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 .
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 instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a system for generating a list of ranked items, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such systems fall under the statutory category of “apparatus”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a system for generating a list of ranked items, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“A system, comprising”:
“receive a search request identifying a query and contextual information”,
“determine, using a natural language model, at least one query entity based on the query and the contextual information”,
“generate at least one enhanced query based on the at least one query entity and an enhancement phrase”,
“search a … to identify a set of items using at least one … based on the at least one enhanced query”,
“generate at least one ranked list of items based on the set of items”, and
“transmit the at least one ranked list of items to a …”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“a processor”;
“a non-transitory memory storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to”:
“database”;
“machine learning model”; and
“computing device”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: 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); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 2-10, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-10, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter. Claims 11 and 17 are similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 12-16 and 18-20 depend from claims 11 and 17 respectively, are similar to claims 2-10, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0256582 A1 (hereinafter “Jain’).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Jain discloses
“A system, comprising”: Jain, abstract;
“a processor”; Jain ¶¶0027, 0030; and
“a non-transitory memory storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to”: Jain ¶¶0027, 0030;
“receive a search request identifying a query and contextual information”, Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search request includes user entered phrase and contextual information such as data relating to user or field of search);
“determine, using a natural language model, at least one query entity based on the query and the contextual information”, Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (natural language query is generated from search request);
“generate at least one enhanced query based on the at least one query entity and an enhancement phrase”, Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search is enhanced with keywords from search request);
“search a database to identify a set of items using at least one machine learning model based on the at least one enhanced query”, Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (AI uses enhanced search request to search database);
“generate at least one ranked list of items based on the set of items”, Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search results are returned to user; search requests can be ranked by relevance); and
“transmit the at least one ranked list of items to a computing device”. Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search results are returned to user).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Jain discloses
“wherein the at least one enhanced query is generated based on: generating the enhancement phrase based on the query; and concatenating each query entity of the at least one query entity with the enhancement phrase to generate the at least one enhanced query”. Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079, fig. 3B (elements 321, 322) (search phrase is concatenated with other words).
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Jain discloses
“wherein generating the enhancement phrase comprises: inputting textual information of the query and the at least one query entity into the natural language model to generate a model output based on prompt engineering; and generating the enhancement phrase based on the model output”. Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search request includes user entered phrase and contextual information such as data relating to user or field of search).
With respect to claim 17, Jain discloses
“A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one device to perform operations comprising”: Jain ¶¶0027, 0030.
Claim 17 is otherwise rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claims 3, 6-8, 11, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0260001 A1 (hereinafter “De Juan”).
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, Jain does not explicitly disclose similarity scores. De Juan discloses
“generating an embedding vector representing the query based on the query and the contextual information”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036, 0037 (embedding vector is generated based on query, such as user supplied image);
“comparing the embedding vector with embedding vectors representing a plurality of product types respectively to compute a similarity score for each respective product type of the plurality of product types, wherein the similarity score indicates a degree of similarity between the query and the respective product type”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (e.g., hat is identified from image and compared with other objects to determine similarity);
“ranking the plurality of product types based on their respective similarity scores”; De Juan ¶ 0034 (items are ranked based on similarity);
“determining, based on the ranking and a threshold, one or more product type names of a subset of the plurality of product types”; De Juan ¶¶ 0034, 0036-0039 (e.g., similar items can be listed as hats);
“identifying intersecting word tokens between the query and the one or more product type names”; De Juan ¶ 0039 (e.g., material, color, shape, size, pattern, etc.); and
“selecting at least one intersecting word token from the identified intersecting word tokens to generate the …”. De Juan ¶ 0039 (at least one of the tokens is selected as basis for search).
Jain discloses an “enhancement phrase”. Jain ¶¶ 0070, 0079 (search is enhanced with keywords from search request).
Both Jain and De Juan relate to item searches. Jain, abstract; De Juan, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the similarity score feature as taught by De Juan in the method of Jain with the motivation of identifying helpful and interesting products to the user. De Juan ¶ 0001.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, De Juan discloses
“wherein: the at least one query entity comprises a plurality of query entities, each of which corresponds to: a product, a product type, a product category, a product family, or a product department; the plurality of query entities are grouped into a plurality of carousel groups, each of which corresponds to a carousel of items to be presented via a user interface in response to the search request; and the at least one ranked list of items is generated by generating a ranked list of items based on the carousel of items for each carousel group of the plurality of carousel groups”. De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (e.g., carousel of hats, carousel of coats, and carousel of gloves are generated from query image of clothing store and constitute one carousel group; casual outfits can be another carousel group, etc.).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, De Juan discloses
“wherein the ranked list of items for each carousel group is generated based on: determining the carousel of items based on the carousel group and the set of items; and ranking the carousel of items to generate the ranked list of items based on at least one of: an equal representation of different query entities in the carousel group, an increase of product type diversity in the carousel group, or
an equal representation of different product types in the carousel group”. De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (items above a threshold are returned as search results, which is equal representation of product types regardless of whether the same number of items of different types are returned).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, De Juan discloses
“wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: generate a carousel title for each respective carousel group to represent all product types of the carousel of items for the respective carousel group; and transmit to the computing device the carousel title to be presented together with the carousel of items for the respective carousel group”. De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (one skilled in the art would understand a carousel of hats to be titled as hats).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of De Juan, as applied to claims 3, 6-8, 11, 14-16, and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Number 11,037,195 B1 (hereinafter “Puri”).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, De Juan discloses
"wherein the database is searched based on: for each enhanced query of the at least one enhanced query: encoding the enhanced query to an enhanced query embedding”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (image repository, which is a database, is searched for each query, whether or not enhanced);
“comparing the enhanced query embedding with a set of stored embeddings in the database based on nearest neighbor indices created for the set of stored embeddings, wherein each of the set of stored embeddings represents a respective query commonly searched by users”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (image repository is searched for nearest neighbors of query embedding);
“determining, among the set of stored embeddings, at least one closest embedding to the enhanced query embedding based on the comparing”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (image repository is searched for nearest neighbors of query embedding);
“identifying at least one corresponding query represented by the at least one closest embedding”; De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (image repository is searched for nearest neighbors of query embedding); and
“identifying the set of items based on the list of items determined for each respective enhanced query of the at least one enhanced query”. De Juan ¶¶ 0036-0039 (items are identified).
Jain and De Juan do not explicitly disclose identifying the items most likely to be purchased. Puri discloses
“determining, using a predictive model, a list of items for the enhanced query, wherein the list of items are items most likely to be purchased by customers of a retailer after the customers submit the at least one corresponding query, wherein the predictive model is trained based on customer transaction patterns representing customer preferences associated with the retailer”. Puri, claims 11, 19 (model identifies items most likely be purchased based on transaction history).
Jain, De Juan, and Puri all relate to item searches. Jain, abstract; De Juan, abstract; Puri, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the purchase likelihood feature as taught by Puri in the method of Jain/De Juan with the motivation of providing more relevant content to users. Puri 1:42-55.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0242260 A1 (hereinafter “Shanker”) discloses identifying items utilizing embedding vectors to identify similar items. Shanker ¶ 0026.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0121656 A1 (hereinafter “Zheng’) discloses generating enhanced natural language queries to search for items. Zheng ¶¶ 0016, 0027.
Iftikhar, Anum, et al., "Domain Specific Query Generation from Natural Language Text", 2016 Sixth Int'l Conf. on Innovative Computing Technology, pp. 502-06, 978-1-5090-2000-3, Feb. 6, 2017 (hereinafter “Iftikhar”) discloses generating natural language queries to search for items. Iftikhar, abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights