DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/103807 filed on April 09, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 April 03, 2025 and March 09, 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites "acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
“acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition, wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying recommended information in response to viewing the search results to target search information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”.
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”.
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered”.
For example, “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information”.
For example, “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result”.
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites "wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information comprises:
determining at least one piece of recommended search information matching with the target search information according to a pre-established offline mapping relationship between pieces of original search information and the recommended search information, and using a first search result in search results corresponding to the recommended search information as the recommended search result” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites "wherein the pre- established offline mapping relationship between the pieces of original search information and the recommended search information is determined according to the following steps:
determining recommended search information corresponding to the original search information based on semantic information corresponding to search information and a historical search frequency corresponding to the search information, wherein a semantic information similarity between the recommended search information and the original search information satisfies a second preset condition, or semantic information of the recommended search information and semantic information of the original search information indicate a same search type, and a historical search frequency corresponding to the recommended search information reaches a first preset threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites " wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the first search result in the search results being the search result that satisfies the first preset condition comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to an objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites "wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information, in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result, and a historical search frequency of searching using the target search information reaching a second preset threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites "acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
“acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition, wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying recommended information in response to viewing the search results to target search information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “a computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; when the computer device is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform the steps of a search result display method , and the method comprises:” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; when the computer device is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform the steps of a search result display method , and the method comprises”, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”.
For example “a computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; when the computer device is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform the steps of a search result display method , and the method comprises” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites "acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
“acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition, wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying recommended information in response to viewing the search results to target search information. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the steps a search result display method according to and the method comprises:” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activities.
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the steps a search result display method according to and the method comprises”, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”.
For example “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the steps a search result display method according to and the method comprises” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”.
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered”.
For example, “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information”.
For example, “wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result”.
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information comprises:
determining at least one piece of recommended search information matching with the target search information according to a pre-established offline mapping relationship between pieces of original search information and the recommended search information, and using a first search result in search results corresponding to the recommended search information as the recommended search result” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 17 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites "wherein the pre- established offline mapping relationship between the pieces of original search information and the recommended search information is determined according to the following steps:
determining recommended search information corresponding to the original search information based on semantic information corresponding to search information and a historical search frequency corresponding to the search information, wherein a semantic information similarity between the recommended search information and the original search information satisfies a second preset condition, or semantic information of the recommended search information and semantic information of the original search information indicate a same search type, and a historical search frequency corresponding to the recommended search information reaches a first preset threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer device.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 19, specifically claim 19 recites " wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the first search result in the search results being the search result that satisfies the first preset condition comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to an objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 19 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 recites " wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information, in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result, and a historical search frequency of searching using the target search information reaching a second preset threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying search results to target search information,
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify search results in association to a search and then decide to recommend information in response to the search results. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 9 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a storage medium.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 21, specifically claim 21 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 21 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”.
For example, “wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL document CN113836449 (herein as ‘CN449’) and further in view of NPL document CN115080829 (herein as ‘CN829’).
As to claim 1 CN449 teaches a search result display method, comprising:
acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information (Pg. 3 CN449)
acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition (Pg. 3 CN449)
CN449 does not teach but CN829 teaches wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information; and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display (Pg. 4-6 CN829);
CN449 and CN829 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search result processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the search results of CN449 to include the better display of search results of CN829, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0000 CN829).
As to claim 2 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information (Pg. 5-6 CN829).
As to claim 3 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises:
displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 4 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 2.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 5 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 6 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information comprises: determining at least one piece of recommended search information matching with the target search information according to a pre-established offline mapping relationship between pieces of original search information and the recommended search information, and using a first search result in search results corresponding to the recommended search information as the recommended search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 7 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 6.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the pre- established offline mapping relationship between the pieces of original search information and the recommended search information is determined according to the following steps: determining recommended search information corresponding to the original search information based on semantic information corresponding to search information and a historical search frequency corresponding to the search information, wherein a semantic information similarity between the recommended search information and the original search information satisfies a second preset condition, or semantic information of the recommended search information and semantic information of the original search information indicate a same search type, and a historical search frequency corresponding to the recommended search information reaches a first preset threshold (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 8 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the first search result in the search results being the search result that satisfies the first preset condition comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to an objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 9 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 8.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information, in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result, and a historical search frequency of searching using the target search information reaching a second preset threshold (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 11 CN449 teaches a computer device, comprising: a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor; when the computer device is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus; and the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, perform the steps of a search result display method and the method comprises (Pg. 5 CN449);
acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information (Pg. 3 CN449);
acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition (Pg. 3 CN449);
CN449 does not teach but CN829 teaches wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information; and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display (Pg. 4-6 CN829);
CN449 and CN829 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search result processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the search results of CN449 to include the better display of search results of CN829, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0000 CN829).
As to claim 12 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition CN449 teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the steps of a search result display method, and the method comprises (Pg. 8 CN449);
acquiring search results corresponding to target search information in response to receiving the target search information (Pg. 3 CN449);
acquiring at least one piece of recommended content matching with the target search information in response to a first search result in the search results being a search result that satisfies a first preset condition,
CN449 does not teach but CN829 teaches wherein any piece of the recommended content comprises recommended search information and a recommended search result corresponding to the recommended search information; and displaying the first search result at a first display position of a search result page, and inserting the recommended content into a target display position after the first search result for display (Pg. 4-6 CN449);
CN449 and CN829 are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, search result processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the search results of CN449 to include the better display of search results of CN829, to allow for accessing content in order to track users interaction with a particular website (Par. 0000 CN829).
As to claim 13 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information (Pg. 5-6 CN829).
As to claim 14 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying target recommended content in the recommended content and first indication information indicating that more pieces of recommended content are triggered to view after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, wherein other pieces of recommended content are displayed after the first indication information is triggered (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 15 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 13.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information comprises: displaying second indication information indicating that subsequent content is the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before the another search result corresponding to the target search information, and sequentially displaying the recommended content under the second indication information (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 16 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: sequentially inserting different pieces of recommended content between adjacent search results in a plurality of consecutive search results corresponding to the target search information, wherein the plurality of consecutive search results comprise the first search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 17 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information comprises: determining at least one piece of recommended search information matching with the target search information according to a pre-established offline mapping relationship between pieces of original search information and the recommended search information, and using a first search result in search results corresponding to the recommended search information as the recommended search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 18 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 17.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the pre-established offline mapping relationship between the pieces of the original search information and the recommended search information is determined according to the following steps: determining recommended search information corresponding to the original search information based on semantic information corresponding to search information and a historical search frequency corresponding to the search information, wherein a semantic information similarity between the recommended search information and the original search information satisfies a second preset condition, or semantic information of the recommended search information and semantic information of the original search information indicate a same search type, and a historical search frequency corresponding to the recommended search information reaches a first preset threshold (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 19 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 11.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the first search result in the search results being the search result that satisfies the preset condition comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to an objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 20 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 19.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the acquiring of the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result comprises: acquiring the at least one piece of the recommended content matching with the target search information, in response to the target search information corresponding to the objective answer and the objective answer being the first search result, and a historical search frequency of searching using the target search information reaching a second preset threshold (Pg. 4-7 CN829).
As to claim 21 CN449 in combination with CN829 teaches each and every limitation of claim 12.
In addition CN829 teaches wherein the inserting the recommended content into the target display position after the first search result for display comprises: inserting and displaying the recommended content after the first search result corresponding to the target search information and before another search result corresponding to the target search information (Pg. 5-6 CN829).
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/JERMAINE A MINCEY/ October 09, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
