DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted May 19, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 19, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,544 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 towards a 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the current claims are “not directed to mental processes or any other abstract idea… Because no human mind can” perform the limitations of the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner would like to point out that no specific reason is provided for the above statement. The reasons for the abstract idea is provided in the below rejection.
The Applicant also states that “the claims incorporate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the purported improvements just restate the abstract idea discussed in the below rejection. Furthermore, while the specification may describe dealing with “billions of data records,” that is not claimed.
As such, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
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 Claims recite abstract subject matter directed towards using a user interface to select different elements.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
generating, for display on a client device associated with a user account of a genealogical data system, a first set of suggested nodes selectable to modify a genealogy tree of the user account, the first set of suggested nodes comprising interface elements selectable to perform respective processes – Identifying how to modify a genealogy tree is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper. Also, interface elements are considered additional elements.
generating an interaction feature based on a rate of one or more user interactions with at least one node of the first set of suggested nodes – Identifying how many times a node in a genealogy tree was selected is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper.
executing a process, from among the respective processes, with respect to a first suggested node from among the first set of suggested nodes in response to detecting a selection of a first interface element – Clicking on a user interface element is a generic function of a computer as discussed at least at MPEP 2106.05.
generating, based on executing the process in response to the selection of the first interface element, a modified candidate node pool by updating a candidate node pool utilizing a machine learning model to process features corresponding to the selection of the first interface element, the features comprising the interaction feature – Modifying a node in a genealogy tree is something that a person can perform in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper. Also, interface elements are considered additional elements. Furthermore, the use of machine learning seems to be a generic computer function as there is no actual improvement to anything related to machine learning.
generating, for display on the client device, a second set of suggested nodes selected from the modified candidate node pool – Displaying a result of an abstract idea is a generic function of a computer as discussed at least at MPEP 2106.05.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware such as a processor, memory, etc executing the abstract idea. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims, 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, further describe more details of the above identified mental processes and thus do not provide additional elements that would make them statutory under 35 USC 101.
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 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulet et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0082568) in view of Jethwa et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0121801).
Claims 1, 8 and 15: Hulet discloses a method, a system and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising:
generating, for display on a client device associated with a user account of a genealogical data system, a first set of suggested nodes selectable to modify a genealogy tree of the user account, the first set of suggested nodes comprising interface elements selectable to perform respective processes [0020]. [“the system 100 uses the stated relationship rules, among other things, to suggest a list of candidates for inclusion in a family tree, from which the user selects candidates that will be added to the family tree.”]
executing a process, from among the respective processes, with respect to a first suggested node from among the first set of suggested nodes in response to detecting a selection of a first interface element [0020, 0035]. [“… the user is requested to select a person in the candidate list .”]
Hulet alone does not explicitly disclose generating an interaction feature based on a rate of one or more user interactions with at least one node of the first set of suggested nodes.
However, Jethwa [0090] discloses providing recommendations based on a user’s interactions with nodes.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hulet with Jethwa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide recommendations for a user.
Hulet as modified further discloses:
generating, based on executing the process in response to the selection of the first interface element, a modified candidate node pool by updating a candidate node pool utilizing a machine learning model to process features corresponding to the selection of the first interface element, the features comprising the interaction feature [0024, 0041]. [See at least re-ranking a candidate list after a user selection.]
generating, for display on the client device, a second set of suggested nodes selected from the modified candidate node pool [Fig. 6, 0024, 0041]. [See at least displaying a re-ranked candidate list after a user selection.]
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Hulet as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and Hulet further discloses wherein the one or more user interactions comprise one or more selections of the interface elements of the first set of suggested nodes comprising one or more of: a save element selectable to save a suggested node for further review, a print element selectable to print the suggested node, an add element selectable to add the suggested node to the genealogy tree, a compare element selectable to compare the suggested node with another suggested node, or an ignore element selectable to ignore the suggested node [0036-0037]. [See at least adding the node.]
Claims 3, 10 and 17: Hulet as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and Hulet further discloses wherein executing the process with respect to the first suggested node comprises one or more of: saving the first suggested node for further review in response to selection of the save element as the first interface element; printing the first suggested node in response to selection of the print element as the first interface element; adding the first suggested node to the genealogy tree in response to selection of the add element as the first interface element; comparing the first suggested node with another suggested node in response to selection of the compare element as the first interface element; or ignoring the first suggested node in response to selection of the ignore element as the first interface element [0036-0037]. [See at least adding the node.]
Claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulet et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0082568) in view of Jethwa et al (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0121801) and further in view of Hale et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0318047).
Claims 4, 11 and 18: Hulet discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, but Hulet alone does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the modified candidate node pool comprises utilizing the machine learning model to process a previous candidate node pool, user-level features associated with the user account, and tree- level features associated with the genealogy tree.
However, Hale [0078] discloses suggesting new nodes (i.e. modified candidate pool) that includes adding at least links and tree nodes.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hulet with Hale. One would have been motivated to do so in order to help a user with finding other member of a family tree.
Claims 5, 12 and 19: Hulet as modified discloses the method, the system and the medium of Claims 4, 11 and 18 above, and Hulet further discloses wherein generating the modified candidate node pool further comprises modifying the user-level features based on the selection of the first interface element to impact inclusion of the first suggested node within the modified candidate node pool [0024, 0041]. [Also see Hale [0078].]
Claims 7 and 14: Hulet as modified discloses the method and the system of Claims 4 and 11 above, and Hulet further discloses wherein generating the second set of suggested nodes for display on the client device comprises selecting, utilizing the machine learning model, nodes from the modified candidate node pool according to action features defining previous interactions with suggested nodes and further defining a focused node within the genealogy tree [0024, 0041]. [Also see Hale [0078].]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights