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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the following convex combination equation.”. The claim continues to include another sentence punctuated by a period. It appears this should read “the following convex combination equation:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-7, is directed to the process. Additionally, the system, as claimed in claims 8-14, is directed to a machine. Finally, the computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 15-20, is directed to an apparatus.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of providing product search results to a shopper. Specifically, representative claim 8 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving a shopper search query;
Performing a text search of a product catalog on the search query;
Performing a vector search of the product catalog on the search query;
Generating a first recall set of products int eh product catalog from performing the text search;
Generating a second recall set of products in the product catalog form performing the search;
Combining the first recall set and the second recall set into a final recall set; and
Returning search results including the products listed int eh final recall set to a shopper.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 8 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving a shopper query, searching a product catalog, generating recall sets/combining them to return search results regarding products to a shopper is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 8 includes additional elements such as a system comprising one or more processor, non-transient memory, vector search, product catalog. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 8 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing products to shopper) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 8 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 8 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 8 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 8 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 9-14 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 8. For example, claims 9-14 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 8. Dependent claims 9-14 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 8. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 8.
Thus, dependent claims 9-14 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 8. In addition to the additional elements of claim 8, Independent Claim 1 recites no additional elements to that of Claim 8. IN addition to the additional elements of claim 8, Independent Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a non-transient computer readable medium. The additional elements in Independent claims 1 and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 8.
Similarly, the dependent claims 2-7 and 16-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 9-14. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 9-14, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 2-7 and 16-20 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst et al. (US 2026/0154347) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2002/0138481).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Fuerst discloses a hybrid search method comprising: (See at least paragraph [0028] disclosing RRF is a hybrid approach to combine search results from multiple retrieval methods such as vector search and keyword-based text search, [0069])
receiving a search query; (See at least paragraph [0047] disclosing receiving the query as an input and prepare query for subsequent search operations, [0065] disclosing query expressed in natural language is received from client)
performing a text search of a database on the search query; (See at least paragraph [0026] disclosing keyword search uses database to construct index of terms to expedite the lookup process, [0039])
performing a vector search on the search query; (See at least paragraph [0017] disclosing vector search, [0019] disclosing vector search often using ANN algorithm, [0020], [0032]-[0033] , [0050])
generating a first recall set of products from performing the text search; (See at least paragraph [0032]-[0033] disclosing performing vector or keyword search and individually returning one or more ranked lists, [0097] disclosing recall scores for the vector search and keyword search, [0099] disclosing top 5 results of vector search and top 5 search results of keyword search)
generating a second recall set of products from performing the vector search; (See at least paragraph [0032]-[0033] disclosing performing vector or keyword search and individually returning one or more ranked lists, [0097] disclosing recall scores for the vector search and keyword search, [0099] disclosing top 5 results of vector search and top 5 search results of keyword search)
combining the first recall set and the second recall set into a final recall set; and (See at least paragraph [0028] disclosing RFF is hybrid approach designed to combine search results from vector search and text search, [0033] disclosing combining results from both searches, [0066], [0097], [0099], Fig. 6 disclosing recall score of vector search + keyword search)
returning search results including the documents listed in the final recall set to a client (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing top ranked strings returned to client as search results in response to query, [0109]-[0110] disclosing total number of documents returned by vector and keyword search as union of results).
Fuerst does not expressly provide for receiving a shopper search query; performing search of product catalog, and returning search results including products listed to a shopper. However, Aggarwal discloses receiving a shopper search query; performing search of product catalog, and returning search results including products listed to a shopper (See Abstract, paragraph [0001] disclosing searching product catalogs to improve methods for allowing shoppers to search for items to purchase, [0013] disclosing searching online catalog database to provide search results to shopper, [0014]).
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 a product search of a catalog for a shopper as taught by Aggarwal in the search retrieval system of Fuerst because it would allow shoppers to effectively search online product catalogs in a more efficient manner and present the product information to shoppers in optimal way with improving results. See at least paragraph [0001], [0012].
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Fuerst does not expressly provide for wherein: performing the vector search includes: understanding shopper intent from the search query; vectorizing the shopper intent; and matching shopper intent vectors with vectorized product information from the product catalog.
However, Aggarwal discloses wherein: performing the vector search includes: understanding shopper intent from the search query; vectorizing the shopper intent; and matching shopper intent vectors with vectorized product information from the product catalog (See at least paragraph [0042], [0062], [0073], & [0080] disclosing vectorizing search query of shopper based on what their preferences are for the product and finding it with vectorized product information in the catalog).
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 a product search of a catalog for a shopper as taught by Aggarwal in the search retrieval system of Fuerst because it would allow shoppers to effectively search online product catalogs in a more efficient manner and present the product information to shoppers in optimal way with improving results. See at least paragraph [0001], [0012].
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Fuerst does not expressly provide for vectorizing product information from the product catalog. However, Aggarwal discloses vectorizing product information from the product catalog. (See at least paragraph [0049] disclosing product represented by a feature vector with feature values, [0042], [0085] disclosing system uses feature vector and retrieves similar product form database).
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 a product search of a catalog for a shopper as taught by Aggarwal in the search retrieval system of Fuerst because it would allow shoppers to effectively search online product catalogs in a more efficient manner and present the product information to shoppers in optimal way with improving results. See at least paragraph [0001], [0012].
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Additionally, Fuerst discloses keyword indexing information from the database (See Fuerst paragraph [0026] disclosing in a keyword search a database constructs an index of terms to expedite the lookup process). However, Fuerst does not expressly provide for the keyword indexing of product information from the product catalog.
Aggarwal discloses keyword indexing of product information from the product catalog (See at least Abstract, paragraph [0001] disclosing searching product catalogs to improve methods for allowing shoppers to search for items to purchase, [0013] disclosing searching online catalog database to provide search results to shopper, [0014], [0006]).
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 a product search of a catalog for a shopper as taught by Aggarwal in the search retrieval system of Fuerst because it would allow shoppers to effectively search online product catalogs in a more efficient manner and present the product information to shoppers in optimal way with improving results. See at least paragraph [0001], [0012].
Regarding Claims 7, 14, and 20, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, Fuerst discloses wherein the products in the first recall set and the second recall set are scored according to relevance to the search query (See at least paragraph [0028]-[0029] disclosing RRF assigns higher scores to strings that appear near top of multiple ranked lists to aggregate a final fusion score which yields improvements in retrieval effectiveness and leading to more efficient fetch of relevant strings and improving accuracy and contextual relevance, [0052]-[0053], [0068]).
Regarding Claim 19, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Fuerst discloses keyword indexing information from the database (See Fuerst paragraph [0026] disclosing in a keyword search a database constructs an index of terms to expedite the lookup process). However, Fuerst does not expressly provide for vectorizing product information from the product catalog and the keyword indexing of product information from the product catalog.
Aggarwal discloses vectorizing product information from the product catalog (See at least paragraph [0049] disclosing product represented by a feature vector with feature values, [0042], [0085] disclosing system uses feature vector and retrieves similar product form database) and keyword indexing of product information from the product catalog (See at least Abstract, paragraph [0001] disclosing searching product catalogs to improve methods for allowing shoppers to search for items to purchase, [0013] disclosing searching online catalog database to provide search results to shopper, [0014], [0006]).
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 a product search of a catalog for a shopper as taught by Aggarwal in the search retrieval system of Fuerst because it would allow shoppers to effectively search online product catalogs in a more efficient manner and present the product information to shoppers in optimal way with improving results. See at least paragraph [0001], [0012].
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst et al. (US 2026/0154347) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2002/0138481), and further in view of Warren et al. (US 2015/0310526).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. However, neither expressly provides for wherein: performing the text search on the search query includes: parsing text in the search query into keywords; and matching keywords with keywords from the product catalog. However, Warren discloses wherein: performing the text search on the search query includes: parsing text in the search query into keywords; and matching keywords with keywords from the product catalog (See at least paragraph [0008] disclosing matching words or phrases in the metadata or sequence of characters to find matching products in product listing, [0033], [0052], claim 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 parsing and matching of keywords in a catalog as taught by Warren in the search retrieval system of Fuerst/Aggarwal because the ability for shoppers to convert their product interest into product sales hinges on retrieving relevant, useful, and correct information in reposen to a search. See Warren paragraphs [0002]-[0005].
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst et al. (US 2026/0154347) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2002/0138481), and further in view of Hueter et al. (US 8,903,811).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Fuerst and Aggarwal teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15. Additionally, Fuerst discloses wherein combining the first recall set and the second recall set includes scoring the products in the first recall set and the second recall set according to a combination equation
Score (doc) = a X score lex (doc) + ß X score sem (doc)
where a and ß are weights and scoretex(doc) is a keyword score for each product recalled via keyword match and scoresem(doc) is a vector score for each product recalled via vector search. (See at least paragraph [0028], [0053], [0054], [0056], [0066], [0080], Fig. 6).
However, neither Fuerst nor Aggarwal disclose the equation being a convex combination equation score.
Hueter discloses the equation being a convex combination equation score. (See at least col 6, lns 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-10 disclosing a convex combination combined score between two different scores already taken with the search engine).
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 convex combination equation as taught by Hueter in the search retrieval system of Fuerst/Aggarwal because it would help increase relevancy and naturally balance which search engine drives the search results back to the user. See col 6, lns 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-20.
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
Gudla et al. (US 2024/0354825) disclosing obtaining search query and determining recall set sizes for search query of items.
NPL: “Leveraging semantic and lexical matching to improve the recall of document retrieval systems: A hybrid approach” (Kuzi, S., Zhang, M., Li, C., Bendersky, M. and Najork, M., Leveraging semantic and lexical matching to improve the recall of document retrieval systems: A hybrid approach, 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01195, pp.1-9.) disclosing combining semantic and lexical models of search result lists of documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
