DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed February 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
The claims are directed to a method, system, and computer-readable medium.
Conclusion: The claims are directed to a statutory category: a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04(a))
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process, including evaluating information and organizing information through ranking and selection.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
"receiving ... a search query input comprising a keyword";
"routing the search query input to a plurality of search provider sources";
"receiving a set of responses to the search query input";
"generating a first ranking of the set of responses, wherein the first ranking is based at least in part on the set of search provider sources";
"generating a second ranking of the set of responses, wherein the second ranking is based at least in part on the first ranking"; and
"causing ... a display comprising a search result integrating the set of responses."
These limitations, particularly generating a first ranking and a second ranking of search responses, recite the abstract idea of evaluating, comparing, and organizing information according to ranking criteria, which constitutes a mental process.
The claimed ranking operations can be conceptually performed through human observation, evaluation, and judgment, such as reviewing responses from multiple information sources, ranking those responses according to their sources, further ranking the responses based on the initial ranking, and selecting or organizing the responses for presentation.
The mere recitation of a processing device and computer-based search providers does not, by itself, remove the underlying information-evaluation activities from the mental-process grouping.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
The claim does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements include a "processing device of a merchant system," an "end user system," a "plurality of search provider sources," and a "data store of the merchant system."
These elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide a computer-based environment in which the abstract idea is implemented. The processing device performs the claimed information processing, the search provider sources supply information responsive to the query, and the data store stores merchant-related data.
The limitations directed to receiving a search query, routing the query to search provider sources, receiving responses, and causing a display of search results represent the acquisition, transmission, and presentation of information associated with the abstract idea. These limitations do not, as presently claimed, impose meaningful technological restrictions on how the information is processed.
Although the claim recites generating a first ranking based at least in part on the search provider sources and generating a second ranking based at least in part on the first ranking, the claim does not specify a particular technical mechanism for performing the rankings that improves the functioning of the processing device, search provider sources, data store, or computer network.
Rather, the claimed rankings determine how search responses are evaluated and organized for presentation. The resulting display represents the presentation of information obtained through the claimed ranking operations.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely use computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not reflect an improvement to computer functionality or another technical field, as required under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05 and § 2106.07(a))
The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements, including the processing device, merchant system, end user system, search provider sources, and data store, are recited in generic functional terms without specifying a particular technological implementation.
The claim merely requires these components to perform their respective functions of receiving and transmitting information, accessing stored information, and displaying results.
Furthermore, the claimed combination of elements does not recite a particular technological solution that improves computer operation. Instead, the elements cooperate to implement the abstract idea of evaluating, ranking, and presenting search results using computer technology.
The first and second rankings are themselves part of the recited abstract idea and therefore cannot independently supply the inventive concept merely by being performed sequentially.
Subject to establishing that the additional computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional with appropriate factual support, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 9 and 17
Independent Claims 9 and 17 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea, and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scriffigano et al (US 20140101146 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Scriffigano discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device of a merchant system, a search query input comprising a keyword from an end user system (Scriffigano: paragraph [0057] -The search engine will seek to match the product name 604, product category 606 and/or company name 608 to data retrieved and/or stored in various databases, e.g., corporate entity database 612, application data 614, data from external sources, such as import/export data 616, domestic HS Code data 618, and foreign HS Code data 620);
routing the search query input to a plurality of search provider sources, wherein each of the plurality of search provider sources is operatively connected to a data store of the merchant system that stores data associated with the merchant system (Scriffigano: paragraph [0015] - The searched database is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of objectively assessed business entity data, application data that is accumulated for the specific use of this application, and data from other sources with associated product and other codes such as SIC);
receiving a set of responses to the search query input from a set of search provider sources comprising at least a portion of the plurality of search providers sources (Scriffigano: Figure 13 - candidates identified 1306);
generating a first ranking of the set of responses, wherein the first ranking is based at least in part on the set of search provider sources (Scriffigano: Figure 13, paragraph [0069] -a reputation score 1310);
generating a second ranking of the set of responses, wherein the second ranking is based at least in part on the first ranking (Scriffigano: Figure 12, paragraph [0069] - The system then seeks to update the initial relevance score (RS) by updating each score by calculating and adding at least one of the additional scores to the initial relevance score, e.g., a reputation score 1310, a score boost 1312, a past behavior score 1314, a profile match score 1316, a preference match score 1318, and a web behavior score 1320);
causing, based at least in part on the first ranking and the second ranking, a display comprising a search result integrating the set of responses comprising at least a portion of the set of responses (Scriffigano: Figure 13, paragraph [0069] - A final relevance score 1322 is then calculated by adding all of the scores from 1310-1320 to the initial relevance score).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Scriffigano discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 9. Scriffigano further discloses wherein the display comprises the at least the portion of the set of responses aggregated from multiple different search provider sources (Scriffigano: wherein the display comprises the at least the portion of the set of responses aggregated from multiple different search provider sources).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Scriffigano discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 9. Scriffigano further discloses wherein a position in the display of a first response of the at least the portion of the set of responses is determined based at least in part on the second ranking associated with the first response (Scriffigano: Figure 13 - Calculate Final Relevance Scores 1322).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Scriffigano discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 4, 12, and 17. Scriffigano further discloses collecting end user engagement activity associated with the first response; receiving a second search query input; and adjusting the position of the first response in a second display of a second search result in response to the second search query input (Scriffigano: Figure 13 - update RS using web behavior (engagement) score 1320).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Scriffigano discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 9. Scriffigano further discloses receiving, from the merchant system, a merchant-specific query rule comprising a condition associated with the keyword and an action; and applying the merchant-specific query rule to adjust an order of the set of responses for display in response to a subsequent search query (Scriffigano: Figure 3, paragraph [0044] - he query context 118 may then be used to output a set of rules that may be employed by a query classifier 308 to develop an "understanding" of an intent behind the query 302, which may be applied to search results obtained from one or more of a plurality of search back ends 310, 312 of the search service 102).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Scriffigano discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 6 and 14. Scriffigano further discloses wherein the condition of the merchant-specific query rule is further associated with a context corresponding to the end user system (Scriffigano: Figure 3, paragraph [0044] - he query context 118 may then be used to output a set of rules that may be employed by a query classifier 308 to develop an "understanding" of an intent behind the query 302, which may be applied to search results obtained from one or more of a plurality of search back ends 310, 312 of the search service 102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 16 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if this rejection can be overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to the prior art cited above, the most pertinent prior art with regards to claims 2, 8, 10, and 16, 18, and 20 includes:
PTO-892 teaches Aggregating e-commerce search results from heterogeneous sources via hierarchical reinforcement learning.
Ackerman et al (US 2013/0117259 A1) teaches Search Query Context.
Moore et al (US 2004/0122926) teaches Reputation system for web services.
Scriffigano, Ackerman, Moore, PTO-892 Reference U nor any of the other cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious identifying a first portion of the set of responses as having a verified status when the response was provided by a search provider that is verified; and identifying a second portion of the set of responses as having an unverified status when the response was provided by a search provider that is unverified, wherein at least one of the first ranking or the second ranking is based at least in part on the verified status associated with the first portion of the set of responses and the unverified status associated with the second portion of the set of responses.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that when read as a whole, the claims would not have been obvious over the evidence obtained throughout prosecution. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that such features are present in the prior art, the combination of elements as recited in would not have been obvious over the evidence at hand because any combination of the evidence at hand would only result from a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claims using improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G DAVISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE DAVISON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN DAVISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
