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 10/1/25, Applicant amended claims 1, 7, and 13, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Rejections under 35 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 1-20 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 in response to receiving an indication that a user review term from the first textual snippet or the second textual snippet was selected, causing a second query to be executed with second query terms that include the user review term and a term from the first query terms, and executing a query with terms is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Each claim recites additional elements of causing a display 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 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 of a third textual snippet from a third user review received in response to the second query 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 providing the first entity, the first textual snippet, the second entity, and the second textual snippet in a comparison layout on a user interface of a client device, and providing 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. 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruhl et al (US 20060143158), hereafter Ruhl.
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 13, Ruhl teaches:
causing a display 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 (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);
causing a display 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 (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);
in response to receiving an indication that a user review term from the first textual snippet or the second textual snippet was selected, causing a second query 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 of a third textual snippet from a third user review received in response to the second query (figure 6C displays snippet and third review of reviews matching second query).
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, Ruhl 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, Ruhl 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, Ruhl 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, Ruhl teaches providing the first entity, the first textual snippet, the second entity, and the second textual snippet in a comparison layout on a user interface of a client device (figure 6B showing first, second snippets, reviews for comparison).
With respect to claims 6, 12, and 18, Ruhl 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 of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant reprinted the amended claims on page 6 of her Remarks but made no arguments relevant to said rejections. Examiner still believes the claims recite a mental process without significantly more and maintains the rejections above. Regarding rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by Lazier, Applicant’s arguments on page 7 are persuasive, in particular that Lazier does not teach its text snippets being from user reviews. Examiner conducted another search of the prior art and fond Ruhl which Examiner believes teaches the claims as shown in the new rejections above. Because this is the first rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Ruhl, Examiner makes the instant office action non-final.
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 1/13/26