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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 03/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement(s) received 03/10/2025 and 08/28/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
Claim Rejections- 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 therefore, 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.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a method, claim 19 is directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: receive input data including a request from a user; display, as search target information, one or more search target candidates satisfying a search condition among search targets, the one or more search target candidates being acquired by searching ... the search targets by using the received input data as the search condition; and receive, as an input, first additional information based on first input information of the one or more search target candidates, the first additional information including an additional search condition that differs according to a search target candidate selected from among the one or more search target candidates.
These identified limitations set forth and describe an abstract idea of “searching for target candidates in response to a user request”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as this is an instance of managing personal behavior, similar to filtering content in BASCOM. Accordingly, claims 1, 19, and 20 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1, 19, and 20 recite additional elements including: circuitry; a database; a non-transitory recording medium including a plurality of instructions; and one or more processors. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of transmitting and receiving information) such that these limitations amount to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general purpose computer. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 19, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 2-18 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 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, 3, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2024/0232974 A1).
Claim 1 – Chen discloses a search system comprising
Circuitry (¶ [0048]) configured to:
receive input data including a request from a user (¶ [0052] “when a user enters a specific keyword in the search box on the client-side’s homepage”);
display, as search target information, one or more search target candidates satisfying a search condition among search targets, the one or more search target candidates being acquired by searching a database of the search targets by using the received input data as the search condition (¶ [0052] “preliminary search results page obtained through keyword search”; ¶ [0068] “search for products that meet the search criteria in the product database”); and
receive, as an input, first additional information based on first input information of the one or more search target candidates, the first additional information including an additional search condition that differs according to a search target candidate selected from among the one or more search target candidates (¶ [0053] “after a user clicks on a product in the product search results page or an information flow page, and the details page of that product is displayed, operation options for initiating further refined searches based on that product can also be provided on that details page, and so on.”; ¶ [0055] “ In response to a search request initiated through the operation option corresponding to the target product in the first page, providing a second page for displaying product search results”).
Claim 3 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to display all of the one or more search target candidates as the search target information (¶ [0052]).
Claim 6 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein
the circuitry is configured to display, as the search target information, a search target candidate that differs in at least one of conditions that the one or more search target candidates have among the one or more search target candidates (see Fig.4 (A); ¶ [0069]).
Claim 10– Chen discloses the search system according to claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
extract search target candidates satisfying the received first additional information from among the search targets (¶ [0055]);
display relevant search target candidates among the search target candidates that are extracted (¶ [0055] “providing a second page for displaying product search results, wherein the search results are obtained by searching based on the target product”);
receive, as an input, second additional information based on second input information of the search target candidates, the second additional information including an additional search condition or a feature word (¶ [0066] “Specifically, the third tab can provide operation options for supplementing search criteria. This allows users to supplement additional search criteria after entering search criteria information. The information about the target product and the supplemental search criteria information can be combined to create target search criteria.);
extract search target candidates satisfying the second additional information that is received from among the search targets (¶ [0066]); and
display relevant search target candidates among the search target candidates (¶ [0066] “Based on these target search criteria, a new product search can be initiated, and the search results can be returned”).
Claim 11 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to display at least one of the one or more search target candidates that are displayed (Fig. 4).
Claim 12 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses, wherein the circuitry is configured to accept selection of termination of a search through the search targets (¶ [0092] “These decision action point options include options for ... purchasing, or initiating an inquiry request to the merchant in the case of wholesale procurement scenarios”; Examiner notes purchasing a product ends the search process).
Claim 14 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses, wherein the circuitry is configured to display all of the relevant search target candidates among the search target candidates that are extracted (¶ [0066]).
Claim 15 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses, wherein the circuitry is configured to display all of the relevant search target candidates among the search target candidates that are extracted (¶ [0066]).
Claim 16 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 11. Chen further discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured
to display, for all of the relevant search target candidates among the search target candidates that are extracted, registered additional information of search targets corresponding to the relevant search target candidates (see Fig. 4; ¶ [0064] “ For example, compared to what is shown in FIG. 4(A), which displays information such as the title, price, and minimum order quantity for each product, the state shown in FIG. 4(B) can display more dimensions of information for each product, such as the title, price, shipping method, shipping cost, minimum order quantity, response time, one-time delivery success rate, and more, making it easier for users to compare”), wherein
the displayed additional information includes content related to the input data (Fig. 4; ¶ [0068]).
Claim 19, which is directed to a method, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for system claim 1. Claim(s) 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 20, which is directed to a non-transitory recording medium, recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for system claim 1. Claim(s) 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kamotsky (US 2020/0233873 A1).
Claim 2 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 1. Chen further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to
extract search target candidates satisfying the search condition from among the search targets (¶ [0053]).
Chen does not disclose limitations associated with displaying fewer search target candidates than the number of extracted search target candidates. However, Kamotsky – which is also directed to providing search results – teaches:
display, as the search target information, fewer search target candidates than the number of extracted search target candidates among the extracted search target candidates (Kamotsky ¶ [0004] “selecting, by the computer system, top K of the matches, wherein K is a predetermined number”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the fewer search candidates as taught by Kamotsky in the system of Chen in order to provide personalized product boosting (Kamotsky ¶ [0050]).
