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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a process (method), claim 8 recites a manufacture (computer program product), claim 15 recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “generating, for the pairing, a difference vector between a vector embedding of the second user search query and a vector embedding of the first user search query; and applying the difference vector to a vector embedding of a previous decoy search query to generate a subsequent decoy search query in a decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “generating a difference vector” is a mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “applying the difference vector to generate a subsequent decoy search query” is organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea).
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 (and similar claims 8 and 15) recites “receiving a user search query sequence comprising at least one pairing of a first user search query and a second user search query that is subsequent to the first user search query in the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 8 and 15) recites “wherein the vector embeddings of the first user search query, second user search query, and the previous decoy search query are generated by a large language model (LLM) based on a semantic embedding space associated with the LLM” which merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (large language models).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
The courts have determined merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein a first perplexity metric of the decoy search query sequence is maintained within a predetermined tolerance of a second perplexity metric of the user search query sequence while generating subsequent decoy search queries in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the pairing is one of a plurality of pairings in the user search query sequence, and wherein difference vectors are generated for each pairing of a subsequent user search query and a previous user search query in the user search query sequence, to generate a corresponding subsequent decoy search query in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the previous decoy search query is a seed decoy search query generated by selecting a decoy search query term or phrase from within the semantic embedding space” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the seed decoy search query is selected from terms or phrases corresponding to a topic of the first user search query in the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein user search queries of the user search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with decoy search queries of the decoys search query sequence, and wherein only results from the user search queries of the user search query sequence are returned to a source computing device of the user search queries” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “applying the difference vector to results of the vector embedding of the previous decoy search query in a vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “the subsequent decoy search query is generated at least by normalizing and mapping the vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query to textual words of a textual search query, and the decoy search queries of the decoy search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with user search queries of the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein a first perplexity metric of the decoy search query sequence is maintained within a predetermined tolerance of a second perplexity metric of the user search query sequence while generating subsequent decoy search queries in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the pairing is one of a plurality of pairings in the user search query sequence, and wherein difference vectors are generated for each pairing of a subsequent user search query and a previous user search query in the user search query sequence, to generate a corresponding subsequent decoy search query in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the previous decoy search query is a seed decoy search query generated by selecting a decoy search query term or phrase from within the semantic embedding space” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the seed decoy search query is selected from terms or phrases corresponding to a topic of the first user search query in the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein user search queries of the user search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with decoy search queries of the decoys search query sequence, and wherein only results from the user search queries of the user search query sequence are returned to a source computing device of the user search queries” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a manufacture (computer program product).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “applying the difference vector to results of the vector embedding of the previous decoy search query in a vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “the subsequent decoy search query is generated at least by normalizing and mapping the vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query to textual words of a textual search query, and the decoy search queries of the decoy search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with user search queries of the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein a first perplexity metric of the decoy search query sequence is maintained within a predetermined tolerance of a second perplexity metric of the user search query sequence while generating subsequent decoy search queries in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the pairing is one of a plurality of pairings in the user search query sequence, and wherein difference vectors are generated for each pairing of a subsequent user search query and a previous user search query in the user search query sequence, to generate a corresponding subsequent decoy search query in the decoy search query sequence” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the previous decoy search query is a seed decoy search query generated by selecting a decoy search query term or phrase from within the semantic embedding space” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein user search queries of the user search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with decoy search queries of the decoys search query sequence, and wherein only results from the user search queries of the user search query sequence are returned to a source computing device of the user search queries” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 20
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “applying the difference vector to results of the vector embedding of the previous decoy search query in a vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate the Judicial Exception into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “the subsequent decoy search query is generated at least by normalizing and mapping the vector embedding of the subsequent decoy search query to textual words of a textual search query, and the decoy search queries of the decoy search query sequence are submitted to a search engine along with user search queries of the user search query sequence” which is mere necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights