DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/172227 filed on April 07, 2025.
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 .
Double Patenting
3. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
U.S. Application 19/172227
U.S. Patent No. 11,868,417
1
1
2
2
4
4
11
11
17
15
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent Application No.11,868,417 (herein as ‘Patent 417’). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications discuss using machine learning models to determine the likelihood of the user selectable query.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
As to claim 1, Patent 417 teaches a computing system, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices; determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining a particular context associated with a user; determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 1 Patent 417).
As to claim 2, Patent 417 teaches wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a set of search results responsive to the first query; and storing, in the repeatable query cache, the set of search results (Claim 2 Patent 417).
As to claim 4, Patent 417 teaches wherein the contextual data comprises: a geographic location from which the query is issued (Claim 4 Patent 417).
As to claim 11, Patent 417 teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices; determining, by the computing system and for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, by the computing system and for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying, by the computing system, the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, by the computing system and in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining, by the computing system, a particular context associated with a user; determining, by the computing system and with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, by the computing system and on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 11 Patent 417).
As to claim 17, Patent 417 teaches a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices;5 determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining a particular context associated with a user; determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 17 Patent 417).
U.S. Application 19/172227
US Patent No. 12,292,941
1
1
2
2
4
4
5
5
11
10
17
15
5. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,292,941 (herein as ‘Patent 941’). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications discuss using machine learning models to determine the likelihood of the user selectable query.
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
As to claim 1, Patent 941 teaches a computing system, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices; determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining a particular context associated with a user; determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 1 Patent 941).
As to claim 2, Patent 941 teaches wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a set of search results responsive to the first query; and storing, in the repeatable query cache, the set of search results (Claim 2 Patent 941).
As to claim 4, Patent 941 teaches wherein the contextual data comprises: a geographic location from which the query is issued (Claim 5 Patent 941).
As to claim 5, Patent 941 teaches wherein the contextual data, comprises at least one of: an embedding of the query that represents a semantic relationship between the query and other queries; or a determination as to whether the query is directed to a particular web location or website (Claim 5 Patent 941).
As to claim 11, Patent 941 teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices; determining, by the computing system and for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, by the computing system and for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying, by the computing system, the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, by the computing system and in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining, by the computing system, a particular context associated with a user; determining, by the computing system and with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, by the computing system and on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 10 Patent 941).
As to claim 17, Patent 941 teaches a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices; determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query; processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times; identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold; storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries; determining a particular context associated with a user; determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context; and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache (Claim 15 Patent 941).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 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 computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites “determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7”;
For example, “processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “determining a particular context associated with a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different the context of the phrase “6-7”;
For example, “determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the phrase “6-7” is highly likely to be repeated”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify a popular phrase and anticipate the likelihood the phrase will be repeated, hence when a person list their age as 67, a user can interpret the phrase as “6-7”. 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 "obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices” 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);
For example, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” is seen as iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries”, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache”.
For example, “obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites “identifying a set of search results responsive to the first query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7”;
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify a popular phrase and anticipate the likelihood the phrase will be repeated, hence when a person list their age as 67, a user can interpret the phrase as “6-7”. 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 2 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 storing, in the repeatable query cache, the set of search results” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “and storing, in the repeatable query cache, the set of search results”.
For example, “and storing, in the repeatable query cache, the set of search results” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
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:
For example " wherein the learning model comprises a machine learning model and a rules engine” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the learning model comprises a machine learning model and a rules engine”.
For example, “wherein the learning model comprises a machine learning model and a rules engine” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
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:
For example "a geographic location from which the query is issued” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a geographic location from which the query is issued”.
For example, “a geographic location from which the query is issued” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites “or a determination as to whether the query is directed to a particular web location or website” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” is directed to a “6-7” webpage;
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify a popular phrase and anticipate the likelihood the phrase will be repeated, hence when a person list their age as 67, a user can interpret the phrase as “6-7”. 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 5 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 "an embedding of the query that represents a semantic relationship between the query and other queries” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “an embedding of the query that represents a semantic relationship between the query and other queries”.
For example, “an embedding of the query that represents a semantic relationship between the query and other queries” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 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 6 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 number of times that the query has been issued by a particular user device” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example "and a number of unique user devices that issued the query the threshold number of times” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “a number of times that the query has been issued by a particular user device”, “and a number of unique user devices that issued the query the threshold number of times”.
For example, “a number of times that the query has been issued by a particular user device”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
For example, “and a number of unique user devices that issued the query the threshold number of times” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 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 7 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 " wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a click log” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a click log”.
For example, “wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a click log”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 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 8 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 "wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a query log” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a query log”.
For example, “wherein the contextual data is determined with a context analyzer and based on a query log”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 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 9 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 " wherein the repeatable query manager is part of a search engine that obtains the set of search queries and searches the particular query upon selection of the user selectable interface component” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the repeatable query manager is part of a search engine that obtains the set of search queries and searches the particular query upon selection of the user selectable interface component”.
For example, “wherein the repeatable query manager is part of a search engine that obtains the set of search queries and searches the particular query upon selection of the user selectable interface component”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 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 10 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 " wherein the repeatable query cache stores the repeatable queries and search results associated with the repeatable queries” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the repeatable query cache stores the repeatable queries and search results associated with the repeatable queries”.
For example, “wherein the repeatable query cache stores the repeatable queries and search results associated with the repeatable queries”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites “determining, by the computing system and for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7”;
For example, “processing, by the computing system and for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “identifying, by the computing system, the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “determining, by the computing system, a particular context associated with a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different the context of the phrase “6-7”;
For example, “determining, by the computing system and with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the phrase “6-7” is highly likely to be repeated”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify a popular phrase and anticipate the likelihood the phrase will be repeated, hence when a person list their age as 67, a user can interpret the phrase as “6-7”. 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 "obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices” 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);
For example, “storing, by the computing system and in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “and providing, by the computing system and on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” is seen as iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, “storing, by the computing system and in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries”, “and providing, by the computing system and on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache”.
For example, “obtaining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors, a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 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 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 "wherein the user selectable interface component is a selectable shortcut link included at a particular location on the user device, wherein selection by the user device of the selectable shortcut link causes the particular query associated with the shortcut link to be issued to a search engine” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the user selectable interface component is a selectable shortcut link included at a particular location on the user device, wherein selection by the user device of the selectable shortcut link causes the particular query associated with the shortcut link to be issued to a search engine”.
For example, “wherein the user selectable interface component is a selectable shortcut link included at a particular location on the user device, wherein selection by the user device of the selectable shortcut link causes the particular query associated with the shortcut link to be issued to a search engine”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
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:
For example "wherein the user selectable interface component is a drop down menu that lists a subset of the repeatable queries and from which the user can select the particular query, wherein selection of the particular query causes issuance of the particular query to be issued to a search engine” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the user selectable interface component is a drop down menu that lists a subset of the repeatable queries and from which the user can select the particular query, wherein selection of the particular query causes issuance of the particular query to be issued to a search engine”.
For example, “wherein the user selectable interface component is a drop down menu that lists a subset of the repeatable queries and from which the user can select the particular query, wherein selection of the particular query causes issuance of the particular query to be issued to a search engine” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computing system.
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:
For example "wherein the subset of the repeatable queries includes queries that are expected to be repeated by the user device based on a search history that includes queries previously issued by the user device” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the subset of the repeatable queries includes queries that are expected to be repeated by the user device based on a search history that includes queries previously issued by the user device”.
For example, “wherein the subset of the repeatable queries includes queries that are expected to be repeated by the user device based on a search history that includes queries previously issued by the user device” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to computer-implemented method.
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:
For example "receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component” 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);
For example, “receiving, from the user device, a second selection of the user selectable interface component that requests the particular query to be issued” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the second selection from the user device, a second search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search results page is different from the first search results page” is seen as iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component”, “receiving, from the user device, a second selection of the user selectable interface component that requests the particular query to be issued”, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the second selection from the user device, a second search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search results page is different from the first search results page”.
For example, “receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “receiving, from the user device, a second selection of the user selectable interface component that requests the particular query to be issued” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the second selection from the user device, a second search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search results page is different from the first search results page” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to computer-implemented method.
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:
For example "wherein the second search results page is different from the first search results page when: search results of the second results page are ordered differently from the search results of the first search results page” 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);
For example, “search results of the second results page are different from the search results of the first search results page” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “or the second results page includes dynamic content that is not included on the first results page” is seen as iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "wherein the second search results page is different from the first search results page when: search results of the second results page are ordered differently from the search results of the first search results page”, “search results of the second results page are different from the search results of the first search results page”, “or the second results page includes dynamic content that is not included on the first results page”.
For example, "wherein the second search results page is different from the first search results page when: search results of the second results page are ordered differently from the search results of the first search results page”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “search results of the second results page are different from the search results of the first search results page” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “or the second results page includes dynamic content that is not included on the first results page” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites “determining, for each instance of each query in the set of search queries, contextual data representing a context in which the query was issued and user interactions with search results pages provided in response to the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7”;
For example, “processing, for a first query in the set of search queries, the determined contextual data for each instance in which the first query was issued inputting with a machine learning model to determine a likelihood that the first query will be issued in a future, wherein the learning model (1) outputs a likelihood that a search query will be issued in the future and (2) is trained using contextual data determined for a set of training queries and a corresponding set of labels for the set of training queries, wherein each label indicates whether a training query has been issued a threshold number of times” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “identifying the first query as a repeatable query based on the likelihood that the first query will be issued in the future satisfying a repeatability threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7” and the highly likelihood the numbers or phrases will be researched;
For example, “determining a particular context associated with a user” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different the context of the phrase “6-7”;
For example, “determining, with a repeatable query manager, a particular query from the repeatable query cache based on the particular context” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying the phrase “6-7” is highly likely to be repeated”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify a popular phrase and anticipate the likelihood the phrase will be repeated, hence when a person list their age as 67, a user can interpret the phrase as “6-7”. 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 17 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 "obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices” 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);
For example, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” is seen as iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache”.
For example, “obtaining a set of search queries that have been issued by a plurality of user devices”, 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “storing, in a repeatable query cache, the first query with other repeatable search queries that have been previously identified as repeatable queries” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and providing, on a user device, a user selectable interface component that, upon being selected by a user device and without receiving a user input of a component of a query, results in issuance of the particular query from the repeatable query cache” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites “a determination as to whether the query is directed to a particular web location or website” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different data on a piece of paper, like the number or phrase “6-7”;
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 18 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 geographic location from which the query is issued” 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);
For example "a geographic location of interest to the user device that issued the query” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
For example " a number of times that the query has been issued by a particular user device” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For example " a number of unique user devices that issued the query a threshold number of times” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For example " an embedding of the query that represents a semantic relationship between the query and other queries” 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).
For example " a selection by a user device of one or more search results provided on a search results page for the query” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
For example " a time of viewing by a user device of one or more search results provided on a search results page for the query ” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
For example "or a selection of navigational interface elements on a search results page provided for the query” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a one or more non-transitory computer-readable media.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 20, specifically claim 20 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 20 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, "receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the first selection from the user device, a first search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search engine includes one or more of the stored search results in the first search results page” is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component”, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the first selection from the user device, a first search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search engine includes one or more of the stored search results in the first search results page”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "receiving, from the user device, a first selection of the user selectable interface component” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and providing, by the search engine and in response to receiving the first selection from the user device, a first search results page including search results for the particular query, wherein the search engine includes one or more of the stored search results in the first search results page” 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 receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Conclusion
7. 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.
/J.A.M/ January 02, 2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159