Claim 4 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 1. Chen does not disclose limitations associated with displaying fewer search target candidates than the number of extracted search target candidates. However, Kamotsky further teaches:
wherein in a case where the number of the one or more search target candidates is greater than a predetermined number, the circuitry is configured to display, as the search target information, fewer search target candidates than the number of the one or more search target candidates (Kamotsky ¶ [0004] “selecting, by the computer system, top K of the matches, wherein K is a predetermined number”, Examiner notes if you select top K of matches, then there must be more than K amount of matches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the fewer search candidates as taught by Kamotsky in the system of Chen in order to provide personalized product boosting (Kamotsky ¶ [0050]).
Claim 7 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 2. Chen does not disclose limitations associated with displaying less relevant search target candidates. However, Kamotsky further teaches:
wherein the circuitry is configured to display a plurality of less relevant search target candidates among the extracted search target candidates (Kamotsky ¶ [0055] “a scoring module 240 configured to rank the matches. In embodiments, the scoring module 240 may be further configured to select top K matches from all of the matches, wherein K may be a predetermined number (e.g., 5, 10, 50, 100, to name a few)”, Examiner notes that the in the top 5, for example, matches #2-5 will be less relevant than #1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the less relevant candidates as taught by Kamotsky in the system of Chen in order to provide personalized product boosting (Kamotsky ¶ [0050]).
Claim 8 – The combination of Chen in view of Kamotsky teaches the search system according to claim 2. Chen further discloses wherein the first input information includes a result of selecting a search target candidate from among the extracted search target candidates (¶ [0053]). Chen does not disclose limitations associated with ranking the search target candidates, however Kamotsky further teaches and a ranking of the extracted search target candidates (Kamotsky ¶ [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the ranking as taught by Kamotsky in the system of Chen in order to provide personalized product boosting (Kamotsky ¶ [0050]).
Claim 9 – The combination of Chen in view of Kamotsky teaches the search system according to claim 8. Chen further discloses wherein the result includes one search target candidate selected from among the extracted search target candidates (Fig. 4B).
Claim 13 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses, wherein the second input information includes a result of selecting a search target candidate from among the search target candidates that are extracted (¶ [0055]). Chen does not disclose limitations associated with ranking the search target candidates, however Kamotsky further teaches and a ranking of the search target candidates that are extracted (Kamotsky ¶ [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the ranking as taught by Kamotsky in the system of Chen in order to provide personalized product boosting (Kamotsky ¶ [0050]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kamotsky, and further in view Agrawal et al. (US 2022/0092666 A1).
Claim 5 – The combination of Chen in view of Kamotsky teaches the search system according to claim 4. Chen in view of Kamotsky does not teach limitations associated with a case where there is less than a predetermined number of search target candidates. However, Agrawal – which is also directed to a search system – teaches:
wherein in a case where the number of the one or more search target candidates is less than the predetermined number, the circuitry is configured to display all of the one or more search target candidates as the search target information (Agrawal ¶ [0077] “For example, external front end system may determine that a search query resulting in a number of product listings below a threshold amount (e.g., 30 listings) should not be provided with product recommendations. Thus, the user may not be provided with recommendations when the search is narrow enough to enable the user to make a timely decision themselves on which product to purchase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the displaying as taught by Agrawal in the method of Chen because there is a need for improved methods and systems for identifying and notable products and providing effective and helpful product recommendations in response to a search query in order to streamline the online shopping process (Agrawal ¶ [0004]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cox et al. (US 2014/0278681 A1).
Claim 17 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 10. Chen further discloses, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
select a search target from among the search target candidates that are displayed (¶ [0065]). Chen does not disclose limitations associated with allowing the user to contact the search target, however, Cox – which is also directed to a search system – teaches:
allow the user to contact the search target that is selected (Cox ¶ [0142] “For example, as described above, the customer device 12 may communicate with the contractor locator/dispatch server 40 (shown in FIG. 4) of the contractor locator/dispatch system 10. The customer device 12 may communicate a part name, number, or description associated with the faulty component to the contractor locator/dispatch server 40”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the ability to contact the search target as taught by Cox in the system of Chen in order to determine availability of the particular contractor (Cox: ¶ [0152]).
Claim 18 – Chen discloses the search system according to claim 17. Chen does not disclose limitations associated with a contractor; however, Cox further teaches
wherein the search target include a contractor (Cox ¶ [0083]),
the request includes a job requested by the user (Cox ¶ [0080] “the service request may be inputted by a customer associated with the customer device 12 indicating an issue, problem, or malfunction with an associated HVAC system 16”), and a requirement for the contractor involved in the requested job (Cox ¶ [0082]), and
the circuitry is configured to notify the contractor that is selected that the user has determined to make the request (Cox ¶ [0085] “At 520, the particular customer selects a particular contractor from the displayed subgroup of contractors and the contractor selection is received by the contractor locator/dispatch server 40”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the request as taught by Cox in the system of Chen in order to determine availability of the particular contractor (Cox: ¶ [0152]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Banhidy et al. (US 2020/0226669 A1) is directed to a computer system to perform a method of selling a product with a contractor service associated with the product.
Yinan Wu, Gongzhuang Peng, Lu Chen and Heming Zhang (NPL Reference U) is directed to evaluating and selecting the services of different distributed 3D printing terminals in a cloud platform.
Zamer et al. (US 2015/0046292 A1) generally relates to methods and systems for facilitating transactions in connection with service providers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/K.G.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights