DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
In response to communications filed on 10 April 2025, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 10 and 18 are presented in independent form.
Priority
The Examiner acknowledges the instant application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/632,203, filed 10 April 2024, and has been accorded the earliest effective file date.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 10 April 2025, have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 July 2025 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 USC § 101
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 2A claims 1-9 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
generating, based on executing a search using the query, a search result including one or more listings;
determining at least a modified query based on attributes of the query, the search result, and a user profile;
generating, based on the modified query, a recommendation result including one or more recommended listings.
These limitations recite mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (see: 2019 PEG, p. 52). This is because the each of the limitations above recite a series of steps that may be mentally performed by which an evaluation is made for an abstract data. For example, the limitations of ‘generating…a search result including one or more listings,’ ‘determining at least a modified query based on attributes of the query, the search result, and a user profile,’ and ‘generating…a recommendation result including one or more recommended listings’ illustrate a judgement being performed to find matching results and does not perform any technical operation. This represents a judgement or decision which are concepts performed in the human mind and falls under certain methods of mental processes. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see again: 2019 PEG, p. 52).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including hardware processing circuitry, such as edge device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the limitations of ‘receiving, at a client device, a query input by a user of the platform,’ and ‘displaying, at the client device, the recommendation result within the search result in a search results page user interface (UI), wherein a placement of the recommendation result is based on a relevance of the recommendation result to the user profile and the search,’ are additional elements that are insignificant extra solution activities that that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(lI)), including at least:
• receiving or transmitting data over a network, and/or
• storing and retrieving information in memory
• performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 2 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 2 recites ‘wherein determining the modified query further comprises flexing at least one parameter of the query,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 2 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 2 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 2 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 2 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 3 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 3 recites ‘…determining a plurality of modified queries; generating recommendation results for the plurality of modified queries; and filtering the recommendation results based on a type of modification applied to the plurality of modified queries, wherein each of the filtered recommendation results correspond to a unique type of modification for a current search session on the platform’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 3 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 3 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 3 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 3 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 4 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 4 recites ‘generating, using a machine learning model, a first score for each of the one or more recommended listings in the recommendation result; ranking the one or more recommended listings based on the first score; and placing the one or more recommended listings corresponding to the modified query in a carousel for display according to the ranking, wherein the user may interact with the carousel to view the one or more recommended listings’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 4 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 4 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 4 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 4 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 5 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 5 recites ‘generating, using a machine learning model, a second score for each of the one or more listings in the search result; generating, using the machine learning model, a third score for the recommendation result based on an aggregate of scores for the one or more recommended listings in the recommendation result; comparing second scores with the third score; and determining the placement of the recommendation result between the one or more listings based on the comparing,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 5 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 5 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 5 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 5 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 6 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 6 recites ‘wherein the placement of the recommendation result is at least M listings in the search result from a second recommendation result,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 6 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 4 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 6 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 6 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 7 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 7 recites ‘locking a highest-ranking listing from the one or more listings in the search result as a first listing in the search result page UI,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 7 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 7 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 7 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 7 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 8 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 8 recites ‘wherein the modified query is generated based on a modification to at least one of a check-in date, a checkout date, a total price for booking a listing, total nights, location, amenities, listing features, and removal of a filter applied by the user in the query,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 8 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 8 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 8 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 8 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim 9 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Notably, claim 9 recites ‘wherein the modified query includes a modification to at least a filter applied by the user in the query,’ all which are more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. Such complexities do not themselves provide further additional elements in addition to the abstract ideas themselves. Further, claim 9 relies upon at least similar additional elements that are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Considered both individually and as a whole, claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Considered individually or as a whole, claim 9 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity that apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see discussion above).
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claims 10-17 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1-9 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 10 additionally recites ‘a system for search expansion on a platform, the system comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors…’ which is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claims 18-20 appear to include similar subject matter as in claims 1 and 3-4 as discussed above. More specifically, independent claim 18 additionally recites ‘a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable storing a program …’ and is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing mere generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system in addition to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. All the comments made with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 equally apply and therefore stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Greystroke, Alex, et al (U.S. 2015/0012467 and known hereinafter as Greystroke) in view of.
