I 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 .
Priority
The current application claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/603,225, filed 11/28/2023.
Claims Status
Claims 1-22 are pending and stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “10. The method of claim 1, wherein returning the plurality of products to the user comprises returning metadata and state information based on processing of the raw search query by the LLM”. “State information” is not a term that has a well-defined scope in the art, and the specification as originally filed only mentions “state information” one time (e.g., 0021). The specification fails to provide any definition or examples so as to allow one of ordinary skill to determine its scope, let alone how the state information may be based on processing of the raw search query by the LLM. The term renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to avoid infringement of the claim because they are not apprised of the scope of the term “state information”.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method of searching including:
receiving a raw search query comprising a plurality of terms from a user;
processing the raw search query in order to identify one or more product terms of a product being searched and one or more attributes specifying fitment requirements of the product;
performing a vector search for the one or more attributes against a vector database of fitment terms to provide one or more verified fitment attributes, as a first subset of the verified fitment attributes providing main fitment data and a second subset of the verified fitment attributes providing additional fitment data;
performing a filtered product search using the identified one or more product terms as search terms and the main fitment data as a filter, the filtered product search providing a plurality of products matching the search terms and the filter; and
returning the plurality of products to the user.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth and describes fitment-based product searching. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including a large language model (LLM) and (arguably) a vector database.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13, dependent claims 2-13 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-13 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-13 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 2-13 rely on similar additional elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements such as a cache (claims 7-8) or metadata (claim 9-10) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities (e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory – see MPEP 2106.05(d)) previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-13 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 14-21 (non-transitory CRM), claims 14-21 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-6, 9, and 11-13 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Where further additional elements are recited (e.g., non-transitory medium, computing system) at least similar analysis as discussed above is applied herein under Prong Two and Step 2B. Accordingly, claims 14-21 are rejected under at least similar rationale as above.
Regarding claim 22 (system), claim 22 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Where further additional elements are recited (e.g., a computing system, at least one processor, at least one memory storing instructions) at least similar analysis as discussed above is applied herein under Prong Two and Step 2B. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected under at least similar rationale as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 14-16, 18-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni (US 2016/0260152) in view of Batina (US 2024/028936).
Regarding claim 1, Lagoni discloses a method of searching comprising:
receiving a raw search query comprising a plurality of terms from a user (see: 0055, Fig. 2 (202), 0062, Fig. 3 (302), 0067, Fig. 4 (402), 0074, Fig. 5 (502, 504, 508), 0076, Fig. 7 (702));
processing the raw search query by a Natural Language Model (NLP) in order to identify one or more product terms of a product being searched and one or more attributes specifying fitment requirements of the product (see: 0034, 0055 (search query can be parsed));
performing a search for the one or more attributes against a database of fitment terms to provide one or more verified fitment attributes, as a first subset of the verified fitment attributes providing main fitment data and a second subset of the verified fitment attributes providing additional fitment data (see: 0018, 0031, 0063-0064, Fig. 3 (304-306), 0068, Fig. 4 (404));
Note: compatibility is synonymous with fitment and is determined from information in the product data store and replacement part compatibility data store (e.g., 0043, Fig. 1A (146)).
performing a filtered product search using the identified one or more product terms as search terms and the main fitment data as a filter, the filtered product search providing a plurality of products matching the search terms and the filter (see: 0037-0038, 0069-0070, Fig. 4 (406-408)); and
Note: tailoring the results list includes filtering and sorting, including utilizing information in the product data store and compatibility with the manufacturer and particular model of interest.
returning the plurality of products to the user (see: 0065, Fig. 3 (308), Fig. 8 (802), Fig. 9 (902)).
Though disclosing the above, Lagoni does not expressly disclose the use of a large language model (LLM) (though Lagoni discloses NLP), or performing a vector search for the one or more attributes against a vector database (though Lagoni does disclose a compatibility search against data stores).
To this accord, Batina expressly teaches a method for chat-guided search (see: 0033, 0103, Fig. 3 (302)) that utilizes a large language model (LLM) (see: 0023, 0029, 0034, 0080, 0102) in facilitating a vector search against a library of vector embeddings (see: 0032-0033, 0078, 0082-0083). Notably, the search terms inputted by a user to initiate a search of a database including a product information database (see: 0078).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni to have utilized the known technique for responding to a user search query using an LLM and vector search as taught by Batina in order to have provided a more refined way to find the complementary products of Lagoni, thereby facilitating a search that retrieved highly relevant (see: Batina: 0032-0033).
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a fit of each of the plurality of products using the additional fitment data (see: Lagoni: 0018, 0063-0064, Fig. 3 (304-306), 0068, Fig. 4 (404))); and
returning the fit of each of the plurality of products to the user (see: Lagoni: 0065, Fig. 3 (308), Fig. 8-9).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the fit of each of the plurality of products is determined to be one of: guaranteed fit; possible fit; and does not fit (see: Lagoni: 0018, 0063-0064, Fig. 3 (304-306), 0068, Fig. 4 (404)).
Note: Lagoni teaches that parts either fit (guaranteed fit) or does not fit, and thus teaches one of: guaranteed fit; possible fit; and does not fit.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising burying/boosting one or more of the plurality of products in the search results (see: 0038, 0069, 0086).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the search is performed against a product catalog comprising a plurality of products each associated with one or more fitment values of entities the respective product is compatible with (see: 0042-0043 (electronic catalog), 0059).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-19 (non-transitory CRM), claims 14-16 and 18-19 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-3 and 5-6 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claims 14-16 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22 (system), claim 22 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina as applied to claims 1-3 and 14-16 above, and further in view of PTO form 892-U (DPF Parts).
Regarding claim 4 and parallel claim 17, Lagoni in view of Batina teaches all of the above as noted including determining one or more fitment attributes required to provide a guaranteed fit (see: 0025 (compatible for product models – e.g., OEM or generic parts for a particular model oven), 0029, 0031, 0039).
Though teaching the above, the combination does not teach wherein the fit of at least one of the plurality of products is a possible fit. Notably, Lagoni teaches both OEM parts and generic parts.
To this accord, DPY Parts discusses the distinction between OEM, exact fit parts (guaranteed fit) as well as will fit (possible fit) parts, indicating that will fit (possible fit) parts may not function to the standard of OEM parts. Thus, DPY Parts is understood to demonstrate the known fit type of a possible fit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the known type of fit (will fit/possible fit) of DPY Parts with the method of determining compatible parts as taught by Lagoni in view of Batina since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (determining fit (Lagoni), possible fit (DPY Parts), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (determining compatibility), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable – namely, outputting an indication of generic parts which possibly fit.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina as applied to claims 1-3 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Piskala (US 2025/0095641).
Regarding claim 7, Lagoni in view of Batina teaches all of the above but does not teach wherein a response from the LLM is cached.
To this accord, Piskala teaches an LLM method that stores response data in cache memory (i.e., a response from the LLM is cached) (see: 0027, 0050, Fig. 7 (702)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina to have used the known technique for caching responses as taught by Piskala in order to have included memories so that repeat errors may be identified quickly without the LLM needing to reperform a task to determine the correction (see: Piskala: 0014).
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising determining if the received raw search query has been previously cached (see: Piskala: 0027, 0052-0054, Fig. 7 (706)).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina as applied to claims 1-3 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Rana (US 2014/0351090).
Regarding claim 9 and parallel claim 20, Lagoni and Batina teaches all of the above as noted including one or more attributes specifying fitment requirements of the product (see: Lagoni: 0031, 0043, 0063-0064, 0068, Fig. 1A (144, 146)) as well as returning the plurality of products to the user (see: 0065, Fig. 3 (308), Fig. 8 (802), Fig. 9 (902)).
The combination, however, does not teach where returning the plurality of products to the user comprises returning product metadata pertaining to the one or more attributes.
To this accord, Rana teaches here returning the plurality of products to the user comprises returning product metadata pertaining to the one or more attributes (see: 0004, 0015-0016, 0024, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina to have used the known technique for returning metadata as taught by Rana in order to have enabled users to dynamically filter item results, thereby improving search for large populations of items (see: Rana: 0003, 0016).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina as applied to claims 1-3 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Earle (US 2024/0111960).
Regarding claim 10, Lagoni in view of teaches all of the above including returning the plurality of products to the user (see: 0065, Fig. 3 (308), Fig. 8 (802), Fig. 9 (902)). The combination does not teach wherein returning the plurality of products to the user comprises returning metadata and state information based on processing of the raw search query by the LLM.
To this accord, Earle teaches returning metadata and state information based on processing of the raw search query by the LLM (see: 0022, 0060, 0072, 0094, 0135-0136, 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina to have used the known technique for returning metadata and state information as taught by Earle in order to have assessed and improved the deployment of LLMs (see: Earle: 0018, 0020), thereby enabling the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina to provide better results.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina as applied to claims 1-3 and 14-16 above, and further in view of in view of Brazeau (US 2021/0233136).
Regarding claim 11, Lagoni in view of Batina teaches all of the above including the product information including fitment attributes (see: Lagoni: 0018, 0022, 0046, 0053, Fig. 1A (146)).
The combination, however, does not teach ingesting product information comprising a product information about a plurality of products.
To this accord, Brazeau teaches a product recommendation system that ingests product information comprising a product information about a plurality of products (see: 0010 (provide product data to be ingested), 0017-0018, Fig. 2B, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina to have used the known technique for ingesting product information as taught by Brazeau in order to have provided for enhanced and flexible ingestion of product-related data from various and diverse data sources (see: Brazeau: abstract).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the fitment attributed associated with a product specify entity information that the product fits (see: 0018 (compatible models, particular model), 0022 (specified product model), 0046, 0053 (particular model, specific model)).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites substantially similar scope as recited in the combination of claims 11-12. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected on at least similar grounds.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagoni in view of Batina and Brazeau as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Adegan (US 10,360,601).
Regarding claim 13, Lagoni in view of Batina and Brazeau teaches all of the above as noted but does not teach the specific type of fitment attribute of claim 13 – e.g., wherein the fitment attributed associated with a product specify that the product is a universal fit. Universal part fit was well-established in teh art before the effective filing date of teh invention and would have been obvious.
For example, Adegan teaches fitment attributed associated with a product specify that the product is a universal fit (see: col. 6 lines 25, col. 11 lines 42-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Lagoni in view of Batina and Brazeau to have incorporated the known attribute of universal fit as taught by Adegan in order to have ensured more accurate selection and exclusion of parts (see: Adegan: col. 11 lines 55-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cheng (US 2019/0340503) discloses a natural language interface for processing free-text queries to identify appropriate parts (see: Fig. 2B, Fig. 3B, 0023, 0026, 0033).
Wang (US 2022/0138826) discloses processing raw search queries using an LLM including a vector based search (see: )0027-0028, 0045, 0049-0051).
RAO (US 2019/0325499) discloses a part searching interface for locating compatible vehicle parts (see: 0022, 0032, Fig. 3, Fig. 6A).
Patel (US 2019/0108569) disclose a compatibility guidance method in relation to a universal automotive accessory (see: 0005-0006, Fig. 1-2).
Nagy (US 2021/0279785) discloses an interface for indicating perfect verses partial fit based on size data (see: Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619