Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are pending, claims 1, 10, and 11 being independent. Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, and 15 are amended. Claims 8 and 18 are cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. No new matter has been added.
3. This office action is in response to the REM filed 05/27/2026.
4. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Final.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 1 recites the steps or acts…, and thus is a process (a series of steps or acts). A process is a statutory category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 10 recites At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by a computing node, cause the computing node to perform a series of steps. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium falls within the “manufacture” category of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 11 recites a system comprising: at least one processor. The claim is directed to a physical circuit, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite in part the steps: “determining a user's search context based on a user input for a search and context information; determining a tolerance limit indicating a performance level for the search that would be tolerable by a user based on the determined user's search context; obtaining a search condition for the search, based on the tolerance limit, the search condition including a search environment condition specifying, based on the tolerance limit, an allocation of hardware resources of a user device to be used for the search; performing a search based on the user input for the search and the search condition”
Context-aware search is considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if it is characterized merely as the concept of gathering, analyzing, and using context to refine search results, as this is often deemed a "mental process" or a method of organizing human activity.
Simply collecting user data, analyzing it, and presenting personalized results (context-aware search) is viewed as a mental process or a "business method," placing it in the abstract idea category.
Determining a user tolerance limit for search performance based on context is a cognitive or analytical task which is considered an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically falling under the "mental processes" or "methods of organizing human activity" categories. Evaluating what a user can "tolerate" based on context is a generalized cognitive evaluation that a person could conceptually do in their head for example (e.g., how urgently they need an answer, how much risk they will tolerate, or how broad their search should be).
Obtaining a search condition based on a tolerance limit and allocating hardware resources which involve obtaining a search condition based on data limits and using it to assign generic computing tasks is an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically falling under mental processes as it involves organizing information and decision-making rules that a person could theoretically do in their mind or with generic logic.
The steps of claims 1, 10 and 11 falling under the category of "methods of organizing human activity" or "mental processes". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” and “one or more processors of an electronic device” and claim 11 recites the additional elements of “A user device comprising: memory and one or more processors”. Those elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the additional elements of “providing search results based on the search” is mere data outputting/presentation recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, The Additional elements were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The data outputting activities are recited at a high level of generality and have been recognized by the courts as being routine laboratory techniques. See Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or to detect allelic variants is conventional in the art); MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2-5, 9, 12-15 and 19.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims 2-5, 9, 12-15 and 19 inherit the abstract idea of claims 1, 10 and 11 (Mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 6, 7, 16, 17 and 20.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claims inherit the abstract idea of claim 1, 10 and 11.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is no integrated into a practical application. The additional elements amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of user and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of use and provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). It does not amount significantly more as merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are merely linking the abstract idea.
Examiner Note
8. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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;
11. Claims 1-5 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kusch (US 20250124232 A1) hereinafter as Kusch.
12. Regarding claim 1, Kusch teaches a method of providing search results based on a user's search context, the method comprising:
determining a user's search context based on a user input for a search and context information (Fig 2, “input 204 (a user input)”, [0003], “receiving a request (a user input) to generate a contract proposal, the request including a plurality of requirements and at least one of: an industry indication and a service indication (context information)”, [0058], “process human language in the form of text or voice data (a user input). Lemmatization and part of speech tagging enable a deep understanding of language, including context, the intent, and/or sentiment of a speaker or writer (context information).”);
determining a tolerance limit indicating a performance level for the search that would be tolerable by a user based on the determined user's search context ([0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”);
obtaining a search condition for the search, based on the tolerance limit, the search condition including a search environment condition specifying, based on the tolerance limit, an allocation of hardware resources of a user device to be used for the search ([0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation (a search environment condition) and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”);
performing a search based on the user input for the search and the search condition (Fig 2, “input 204 / output 206”, [0003], “receiving a request (a user input) to generate a contract proposal, the request including a plurality of requirements and at least one of: an industry indication and a service indication (context information)”, [0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation (a search environment condition) and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”); and
providing search results based on the search (Fig 2, “output 206”).
