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 .
Introductory Remarks
This action is in response to communications filed on 22 September 2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presently pending in the application, of which, claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 is/are presented in independent form.
This application properly claims priority to Chinese Application No. CN202411365257.7 filed on 27 September 2024. The requirements of 35 USC 119(a-d) are considered met.
An IDS was received on 2 October 2025. All references have been considered for their English language portions only.
Examiner’s Note
The rejections below group claims that may not be identical, but whose language and scope are so substantively similar as to lend themselves to grouping, in the interests of clarity and conciseness. Any citation to the instant specification herein is made to the PGPub version (if applicable). The examiner notes that no statement has been entered regarding the inventorship of individual claims as required under 37 CFR 1.56, and therefore assumes that all claims have the same inventorship or are directed to inventions that were commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: they lack a conjunction between the last two limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and correspondingly its dependent claims) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: “receiving user input” and “determining, based on the received user input, a first data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of receiving data, processing that data, and presenting the results of the data processing. In this analysis, only those claim limitations stipulated as additional elements are considered to be limitations distinct from the abstract idea itself.
With respect to the independent claims, claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites, “storing first data into a first area in response to determining the first data, data stored in the first area having a corresponding identification, and the first data determined based on a received user input”, which is merely receiving data. The claim then recites, “performing data analysis on the first data based on a first identification corresponding to the first data”, which is merely processing the input data to determine an output. Finally, the claim recites, “presenting a reply to the user input based on a result of the data analysis”, which is nothing more than transmitting the results of the data processing. This closely parallels the holding of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 1 has no additional elements, and therefore the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor does the claim sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is patent-ineligible.
The other independent claims add generic computing components in the form of “at least one processors” (claim 9), “at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the at least one processor and stores instructions configured to be executed by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations” (claim 9), and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program is executable by a processor to perform operations” (claim 17), which do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 provide the additional element of “a machine learning model”. When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to the “machine learning model” additional element, there are no details about particular machine learning models or how the machine learning model operates other than that they are being used to perform the claimed functions. The machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limitation on how the machine learning model operates. The claims omit any details as to how the machine learning model solves a technical problem, and instead the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claims invoke generic machine learning models merely as a tool for making the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The remaining dependent claims add nothing more than additional abstract idea limitations, which again do nothing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis, How Web Search Engines Work, 20 April 2013, retrived on 24 July 2026, retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/presentations/webCsplash.html> (hereinafter Davis).
As per claim 1, Davis teaches a method for data processing, comprising:
storing first data into a first area in response to determining the first data, data stored in the first area having a corresponding identification, and the first data determined based on a received user input (“The Crawler collects all the pages it can find on the web, and puts them into a web page cache.”);
performing data analysis on the first data based on a first identification corresponding to the first data (“The Indexer uses the pages in the cache to create an index of the web”); and
presenting a reply to the user input based on a result of the data analysis (“The Query Engine takes a user query, consults with the index, and the web page cache, and a log of previous queries and produces a results page.”).
As per claim 9, Davis teaches an electronic device (Web Search Engine), comprising: at least one processor (inherent to a web search engine); and at least one memory (inherent to a web search engine), wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the at least one processor and stores instructions configured to be executed by the at least one processor, and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations (inherent to a web search engine) comprising:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
As per claim 17, Davis teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon, wherein the computer program is executable by a processor to perform operations (inherent to a web search engine) comprising:
For the remaining limitations, see the examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1.
As per claims 5 and 13, Davis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the data analysis on the first data comprises:
obtaining a data analysis instruction for the first data (inherent to a computer performing data analysis on the first data);
loading the first data into an execution environment of the data analysis instruction based on the first identification (inherent to a computer performing data analysis on the first data); and
executing the data analysis instruction on the first data loaded into the execution environment (“The Indexer uses the pages in the cache to create an index of the web”).
As per claim 6 and 14, Davis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first data is determined by:
invoking a first functional block to generate a data query instruction (“When the page is received… 3. Extract all the new URL's in the page, and add them to the queue.”); and
retrieving the first data from one or more data sources by executing the data query instruction, and the data analysis instruction for the data analysis is implemented by invoking a second functional block (“Take a URL off the queue”).
As per claims 7 and 15, Davis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the result of the data analysis comprises at least one of the following types of content:
at least one chart type, [sic]
at least one form type (“produces a results page”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 12, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sebastian Lemieux-Codere, Search Engine Algorithms and Open Source Technologies, Data Science Illustrated, 2020, retrieved on 24 July 2026, retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://datascienceillustrated.com/search-engine-algorithms-open-source-technologies> (hereinafter Codere).
As per claims 2, 10, and 18, Davis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the data analysis on the first data comprises:
obtaining auxiliary information related to use of the first data (“When the page is received 1. Make sure it is not a duplicate of a page you already know.”);
generating a data analysis instruction for the first data based on the user input and the auxiliary information (“2. Save it in the page cache to be indexed.”); and
executing the data analysis instruction on the first data based on the first identification (“The Indexer uses the pages in the cache to create an index of the web”).
But Davis does not appear to explicitly disclose:
generating a data analysis instruction for the first data based on the user input and the auxiliary information using a machine learning model. (Emphasis added).
Codere teaches this. Codere at Indexing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Codere into the invention of Davis in order to use a machine learning model. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would allow for improved quality in indexing, and thus search results.
As per claims 4, 12, and 20, Davis teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the auxiliary information comprises at least one of:
metadata information of the first data (“When the page is received 1. Make sure it is not a duplicate of a page you already know.”),
source information of the first data, or
description information corresponding to one or more fields comprised in the first data.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Manku, Detecting Near-Duplicates for Web Crawling, 2007, retrieved on 24 July 2026, retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1242572.1242592> (hereinafter Manku).
As per claims 3, 11, and 19, Davis does not appear to explicitly disclose: The method of claim 2, further comprising:
storing the auxiliary information in the first area in response to determining the first data, and wherein obtaining the auxiliary information comprises:
reading the auxiliary information from the first area based on the first identification.
However, Manku reflects that duplicates and near duplicates can be determined by storing a fingerprint of the page. Manku at Section 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Manku into the invention of Davis in order to store such a fingerprint (auxiliary information) in the first area in response to determining the first data, and subsequently when obtaining the auxiliary information reading the auxiliary information from the first area based on the first identification. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would allow web crawlers to detect near duplicate pages thereby allowing them to be skipped from processing.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Official Notice.
As per claims 8 and 16, Davis does not appear to explicitly disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the first area comprises a key-value type data storage system, and the first identification comprises a key in the key-value type data storage system.
However, Official Notice is taken that the use of key-value pairs in data storage systems is extremely well-known in the art, and further that in those systems keys are used as identification for the value it is paired with. In view of what is known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first area comprises a key-value type data storage system, and the first identification comprise a key in the key-value type data storage system. This would have been clearly advantageous as it would provide a reliable, well-defined manner of caching the pages to be indexed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J TORGRIMSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Aleksander Kerzhner can be reached at 571.270.1760. 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.
/TYLER J TORGRIMSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights