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 .
Claims 1-20, filed January 16, 2025, 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 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.
Bai et al. (US 20130226935 A1) discloses selected text 202 and the context 204 are received by a search initiation module 206. The selected text 202 may be selected by the user 102 interacting with the local computing device 104 to select or indicate a passage or passages of text by any conventional mechanism for selecting text from a document. The context 204 may include other text in the document that surrounds or is located near the selected text 202. The context 204 may also include classification of the document based on intended or likely use of the document. For example, if the document is a web page and the web page is identified as a merchant web page for selling goods and services, then the context 204 may recognize that the user 102 is likely searching for a good or service to purchase. Previous actions of the user 102 before selecting the text 202 may also provide the context 204. For example, search queries recently submitted by the user 102 may provide context 204 regarding the topic or area that the user 102 is currently searching.
Cucerzan et al. (US 7974964 B2) discloses application uses context data that is generated by a document analysis component based upon context information from various sources, including for example, document collections available on the world wide web. The context data is provided to a search query generator. The search query generator is configured to generate a contextually annotated search query based upon a user query and context data (Abstract).
Kraft (US 7603349 B1) discloses searches using contextual information associated with a Web page (or other document) that a user is viewing when a query is entered. The page includes a contextual search interface that has an associated context vector representing content of the page. When the user submits a search query via the contextual search interface, the query and the context vector are both provided to the query processor and used in responding to the query (Abstract).
Messer et al. (US 20080133504 A1) discloses a context for a search for information, forming a search query based on the context of search for information, and performing a contextual search based on the search query. Performing the contextual search further includes performing a query refinement (Abstract).
Kraft et al. (Searching with Context, 2006) discloses we use the query template approach; this is similar to the one adopted in the buying guide finder [19]. Templates specify what subqueries to construct from the pool of terms. Given a query and a context, the first step is use these to derive a candidate pool of terms and a context term vector. The template is then applied to this pool to generate many possible subqueries (page 480, section 3.3.1).
Bai et al. (Using Query Contexts in Information Retrieval, 2007) discloses we propose to use query-specific contexts instead of user-centric ones, including context around query and context within query. The former specifies the environment of a query such as the domain of interest, while the latter refers to context words within the query, which is particularly useful for the selection of relevant term relations (Abstract).
Kraft et al. (Y!Q: Contextual Search at the Point of Inspiration 2005) discloses Y!Q introduces an informa tion widget that captures precise search context and pro vides convenient access to its functionality at the point of inspiration (Abstract).
CONCLUSION
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, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
4/20/2026
Prosecution Insights