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
Status of Claims
Claim(s) the 1-11 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the new list". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a method, medium, and system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
performing a conditional search to search for an object matching a search condition and generate a list;
generating a record of objects that were shown, with an identifier and a time for each;
compare the new list generated by newly performing the conditional search with the displayed product record to identify an object that is included in the displayed product record but is not included in the new list;
adding the identified object to the new list;
This is an abstract idea because it is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
a search device comprising memory and a processor;
various code (e.g., search code, display code, acquisition code, etc) which causes the processor to do things;
display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to cause a user terminal to display the object included in the generated list on a display screen of the user terminal;
acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire drawn information indicating the object that is drawn on the display screen among the objects included in the list;
record generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to display a product record that indicates objects corresponding to the drawn information, the displayed product record including, for each object that is drawn on the display screen, an identifier of the object and a drawing time at which the object was drawn on the display screen;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claim 2 recites a scroll operation which invokes a scroll feature if all the objects cannot be collectively drawn on the screen. However, this does not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. The same can be said for claims 3-6 and the remaining dependent claims.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a search device comprising memory and a processor;
various code (e.g., search code, display code, acquisition code, etc) which causes the processor to do things;
display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to cause a user terminal to display the object included in the generated list on a display screen of the user terminal;
acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire drawn information indicating the object that is drawn on the display screen among the objects included in the list;
record generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to display a product record that indicates objects corresponding to the drawn information, the displayed product record including, for each object that is drawn on the display screen, an identifier of the object and a drawing time at which the object was drawn on the display screen;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Remarks
Additional prior art relevant to the claimed application but not relied upon includes:
Bazzani (US 11,416,910) teaches a visual search for products.
Warren (US 11,361,373) teaches providing search result filters.
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches collaborative filtering and emotion detection.
In regards to the prior art rejection, the rejection is withdrawn because the applicant has amended the claims and overcome the rejection.
In regards to the applicants arguments filed on 4/10/2026 directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, they have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 (as printed) of the remarks that the claims a specific technical solution to a technical problem, namely, ensuring that objects previously rendered on a display screen are preserved in updated search results when a search is re-performed. The applicant further argues that this is an improvement to “how search results are managed across search sessions.” The applicant argues that the claims reflect this improvement because the claims recite generating a displayed “product record” that indicates “drawing times” each item in the product record was “drawn on the display screen” and then a “comparing” step which compares “a new list generated by newly performing the conditional search based on the search condition” with the “displayed product record” (which contains the drawing times) in order “to identify an object that is included in the displayed product record but is not included in the new list.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims recite an improvement to technology or a technical field. The comparison identifies an object on the sole basis that the object is included in the record and is not included in the new list; the drawing time of that object, whatever its value, does not affect the identification, and no other limitation of claim 1 tests, orders by, or otherwise acts upon the drawing time. The presence of a data field within a structure that is passed to a step is not the same as that field being used by that step. It is further noted that claims 10 and 11, which give the drawing time operative effect, confirm that claim 1 does not. Finally, it then begs the question, if the alleged improvement is allows a user to view search results previously viewed and does so by analyzing the drawing time of items in the original search results, hasn’t the applicant then proven that a drawing time is not necessary? The system can just compare what was previously displayed to the new results, and include those which are absent from the new search results, all without needing a drawing time.
For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights