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 .
The Instant Office Action replaces the Office Action, mailed October 1, 2026.
The IDS, ,mailed January 16, 2025, has been considered.
REMARKS
On page 7, Applicant’s summary of the interview, July 20, 2026, is acknowledged.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues the cited portions of Guha fail to disclose (or suggest) the features of "retrieving, in response to receiving the query from the user and in response to the first electronic resource being displayed when the query is received, contextual data that is associated with the first electronic resource" in claim 1, as well as similar features of independent claims 8 and 15, at least as amended. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as discussed below. As discussed in the Office Action, mailed April 23, 2026, an “electronic resource” has been interpreted as “webpages, word processing documents, and portable document format (PDF) documents, images, video, and feed sources, among other appropriate digital content. The resources 105 can include content, e.g., words, phrases, images and sounds and may include embedded information, e.g., meta information and hyperlinks, and/or embedded instructions, e.g., scripts” as described by the instant specification [0017]. For the instant prior art rejection, the limitation of “electronic resource” has been attributed with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “among other appropriate digital content.” The disclosure of “electronic resource” is consistent with the exemplified resource in the instant specification. Further, Guha discloses the method of the present invention is used for presenting search results generated by vertical search engines (VSEs) even when the user entered the search query at a general search site (such as google.com). Thus, searches entered at general sites can yield results that are informed by vertical content sites. In one embodiment, each VSE is characterized by a set of query terms for which it applies. Based on these query terms and/or other factors surrounding the query and the user, the system of the present invention automatically determines how to redirect and/or process a search query, including enhancing results based on results from VSEs ([0047]). Therefore, Guha cited as a whole anticipates the argued limitations.
On pages 8-9, Applicant requests reconsideration of the Office Action's 101 rejection in view of the amendments included herein as well as paragraph [0066] of the Specification. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument does not specifically discuss the basis in paragraph [0066] that overcomes the 35 USC 101 rejection of record.
Claims 1-20, filed July 23, 2026, are examined on the merits.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims recite a method, a system, and a computer readable storage medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “determining, in response to selecting the search result that is responsive to the query, a second electronic resource that is associated with the search result” at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. The instant specification discloses “the search result is selected at least partially in response to determining that a domain from which the second resource originates is the domain from which the first resource originates. In some implementations, the search result website is selected at least partially in response to determining that the first resource includes a link to the second resource.” Therefore, the limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generic computer components. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed as a mental process (that is, “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion”).
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodies the same abstract idea as claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a user device”, and “memory” wherein the elements are generic elements of the system, method, and/or computer-readable medium. The “one or more processors”, “a user device”, and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving…” amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The limitation of “retrieving…” and “selecting…” amount to extra-solution activity of selecting data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The limitation of “displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query” is a post-solution activity wherein a final step of outputting the results of the mental process and pre-solution activities. In addition, the last limitation of “displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query” is also an additional element, i.e., the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the results of the method are provided or output. The last limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
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
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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a user device”, and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation of “receiving…” amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data. Further, the “receiving” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The limitation of “retrieving…” and “selecting…” amount to extra-solution activity of selecting data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The limitation of “displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query” is a post-solution activity wherein a final step of outputting the results of the mental process and pre-solution activities. In addition, the last limitation of “displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query” is also an additional element, i.e., the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the results of the method are provided or output. The last limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g), which provide examples that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, such as “[p]rinting or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55” and “[s]electing information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
Thus taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim 2 recites causing the second electronic resource to be displayed in place of the first electronic resource. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 3 recites determining, based on the contextual data associated with the first electronic resource that was being displayed when the query was received, that the first electronic resource originates from a particular domain and the second electronic resource originates from the particular domain. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 4 recites determining that the first electronic resource includes a link to the search result that is responsive to the query. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 5 recites determining a rank for each of the plurality of search results; and selecting the search result based on the rank. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 6 recites determining the rank for each of the plurality of search results is based on the contextual data associated with the first electronic resource. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim 7 recites the second electronic resource includes one or both of text or image data. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, additional elements, or extra-solution activity, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 1. They also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodies the same abstract idea as claim 1. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guha (US 20070038601 A1).
Examiner Interpretations
For the instant Office Action, an “electronic resource” has been interpreted as “webpages, word processing documents, and portable document format (PDF) documents, images, video, and feed sources, among other appropriate digital content. The resources 105 can include content, e.g., words, phrases, images and sounds and may include embedded information, e.g., meta information and hyperlinks, and/or embedded instructions, e.g., scripts” as described by the instant specification [0017]. For the instant prior art rejection, the limitation of “electronic resource” has been attributed with the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “among other appropriate digital content.”
Claim 1, Guha discloses a method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a query that is based on input of a user at a user device, wherein a first electronic resource is being displayed at a screen of the user device when the query is received (Figure 9 and Figure 10, e.g. Receive search query);
retrieving, in response to receiving the query from the user and in response to the first electronic resource being displayed when the query is received, contextual data that is associated with the first electronic resource (Figure 9, e.g. Web Search Results, and [0049], e.g. Referring now to FIG. 9, there is shown an example page 900 providing access to search results that use aggregated contexts according to one embodiment. Here, links 204 provide access to search results obtained using context information from more than one vertical content site. For example, the first link 204 ("If you are trying to decide which digital camera to buy") provides search results obtained using context information from websites including dpreview, dcresource, digitalslr, and others);
selecting, in response to receiving the query from the user and from a plurality of search results, a search result that is responsive to the query, wherein selecting the search result is based on the contextual data associated with the first electronic resource that was being displayed when the query was received ([0046], e.g. user can thus continue to access additional related content through the various links 304, 306, each time obtaining search results that have been processed according to the context files associated with the selected links);
determining, in response to selecting the search result that is responsive to the query, a second electronic resource that is associated with the search result ([0038], e.g. Each of these links 204 is associated with a related context file, which will provide further instructions to the search engine system to tailor further stages in the search process for a specific information need, and thereby construct the desired pages. For example, the first link, "If you are trying to decide which camera to buy", addresses a specific type of user information need: information about how to purchase a camera, comparisons between camera, pricing information, and the like. This need derives from a specific type of user intent, specifically the intent to purchase a camera. The second link, "Where to buy this camera from . . . ", addresses a different and more specific information need: the location of vendors for that particular camera); and
causing the second electronic resource to be displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query (Figure 2,
PNG
media_image1.png
460
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Claim 2, Guha discloses causing the second electronic resource to be displayed, at the screen of the user device, responsive to the query comprises: causing the second electronic resource to be displayed in place of the first electronic resource ([0049], e.g. the first link 204 ("If you are trying to decide which digital camera to buy") provides search results obtained using context information from websites including dpreview, dcresource, digitalslr, and others. The fourth link 204 ("Accessories, Manuals, etc.") provides search results obtained using context information from websites including amazon.com, Outpost, and others. In one embodiment, an onscreen tag 951 can be displayed to indicate the sources of the aggregated context information). It is interpreted when the fourth link 204 is selected it is displayed in place of the first link.
Claim 3, Guha discloses selecting the search result that is responsive to the query further comprises: determining, based on the contextual data associated with the first electronic resource that was being displayed when the query was received, that the first electronic resource originates from a particular domain and the second electronic resource originates from the particular domain ([0076], e.g. the filters may be defined to exclude documents of certain types (either physical types, e.g., image files, or logical types, e.g., "reviews"), from particular sites or internet domains (e.g., documents from the .biz or .gov domain), websites, or of a certain vintage (e.g., documents published before Mar. 3, 2005)).
Claim 4, Guha discloses selecting the search result that is response to the query further comprises: determining that the first electronic resource includes a link to the search result that is responsive to the query ([0051], e.g. Each link 204 can provide access to search results from any number of vertical content sites).
Claim 5, Guha discloses selecting the search result that is response to the query further comprises: determining a rank for each of the plurality of search results; and selecting the search result based on the rank ([0127], e.g. the selection is based on a popularity measure for each vertical content provider whose context files are included in the cached repository. The popularity measure can be based on web access statistics, like number of unique visitors to a vertical content provider's site each month (or other time period), number of hits to such site, number of current subscribers to the vertical content provider. These and other statistical measures can be combined into a popularity measure. Alternatively, or additionally, the selection can be based on a reputation measure (or rank), where the reputation of each vertical content provider is judged and rated by users).
Claim 6, Guha discloses determining the rank for each of the plurality of search results is based on the contextual data associated with the first electronic resource ([0127], e.g. the selection is based on a popularity measure for each vertical content provider whose context files are included in the cached repository. The popularity measure can be based on web access statistics, like number of unique visitors to a vertical content provider's site each month (or other time period), number of hits to such site, number of current subscribers to the vertical content provider. These and other statistical measures can be combined into a popularity measure. Alternatively, or additionally, the selection can be based on a reputation measure (or rank), where the reputation of each vertical content provider is judged and rated by users).
Claim 7, Guha discloses the second electronic resource includes one or both of text ([0051], e.g. Each link 204 can provide access to search results from any number of vertical content sites) or image data.
Claims 8-20 Guha discloses a system and computer readable storage medium ([0266], e.g. a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored on a computer readable medium that can be accessed by the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus) comprising the same steps as cited in Guha above. Claims 8-20 are rejected for the same rationale and citations.
RELATED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanne et al. (US 9092523 B2) discloses the order in which the web pages are to be initially presented in the results list in response to the search query initiated by the user is influenced by relevance feedback received in the context of a previous search query (Claim 14).
Messer et al. (US 8935269 B2) discloses automatically analyzing the web page text to determine that some of the web page text provides additional contextual information relating to the media name; automatically selecting at least some of the web page text to use as one or more search terms in the second search; automatically performing the second search on an external network using the selected web page text as one or more search terms in the second search; receiving a search result in response to the second search; and displaying information to the user based on the search result from the second search (Claim 1).
Kraft, R. (discloses
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.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi, can be reached on 571-272-4078.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
10/14/2026
