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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 5/20/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informality: the third limitation recites “after receipt of the AI content, navigating, via the computing system, the webpage to interact with the AI content,” but the only mention of a webpage at that point is the search engine results webpage, so “the webpage” lacks antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 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 mental processes without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recites rendering, by a computing system that includes rendering engine, a search engine results webpage obtained in response to a request that includes one or more keywords; after the search engine results webpage is rendered but before analyzing the rendered search engine results webpage, waiting a period for receipt of AI content that is to be presented on the search engine results webpage; after receipt of the AI content, navigating, via the computing system, the webpage to interact with the AI content; and after navigation, analyzing, via the computing system, the AI content to determine characteristics of the AI content, and adapting one or more webpages associated with the one or more keywords by modifying content or features on the one or more webpages or generating one or more webpage components based on the characteristics of the AI content. Rendering a results webpage, navigating the webpage, analyzing AI content, adapting a webpage by modifying its content, and generating webpage components are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper, and waiting a period or time involves evaluating that time period and is a mental process The claims recite no additional elements. Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and claim 15 recites one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, which are each generic components of a computer. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0013 discusses a recurring challenge for marketers as “internet search engines, such as Google, Bing, and others, change their internet search algorithms frequently as well as the structure, components, appearance, and various other aspects of Search Engine Results Pages.” Paragraphs 0014-0022 discuss examples of AI-generated search results and paragraph 0023 describes the invention as directed to improvements in search engine optimization (SEO) for content impacted by AI. The claim steps do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, there are no additional elements and the non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors are each still generic components of a computer. Thus the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 each recites wherein navigating the webpage to interact with the AI content include interacting with the Al content to allow AI views to be fully presented, and interacting with AI content is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 3, 10, and 17 each recites wherein the period is determined based on historical times to receive AI content, and determining a waiting period is evaluating and a mental process. Claims 4, 11, and 18 each recites parsing an image of the webpage that includes the AI content, which is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper; and determining an amount of the webpage that is covered by different aspects of the webpage, wherein the one or more webpages are adapted based on the amount of the webpage that is covered by different aspects of the webpage, and determining an amount is evaluating and a mental process. Claims 5, 12, and 19 each recites wherein the different aspects of the webpage comprise one or more of: the AI content; organic search results; paid search results; social media posts; or images, and webpage aspects are a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 6, 13, and 20 each recites wherein the characteristics of the AI content includes the AI content indicating: a place; a business; a particular store of a business; an unordered list; an ordered list; pros and cons related to the request; reviews; or a shopping carousel, and characteristics of content are a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. Claims 7 and 14 each recites wherein analyzing the AI content to determine characteristics of the AI content includes determining one or more of: a type of the AI content, one or more brands mentioned in the Al content, and a sentiment of the AI content, and analyzing content is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagler (US 20250028747).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Hagler teaches:
rendering, by a computing system that includes rendering engine, a search engine results webpage obtained in response to a request that includes one or more keywords (paragraph 0065 render a webpage of search results obtained in response to a query, paragraph 0067 query includes keywords);
after the search engine results webpage is rendered but before analyzing the rendered search engine results webpage, waiting a period for receipt of AI content that is to be presented on the search engine results webpage (paragraph 0073-0076 receipt of AI content from AI subsystem to be presented, waiting to receive the requested content is inherent);
after receipt of the AI content, navigating, via the computing system, the webpage to interact with the AI content (0077-0078 navigate the results webpage to interact with the identifier and other resources); and
after navigation, analyzing, via the computing system, the AI content to determine characteristics of the AI content, and adapting one or more webpages associated with the one or more keywords by modifying content or features on the one or more webpages or generating one or more webpage components based on the characteristics of the AI content (paragraph 0078-0079 determine user intent with search for AI subsystem, using the query (keywords) to search webpages per user’s intent).
With respect to claim 8, Hagler teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (paragraph 0064 non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions).
With respect to clam 15, Hagler teaches one or more processors (paragraph 0093 figure 4 processor 410) and one or more non-transitory computer-readable medias (paragraph 0094 figure 4 computer readable medium 420, also paragraph 0064 as above).
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Hagler teaches wherein navigating the webpage to interact with the AI content include interacting with the AI content to allow AI views to be fully presented (paragraph 0080 interacting with AI content to present AI content).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding objections to claims 1, 8, and 15 for antecedent basis of “one or more webpages associated with the one or more keywords being adapted based on the characteristics of the AI content,” Examiner has reconsidered and withdraws these objections. Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 8 of his Remarks Applicant asserts “The amended claims are not directed to mental processes and do not merely recite observing or evaluating information.” Examiner disagrees as the claims recite only mental processes as shown in the rejections above. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states "The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation," and "Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer." The rendering a webpage, navigating a webpage, analyzing content to modify said content, or generating webpage components are each recited broadly or invoke a computer or software as a tool to complete, and a BRI of each action includes use of a nominal physical aid such as a pen and paper. Waiting a period of time involves evaluating to determine the time period of the waiting and is a mental process. Applicant discusses support in the specification for the claim limitations and on pages 9-10 of his Remarks Applicant asserts “the Specification confirms that the claimed invention is not directed merely to mental evaluation, but instead to a specialized computer workflow that obtains AI content from rendered search-result webpages and uses the resulting analysis to modify or generate webpage-related digital artifacts.” Examiner notes the claims do not recite obtaining AI content from rendered search-result webpages and the claimed analysis (“analyzing … the AI content to determine characteristics of the AI content” in the fourth limitation, since the recited “but before analyzing the rendered search engine results webpage” in the second limitation never happens) is recited as part of “or generating one or more webpage components based on the characteristics of the AI content, and may not occur either.
On page 9 Applicant also asserts “the amended claims are integrated into a practical application because they are directed to processing AI-generated content appearing on rendered search-result webpages and using the resulting analysis to automatically adapt webpage content/features or generate webpage components.” Examiner disagrees as the claims recite no additional elements that could integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) (“does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”). Furthermore, the identified abstract ideas do not recite an improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement on the problems identified in specification paragraph 0013 ("A recurring challenge for marketers is that internet search engines ... change their internet search algorithms frequently as well as the structure, components, appearance, and various other aspects of Search Engine Results Pages (SEPRs)," and "SERP performance therefore may have a critical impact on business performance."), thus Examiner believes the claims do not recite a practical application.
Because the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are new, Examiner makes the present office action non-final.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571 270-5626. 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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 8/13/26
Prosecution Insights