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
In response to communication files on October 21, 2025, claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended by applicant's request. Therefore, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites,
The limitations of:
expanding a search query into a plurality of sub-queries, each sub-query comprising a query component of the search query;
receiving a search result for a first sub-query of the plurality of sub-queries, the search result comprising a field value that matches a corresponding query component of the first sub-query;
calculating, a match score for the field value and the corresponding query component based at least on a match type between the field value and the corresponding query component;
generating, a match inference comprising a search result explanation indicating why the search result matches the search query; and
generating an explanation interface to be displayed for the search result, the explanation interface comprising the match inference these limitations can be considered methods of organizing information or a mental process that a human could perform.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, The claim describes a method of expanding a search query, receiving search results, calculating match scores, and displaying an interface. These steps, in isolation, could be viewed as a method of organizing information or a mental process that a human could perform, albeit inefficiently. Therefore, it might be considered directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “computer implemented”, “one or more processors”, Machine learning model, “storage device”, and expanding a search query, receiving search results, calculating match scores, utilizing a search result explanation module and displaying an interface. Thus, the elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do 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 utilizing one or more memories, one or more processors, client device, and calculating match score, utilizing a search result explanation module, and displaying an interface to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations of receiving information and model configuration information from a client device are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(I), “transmitting data over a network”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 are further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: calculating. determining marching, displaying result…,etc., This limitation amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of: receiving search results, calculating match scores, and displaying an interface are well understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)(iv). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents an insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome present rejection including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 BELIX M ORTIZ DITREN whose telephone number is (571)272-4081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am -5pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 571-270-1698. 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.
BELIX M. ORTIZ DITREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/Belix M Ortiz Ditren/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164