13. Regarding claim 2, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the determining of the user's search context comprises determining a plurality of search context factors, which form the user's search context, from the user input and the context information, and wherein the determining of the tolerance limit comprises obtaining the tolerance limit based on a plurality of tolerance limit elements corresponding to the plurality of search context factors (Fig 2, [0003], “receiving a request (a user input) to generate a contract proposal, the request including a plurality of requirements and at least one of: an industry indication and a service indication (context information)”, [0022], “The LLM may be trained via fine tuning and/or in-context learning to develop capabilities. The context provided to the LLM can be examples or data from an external data source such as a company database or vector store.”, [0034], “An LLM may be provided access to context for a particular role (e.g., budget generator 222, compliance detector 224, contractor generator 210, contract analyzer 208, requirement detector 216, ranking engine 226, etc.)”, [0056], “The budget generator 222 receives one or more cost factors and generates cost estimates and/or executes a price analysis.”).
14. Regarding claim 3, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and further teaches wherein the determining of the user's search context comprises determining the plurality of search context factors based on at least one of a keyword extracted from the user input (Fig 2, “input 204 (user input)”, [0100], “receiving a request to generate a contract proposal”, [0058], “tokenization of data—the parsing of human language into its elemental pieces”), a meaning inferred from the user input (Fig 2, “input 204 (a user input)”, [0003], [0027], “Each embedding captures not just the token's meaning, but also its position in the sequence and its relationships to other tokens.”, [0058], “process human language in the form of text or voice data (a user input). Lemmatization and part of speech tagging enable a deep understanding of language, including context, the intent, and/or sentiment of a speaker or writer. Statistical NLP combines computer algorithms with machine learning and deep learning models to automatically extract, classify, and label elements of text and voice data and then assign a statistical likelihood to each possible meaning of those elements.”), or a constraint related to the search ([0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”), or sensing information obtained by a user device, which is obtained as the context information (Fig 2, [0045], [0043], “detector 216”, [0055]).
15. Regarding claim 4, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2 above and further teaches wherein the determining of the tolerance limit comprises obtaining the tolerance limit according to an output value of a certain function or a certain learning model, which receives at least one of the plurality of tolerance limit elements as input (Fig 2, [0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”)).
16. Regarding claim 5, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the search condition further comprises a query condition that affects a search time, determined based on the tolerance limit ([0007-0009], [0019], “solving the complexity and time-consuming of the evaluation cycles”, [0055], “The ranking engine 226 may optionally further include receiving a risk tolerance level or threshold for resource allocation (a search environment condition) and adjusting the ranking or prioritization based on the risk tolerance level or threshold.”, [0064], “a comprehensive implementation strategy with specific tools and timeline”).
17. Regarding claim 10, this claim recites One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations perform the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
18. Regarding claims 11-15, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 1-5 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kusch (US 20250124232 A1) in view of Leslie et al (US 20250061116 A1) hereinafter as Leslie.
22. Regarding claim 6, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 5 above, Kusch did not specifically teach claim 6 limitations.
However, Leslie teaches wherein the query condition that affects the search time is based on at least one of a search scope in a personal knowledge graph of the user ([0019], “a user profile from contextual information”, [0053], “user-centric database of information”, [0059], [0159]) or a limitation on knowledge property information of each node in the personal knowledge graph ([0090], “demographic/psychographic information (such as age, gender, marital status, child-in-the-home, profession, individual/family income, education, online browsing habits, observed offline/real-world behaviour patterns, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Leslie’s system into Kusch’s and by incorporating Leslie into Kusch because both systems are related to generating and providing natural language responses to queries would provide natural language responses to freetext queries (Leslie, [0002]).
23. Regarding claim 7, Kusch and Leslie teaches the invention as claimed in claim 6 above and further Leslie teaches wherein the search scope comprises at least one of a number of nodes to be searched for among nodes constituting the personal knowledge graph or a level of a node in the personal knowledge graph ([0090], “The use of user context helps to facilitate system responses that are personalized and suited to the user's needs or preferences.”, [0183], “experience and knowledge relevant to the question”), and wherein the limitation on the knowledge property information of each node comprises a specification of at least one knowledge property information in a list of knowledge property information defined for a class of each node ([0050]).
24. Regarding claim 9, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Kusch did not specifically teach claim 9 limitations.
However, Leslie teaches wherein the providing of the search results comprises: performing clustering on the search results according to the search condition with respect to each of knowledge property types; and providing a certain number of top knowledge property information categories and additional information for each knowledge property information category with respect to each of the clustered knowledge property types ([0016], “a classifier machine learning model. the classifying is performed via clustering using a nearest neighbour matching algorithm.”, [0100], [0162]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Leslie’s system into Kusch’s and by incorporating Leslie into Kusch because both systems are related to generating and providing natural language responses to queries would provide natural language responses to freetext queries (Leslie, [0002]).
25. Regarding claims 16, 17 and 19, those claims recite a system performs the method of claims 6, 7 and 9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
26. Regarding claim 20, Kusch teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11 above, Kusch did not specifically teach claim 20 limitations.
However, Leslie teaches Leslie teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11 above and further teaches wherein the search comprises a search utilized in a personalized artificial intelligence (AI) service using a personal knowledge graph ([0019], “a user profile from contextual information”, [0053], “user-centric database of information”, [0059], [0159], see also Fig 5A, 5B, [0130], “an intelligent chatbot”, [0132], “OpenAI ChatGPT”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Leslie’s system into Kusch’s and by incorporating Leslie into Kusch because both systems are related to generating and providing natural language responses to queries would provide natural language responses to freetext queries (Leslie, [0002]).
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
27. In the remark received 05/27/2026, applicant amended claims 1, 5, 10, 11, and 15 to recite new features and argued that:
A- (Rejections of Claims 1-20 Under 35 U.S.C. k 101)- The applicant submits that at least the limitations "determining a tolerance limit indicating a performance level for the search that would be tolerable by a user based on the determined user's search context; obtaining a search condition for the search, based on the tolerance limit, the search condition including a search environment condition specifying, based on the tolerance limit, an allocation of hardware resources of a user device to be used for the search" and "performing a search based on the user input for the search and the search condition" are not reasonably capable of being performed in the human mind and thus are not drawn to an abstract idea.
Moreover, even if the claim limitations could be considered as an abstract idea, the applicant submits that the amended features recited above are directed toward an improvement in computer-related technology (specifically, searching) that provide "something more" than the abstract idea that renders the claims statutory. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should therefore be withdrawn.Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
B- (Rejections of Claims 1-20 Under 35 U.S.C. F 102)- Leslie does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 11. For example, the combination does not disclose or suggest at least "determining a tolerance limit indicating a performance level for the search that would be tolerable by a user based on the determined user's search context; obtaining a search condition for the search, based on the tolerance limit, the search condition including a search environment condition specifying, based on the tolerance limit, an allocation of hardware resources of a user device to be used for the search" or "performing a search based on the user input for the search and the search condition" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 11.
Leslie also fails to disclose or suggest "obtaining a search condition for the search, based on the tolerance limit, the search condition including a search environment condition specifying, based on the tolerance limit, an allocation of hardware resources of a user device to be used for the search". At paragraph 116, Leslie discloses that "the system may select at least one pipeline from the plurality of pipelines based on an optimization function, which optimizes for at least one of speed, quality, and cost." These pipelines may include, for example, a "simple" pipeline for processing questions that do not require weather data, a "moderate" pipeline for questions that are based only on weather data, and a "complex" pipeline for questions that rely on contextual information in addition to weather data.
However, Leslie discloses that the pipeline is chosen according to a complexity of the question, such as whether the question requires additional context information. Leslie does not disclose or suggest that the pipeline is chosen based on a tolerance limit as defined in the independent claims.
For at least these reasons, Leslie does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 11, and the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 should be withdrawn.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
A - With respect to applicant’s arguments A, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Referring to the previous 101 rejections. As a means of providing further clarification and analysis, Examiner has expanded the analysis in light with Applicant amendments.
B - With respect to applicant’s arguments B, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Kusch (US 20250124232 A1) in view of Leslie et al (US 20250061116 A1) hereinafter as Leslie.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights