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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 11/26/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 18-19
Claims canceled: 2-4, 9-11 and 16-17
Clams newly added: none
Claims pending: 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant request the rejection be held in abeyance, as amendment and or argument may render the rejection moot.
Applicant argues “here, the Office alleges that independent claims 1, 8 and 15 the abstract idea of “mental process.” (Office Action, p. 3) applicant respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite any mental process…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The determining and selecting steps are the mental steps. These steps as can be accomplished in the human mind.
Applicant argues “even if claim 1, 8 and 15 do falls within one of the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas under prong one Step 2A of the USPTO guidance (which applicant does no concede), claim 1, 8 and 15 as amended integrate the alleged abstract idea under prong of Step 2A of the USPTO guidance…”
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the above argument. First of all, the claim language in example 37 including a determining process which is different from the in claims 1, 8 and 15 current application. Applicant(s) is/are advised to review the two determining steps in both applications. The evaluation included the additional elements in steps 2A and also includes in determining step (abstract idea). Therefore, based on the evaluation the claims 1, 8 and 15 has not overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues “for similar reason, the applied references fail to disclose and would not have rendered obvious at least “automatically generate a user interface based on the selecting, the generating including: creating…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Please see the rejection below.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 5, 12 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 4, 12 and 18 are depended on canceled claims 4, 11 and 17. For purpose of examination, claims 5, 12 and 18 are now depended on claims 1, 8 and 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent
possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is
appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application
claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application
claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See,
e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d
1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d
438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA
1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be
used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to
examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159.
See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory
double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be
accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the
NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1.
For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action,
see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c)
may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely
online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-
processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimen
4. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,588 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application direct to the same subject matter including both applications similar limitations including receiving search results of a search query, the search results including a plurality of data entries responsive to the search query; categorizing each of the received plurality of data entries into one of a plurality of categories. While the instant application includes determining, using a machine learning model, a relevancy of each of the plurality of categories” is mental process, selecting a subset of the plurality of categories for display within a user interface based on the determining, automatically generating a user interface based on the selecting, the generating including: creating a plurality of panes within a display interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a same category from among the plurality of categories, the creating including calculating display characteristics of the plurality of panes based on the determined relevancies of each of the plurality of categories. On the other hand, reference 588 also further includes first determine a relevancy of each of the plurality of different categories; select a subset of the plurality of different categories for inclusion in a user interface based on the first determining; for each category included within the subset of the plurality of different categories, generate corresponding panes by: calculate a size of a pane associated with a category to be displayed within the user interface; second determine a position of the pane within the user interface; and identify a subset of data entries among data entries among data entries included within the category to be emphasized within the pane; and generate the user interface that includes the panes associated with each of the categories included within the subset of the plurality of different categories, each pane including the corresponding size, position, and emphasized subset of data entries. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant applications to modify 588 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
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.
5. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite limitations
“Determining, using a machine learning model, a relevancy of each of the plurality of categories” is mental process.
These processes are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recite memory and one or more processor which are generic computer component to perform an abstract ideas. Claim 15 directs to a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium including instruction when executed by one or more
processors which a memory, the memory and processor are generic computer components and
instruction is the computer routine to perform the abstract idea.
“Receiving search results of a search query, the search results including a plurality of data entries responsive to the search query” is the process of receiving information from the query.
“Categorizing each of the received plurality of data entries into one of a plurality of categories” is the mental process.
“Automatically generating a user interface based on the selecting, the generating including: creating a plurality of panes within a display interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a same category from among the plurality of categories, the creating including calculating display characteristics of the plurality of panes based on the determined relevancies of each of the plurality of categories" the process of creating panes to display the information.
“Displaying the plurality of panes within the display interface according to calculated display characteristics” is the process of presenting information to the user.
“Selecting a subset of the plurality of categories for display within a user interface based on the determining” a process making the indication for processing/exectution.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have
found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a
particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by
a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see
MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The steps of "receiving search results of a search query, the search result including a
plurality of entries responsive to the search query and generating a plurality of panes within a
display interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a
same category from among the plurality of categories" and remaining steps as a whole do not
amount to significantly more.
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, the limitation "calculating of the display characteristics includes: calculating a size of a pane associated with a category to be displayed within the display interface” is a mathematical algorithm.
“Determining a position of the pane within the display interface” is mental process.
“identify a subset of data entries included in the category to be emphasized within subset of categories” is a mental concept.
As to claims 6, 13 and 19, the limitation "generating the display interface that includes a
plurality of panes corresponding to the selected subset of categories" is a concept of displaying the retrieved information.
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, the limitation "each of the plurality of data entries includes
content and a topic tag that identifies a type associated with the data entry, and wherein the
categorizing is based on the topic tag of the plurality of data entries" are only further defined
what plurality of data entries are and insignificantly to mount significantly more.
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 pers on 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective
filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later
invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any
potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Karls et al. (Patent No. US 8,543,904 A1) in view of Daughton et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0223809 A1) and further in view of TERAMAE (Pub. No. US 2015/0138040).
As to claim 1, Karls discloses a method for topic-based dynamic display or a search
engine results page, comprising:
receiving search results of a search query, the search results including a plurality of data
entries responsive to the search query (displaying search result) (col. 1, lines 45-46);
categorizing each of the received plurality of data entries into one of a plurality of
categories (display search result in from searches in different search categories) (col. 1, lines
50-51).
Karls does not explicitly disclose determining, using a machine learning model, a relevancy of each of the plurality of categories, selecting a subset of the plurality of categories for display within a user interface based the determining; and automatically generating a user interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a same category from among the plurality of categories, the creating including calculating display characteristic of the plurality of panes based on the determined relevancies of each of the plurality of categories; and displaying the plurality of panes within the display interface according to the calculated display characteristics.
Gaughton discloses determining, using a machine learning model, a relevancy of each of the plurality of categories (to establish the difference, the following steps are taken i) Create ground truths (GTs) for BAC’’s in two high CAC score category cases as well as GTs for BAC in the two low CAC score categories…) (paragraph 0113).
TERANCE discloses selecting a subset of the plurality of categories for display within a user interface based the determining (video groups video PC-1, PC-2, PC-3, and PC-4) (paragraph 0118); and automatically generating a user interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a same category from among the plurality of categories, the creating including calculating display characteristic of the plurality of panes based on the determined relevancies of each of the plurality of categories; and displaying the plurality of panes within the display interface according to the calculated display characteristics (… As the result, the display position and sized of the video windows are calculated so that the plurality of video sources belong to the video group are displayed side by side without another video) (paragraph 0118). The model as recited in Gaughton would be used to determining the relevancy of each of plurality categories and the displaying of TERANCE would also be used to display the relevance categories in different size using the calculation of relevancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify teaching of determining, using a machine learning model, a relevancy of each of the plurality of categories, selecting a subset of the plurality of categories for display within a user interface based the determining, automatically generating a user interface, each of the plurality of panes being populated with search results having a same category from among the plurality of categories, the creating including calculating display characteristic of the plurality of panes based on the determined relevancies of each of the plurality of categories; and displaying the plurality of panes within the display interface according to the calculated display characteristics as disclosed Gaughton and TERANCE in order to display result in category in window by size.
Claimed 8 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Karls discloses a system for
topic-based dynamic display of search results, comprising: a memory (memory) that stores the
search results; and one or more processors (processor) (claim 15).
As to claim 15, Karls discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
(memory) storing instructions (instruction) thereon that when executed by one or more
processors (processor) cause the one or more processors to execute operations (claim 15).
7. Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karls et al. (Patent No. US 8,543,904 A1) in view of Daughton et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0223809 A1) and further in view of TERAMAE (Pub. No. US 2015/0138040) and further in view of Nixon et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0089542 A1).
As to claim 5, Daughton discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the calculating of the display characteristics include: calculating a size of a pane associated with a category to be displayed within the display interface, determining a portion of the pane within interface excepting for identifying a subset of data entries included in the category to be emphasized within the pane. Nixon discloses a subset for displaying (for example, if the user selects the category Reports 650, the process plant search results display 600 may present a subset of the process plant search result which include a report or are related to a report, such as a report regarding one of the.,) (paragraph 0095). This suggests selecting a subset of categories from among the plurality of categories for display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Karls to include selecting a subset of categories from among the plurality of categories for display as disclose by Nixon in order to display relevant search results.
Dependent claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Dependent claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Doughton discloses the method of claim 5 excepting for wherein the generating the display interface includes displaying the plurality of panes corresponding to the selected subset of categories. Nixon display subset of categories (for example, if the user selects the category Reports 650, the process plant search results display 600 may present a subset of the process plant search result which include a report or are related to a report, such as a report regarding one of the.,) (paragraph 0095). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of include displaying subset of categories as disclosed by Nixon in order to provide relevant search result.
Dependent claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
Dependent claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
8. Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Karls et al. (Patent No. US 8,543,904 A1) in view of Daughton et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0223809 A1) and further in view of TERAMAE (Pub. No. US 2015/0138040) and further in view of Dange et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0182120 A1).
As to claim 7, Karls discloses the method of claim 5 excepting for wherein each of the
plurality of data entries includes content and a topic tag that identifies a type associated with the
data entry, and wherein the categorizing is based on the topic tag of the plurality of data entries.
However, Dange discloses wherein each of the plurality of data entries includes content and a
topic tag that identifies a type associated with the data entry, and wherein the categorizing is
based on the topic tag of the plurality of data entries (topic tags refers to labels used to
categorize and organize interactive Transactions based on their subject matter or purpose)
(Paragraph 0041). This suggests each of the plurality of data entries includes content and a
topic tag that identifies a type associated with the data entry, and wherein the categorizing is
based on the topic tag of the plurality of data entries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify
teaching of Karls to include each of the plurality of data entries includes content and a topic tag
that identifies a type associated with the data entry, and wherein the categorizing is based on
the topic tag of the plurality of data entries as disclosed by Dange in order to categorized search
results.
Dependent claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Dependent claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
Conclusion
9. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights