to a third entity received in response to the second query, wherein the third entity is different from the first entity and the second entity (column 5 lines 37-52, column 36 lines 13-44 figure 18A showing different entities for search results and snippets 503 and 504 displayed, displaying a third review and entity is recited as a repetition of the steps or displaying a first and second user review and entity).
It would have been obvious to have combined the display function for different entities in Chatterjee with the search and display techniques for user reviews in Ruhl to provide more comparative information to a user, making the combination more user-friendly.
With respect to claim 7, Ruhl teaches a processor and a memory (figure 2A, 2B CPU 202, 272 and memory 206, 275 respectively).
With respect to claim 13, Ruhl teaches a computer readable medium (paragraphs 0021, 0037 figures 2A, 2B storage devices remotely located from CPUs 202, 276).
With respect to claims 2, 8, and 14, all the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 are addressed by Ruhl and Chatterjee. Ruhl also teaches wherein the first user review and the second user review are indexed and searchable in a review index associated with user reviews (paragraph 0035 reviews are indexed and searchable).
With respect to claims 3, 9, and 15, all the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 are addressed by Ruhl and Chatterjee. Ruhl also teaches wherein the user review term is not included in the first query terms (figure 6C 662, 664 showing term1, term2 from reviews not in query term for product at the top of 600).
With respect to claims 4, 10, and 16, all the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 are addressed by Ruhl and Chatterjee. Ruhl also teaches wherein the second query terms include an additional search term that is not a known attribute of an entity type of the first entity or the second entity, and the third textual snippet includes the additional search term (paragraph 0101 second terms for reviews not for attribute, third review in figure 6C has second term).
With respect to claims 5, 11, and 17 all the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 are addressed by Ruhl and Chatterjee. Ruhl also teaches causing the display of the first entity, the first textual snippet, the second entity, and the second textual snippet in a comparison layout on the user interface of a client device (figure 6B showing first, second snippets, reviews for comparison).
With respect to claims 6, 12, and 18 all the limitations in claims 1, 7, and 13 are addressed by Ruhl and Chatterjee. Ruhl also teaches determining a first rank of the first entity based on the first user review and determining a second rank of the second entity based on the second user review, and wherein the display of the first user review above or left of the second user review is based on the first rank being higher than the second rank (paragraph 0040 sorting reviews for a product by review quality, example figure 6B paragraph 0102).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections to claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 8 of his Remarks Applicant asserts the claims are patent eligible because they “recite a practical application of a technical solution to a technical problem.” Examiner disagrees and notes the Examiner could not find and the Applicant has not cited a particular problem in the specification. Further, the claim limitations recite general actions such as identifying reviews from a search index and executing a second query, which are each identified as mental processes in the rejections maintained above and lack details of the invention that may show an improvement to a problem. Regarding rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Ruhl, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 that Ruhl does not teach “a second textual snippet from a second user review related to a second entity different from the first entity” is persuasive. Examiner conducted another search of the prior art and found Chatterjee which Examiner believes teaches this functonality in the new rejections set forth 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 6/21/26
Prosecution Insights