As per claim 1, Greystroke teaches a computer-implemented method, performed by at least one processor, for search expansion on a platform, the method comprising:
receiving, at a client device, a query input by a user of the platform (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0111, 0153, 0180], which discloses a client device search interaction by a user of a query expansion searching platform.);
generating, based on executing a search using the query, a search result including one or more listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0086-0089, 0246-0251, 0305-0310], which discloses generating search result listing sets.);
determining at least a modified query based on attributes of the query, the search result, and a user profile (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0089-0091, 0129-0131, 0207, 0263-0264], which discloses modified search revision updates based on the query attributed parameters/terms, result and a persona profile.);
generating, based on the modified query, a recommendation result including one or more recommended listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0228-0230, 0246-0250], which discloses recommendation result including one or more recommended listings.); and
displaying, at the client device, the recommendation result within the search result in a search results page user interface (UI) (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0180, 0280-0288, 0303-0305], which discloses a result window page GUI displaying the recommendation refined search results on the device.), wherein a placement of the recommendation result is based on a relevance of the recommendation result to the user profile and the search (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0100, 0203-0205, 0228-0230, 0263-0270, 0278-0283, 0363], which discloses a ranking sorted presentation mapping the recommendation results to a top of a list based on the profile relevance to the search.).
As per claim 10, Greystroke teaches a system for search expansion on a platform, the system comprising:
one or more processors (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraph [0231], which discloses computer systems may include one or more processors.); and
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraph [0231], which discloses computer systems may include one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors.), cause the system to:
receiving, at a client device, a query input by a user of the platform (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0111, 0153, 0180], which discloses a client device search interaction by a user of a query expansion searching platform.);
generating, based on executing a search using the query, a search result including one or more listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0086-0089, 0246-0251, 0305-0310], which discloses generating search result listing sets.);
determining at least a modified query based on attributes of the query, the search result, and a user profile (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0089-0091, 0129-0131, 0207, 0263-0264], which discloses modified search revision updates based on the query attributed parameters/terms, result and a persona profile.);
generating, based on the modified query, a recommendation result including one or more recommended listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0228-0230, 0246-0250], which discloses recommendation result including one or more recommended listings.); and
displaying, at the client device, the recommendation result within the search result in a search results page user interface (UI) (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0180, 0280-0288, 0303-0305], which discloses a result window page GUI displaying the recommendation refined search results on the device.), wherein a placement of the recommendation result is based on a relevance of the recommendation result to the user profile and the search (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0100, 0203-0205, 0228-0230, 0263-0270, 0278-0283, 0363], which discloses a ranking sorted presentation mapping the recommendation results to a top of a list based on the profile relevance to the search.).
As per claim 18, Greystroke teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for implementing search expansion on a platform, which when executed by a computer, configures the computer to:
receiving, at a client device, a query input by a user of the platform (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0111, 0153, 0180], which discloses a client device search interaction by a user of a query expansion searching platform.);
generating, based on executing a search using the query, a search result including one or more listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0086-0089, 0246-0251, 0305-0310], which discloses generating search result listing sets.);
determining at least a modified query based on attributes of the query, the search result, and a user profile (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0089-0091, 0129-0131, 0207, 0263-0264], which discloses modified search revision updates based on the query attributed parameters/terms, result and a persona profile.);
generating, based on the modified query, a recommendation result including one or more recommended listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0228-0230, 0246-0250], which discloses recommendation result including one or more recommended listings.); and
displaying, at the client device, the recommendation result within the search result in a search results page user interface (UI) (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0180, 0280-0288, 0303-0305], which discloses a result window page GUI displaying the recommendation refined search results on the device.), wherein a placement of the recommendation result is based on a relevance of the recommendation result to the user profile and the search (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0100, 0203-0205, 0228-0230, 0263-0270, 0278-0283, 0363], which discloses a ranking sorted presentation mapping the recommendation results to a top of a list based on the profile relevance to the search.).
As per claims 2 and 11, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein determining the modified query further comprises flexing at least one parameter of the query (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0247-0248, 0264, 0302-0305], which discloses search parameter variety changing.).
As per claims 3, 12, and 19, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the system of claim 10, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, respectively, further comprising:
determining a plurality of modified queries (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0296, 0315], which discloses select modified search requests.);
generating recommendation results for the plurality of modified queries (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0228-0230, 0295-0300], which discloses filtering recommendation results for the modified queries.); and
filtering the recommendation results based on a type of modification applied to the plurality of modified queries, wherein each of the filtered recommendation results correspond to a unique type of modification for a current search session on the platform (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0089-0091, 0162, 0173, 0177-0178, 0222-0228, 0264-0266], which discloses filtering the recommendation results based on a unique/personal persona type refined modifications to a current search session.).
As per claims 4, 13, and 20, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, the system of claim 10, and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, respectively, further comprising:
generating, using a machine learning model, a first score for each of the one or more recommended listings in the recommendation result (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0089-0091, 0241-0243, 0251], which discloses AI score calculated for the recommendation result listings.);
ranking the one or more recommended listings based on the first score (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0263-0264], which discloses score ranking the listing based on the first score.); and
placing the one or more recommended listings corresponding to the modified query in a carousel for display according to the ranking, wherein the user may interact with the carousel to view the one or more recommended listings (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0265-0269, 0281-0292, 0305-0312], which discloses sorted mapping the recommended listings in a horizontal scrollable card GUI. See further Figure 16A, which based on the modified query ranking and flip interaction for viewing the recommended listings.).
As per claims 5 and 14, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, further comprising:
generating, using a machine learning model, a second score for each of the one or more listings in the search result (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0080, 0086, 0099-0104, 0251], which discloses AI persona generates multiple scores for the result listings.);
generating, using the machine learning model, a third score for the recommendation result based on an aggregate of scores for the one or more recommended listings in the recommendation result (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0080, 0086, 0099-0104, 0251], which discloses generate another score based on collaborative average score for the recommendation result listings.);
comparing second scores with the third score (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0086-0089, 0138], which discloses ranking the best of the respective scores.); and
determining the placement of the recommendation result between the one or more listings based on the comparing (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0079-0080, 0086-0089, 0117, 0138-0139, 0252-0253], which discloses sorting the recommendation result placement in the listing based on the comparing.).
As per claims 6 and 15, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5 and the system of claim 14, respectively, wherein the placement of the recommendation result is at least M listings in the search result from a second recommendation result (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0080, 0247-0252, 0294], which discloses the placement is included in a best/top recommendation result list set with another recommendation result.).
As per claims 7 and 16, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, further comprising:
locking a highest-ranking listing from the one or more listings in the search result as a first listing in the search result page UI (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0080-0081, 0086, 0100, 0294], which discloses attaching a score to highest ranking result set/list from the UI search page result.).
As per claims 8 and 17, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the system of claim 10, respectively, wherein the modified query is generated based on a modification to at least one of a check-in date, a checkout date, a total price for booking a listing, total nights, location, amenities, listing features, and removal of a filter applied by the user in the query (e.g. Greystroke, see paragraphs [0237, 0268-0274, 0360], which discloses booking price calculations for a result list over user selected hotel/night travel dates and remove search criteria.).
As per claim 9, Greystroke teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the modified query includes a modification to at least a filter applied by the user in the query (Greystroke, see paragraphs [0138, 0193, 0239-0240, 0263, 0270-0274, 0302], which discloses the query modifies/refines filter parameters/criteria applied by the query user.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN M SYED whose telephone number is (571)272-7191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAN M SYED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161 March 5, 2026