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 .
This Office action is issued in response to application, 19/469,278, filed on 9/25/2025, and the preliminary amendment, filed on 9/25/2025.
Claim(s) 1-15 was/were presented in the application, filed on 9/25/2025.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13-15 has/have been amended by the preliminary amendment, filed on 9/25/2025.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to application, EP 23315085.3, filed on 4/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS), submitted on 12/24/2025 (2), is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the method” should be corrected to “the computer-implemented method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “The method” should be corrected to “The computer-implemented method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 9 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “claim 1-,” should be corrected to “claim 1,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “claim 6-,” should be corrected to “claim 6,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1-2, “The search system of claim 12, further arranged to perform the method of claim 2.” should be corrected to “The search system of claim 12, wherein determine that at least one completion condition is not reached is based on the updated search context and/or the number of first search results.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se. The claim explicitly recites claiming “a computer program”. Note that the claim language recites, “when executed by at least one processor”. Although this claim language mentions a processor (i.e., computer), the language, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require the processor (i.e., computer) to be present. Such limitations, as currently claimed, are just software. Therefore, claim(s) 14 is/are directed to software, which is not one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and it is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine to form the basis of statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically, as directed to software per se. Note that the claim language recites, “when executed by at least one processor”. Although this claim language mentions a processor (i.e., computer), the language, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require the processor (i.e., computer) to be present. Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “computer readable storage medium” covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (i.e., signals and transmission) and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and, therefore, is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such limitations, as claimed, are just software without having a computer system to execute the steps as claimed. Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are directed to software that is not tied to a technological art, environment or machine to form the basis of statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Note: The examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to overcome the rejection(s).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Kamotsky, US 2015/0347581 A1 (hereinafter “Kam”).
Claims 1, 12, 14 and 15
Kam discloses a computer-implemented method for determining search results in a search system, the method comprising:
in response to receiving a search request including search parameters (Kam, [0034], see a keyword search is received [i.e., where the keywords correspond to the “search parameters”]; and Kam, Fig. 2, S01: Receive keyword search query),
determining an initial search context based on the search parameters (Kam, [0035], see a search pass for exact matches in a particular combination of fields associated with a product, such as brand, color, product type, gender, category, etc., is performed. For example, if the selected fields were brand, color, and product type and the query consisted of “blue”, “calvin”, “klein”, and “jeans”, [i.e., corresponds to the “search parameters”] only products having the following field values BRAND: “calvin klein”, COLOR: “blue”, and PRODUCT_TYPE: “jeans” without additional terms in those fields would be considered exactly matching. When there is a match in a particular field, the associated search parameter may be saved as an implicit refinement for another search pass. An implicit refinement is a specific value (or several values for a multi-valued field) of a specific field which matches a part of the search query and has at least one matching search result. For example, a search query “cute donna karen jeans” may imply two refinements: BRAND=DKNY and PRODUCT_TYPE=jeans; Kam, [0036], see implicit refinements are implicit search constraints that may be determined from the search query and indexed field values and applied by the multiple pass search controller module 230 during execution of a search pass or they may be determined and collected by the multiple pass search controller 230 during execution of a search pass and saved for application in one or more subsequent search passes. Each search pass may generate one or more implicit refinements. The collection of implicit refinements is optional; Kam, [0037], see the collected implicit refinements stored as search context [i.e., corresponds to the “initial search context”]; and Kam, Fig. 2, S07: Collect and store any implicit refinements);
in a first search iteration, determining a number of first search results based on the search parameters and the initial search context (Kam, [0035] above see the search pas for exact matches producing results for the query of “blue”, “calvin”, “klein”, and “jeans”; and Kam, Fig. 2, S09: > 0 Matches and see branching for “No matches” and “> 0 matches”);
evaluating the number of first search results and determining, based on the evaluation, an updated search context (Kam, Fig. 2, S09: “> 0 Matches” evaluates to “> 0 matches” and S11: Retrieve any implicit refinements [i.e., updated search context] and perform exact match against implicit refinements);
determining that at least one completion condition is not reached (Kam, [0032], see determines whether to terminate the search and return the search results or continue the search and determine to which search pass to transition; and Kam, Fig. 2, S13: > 0 Matches? Evaluates to “> 0 Matches” [i.e., corresponds to “completion condition”], which then proceeds to S27, if not proceed to S15: Perform all match search);
in a second search iteration, determining a number of second search results based on the search parameters and the updated search context (Kam, [0040], see the transition condition/path of having multiple sets of implicit refinements [i.e., see Kam, [0030] disclosing the refinements are contexts]; and Kam, Fig. 2, S17: No matches; Unambiguous match; Ambiguous match and see branching for “No matches”, “Unambiguous match” and “Ambiguous match”);
in response to determining that the at least one completion condition is reached, returning at least a subset of the first and second search results (Kam, Fig. 2, S25: Store merge indication; Perform partial match; Merge results [i.e., results from a subsequent pass corresponds to the “second search results”] with previous pass [i.e., results from previous pass corresponds to the “first search results”] and S27: End search and transmit search results).
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 15 recite(s) similar limitations to claim 1 and is/are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 12, Kam discloses a search system for determining search results comprising a processor and a memory with instructions (Kam, [0026], see one or more processors and one or more memory devices).
With respect to claim 14, Kam discloses a computer program with instructions (Kam, [0013], see processor readable instructions).
With respect to claim 15, Kam discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions (Kam, [0026], see one or more memory devices).
Claims 2 and 13
With respect to claims 2 and 13, Kam discloses wherein determining that at least one completion condition is not reached is based on the updated search context and/or the number of first search results (Kam, [0032], see determines whether to terminate the search and return the search results or continue the search and determine to which search pass to transition; and Kam, Fig. 2, S13: > 0 Matches? Evaluates to “> 0 Matches” [i.e., corresponds to “completion condition”], which then proceeds to S27, if not proceed to S15: Perform all match search).
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Kam discloses further comprising performing one or more further search iterations based on still updated search contexts as long as the at least one completion condition is not reached (Kam, [0032], see the multiple pass search controller module 230 initiates a search pass, examines the search results and/or search metadata (e.g., number of results, query length, etc.) in view of the corresponding transition rules and conditions and determines whether to terminate the search [i.e., corresponds to the “at least one completion condition”] and return the search results or continue the search and determine to which search pass to transition. For example, a transition rule may require a minimum number of matches as a transition condition for a particular transition path. All or some of the search results and/or search metadata may be stored in memory and used in a subsequent search pass).
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Kam discloses wherein a subsequent search iteration is based on search results of at least one previous search iteration (Kam, [0032], see the multiple pass search controller module 230 initiates a search pass, examines the search results and/or search metadata (e.g., number of results, query length, etc.) in view of the corresponding transition rules and conditions and determines whether to terminate the search and return the search results or continue the search and determine to which search pass to transition. For example, a transition rule may require a minimum number of matches as a transition condition for a particular transition path. All or some of the search results and/or search metadata may be stored in memory and used in a subsequent search pass).
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Kam discloses wherein any one of the initial search context and the updated search context indicates search meta information derived from one or more of the search parameters included in the search request (Kam, [0035], see a search pass for exact matches in a particular combination of fields associated with a product, such as brand, color, product type, gender, category, etc., is performed. For example, if the selected fields were brand, color, and product type and the query consisted of “blue”, “calvin”, “klein”, and “jeans”, [i.e., corresponds to the “search parameters”] only products having the following field values BRAND: “calvin klein”, COLOR: “blue”, and PRODUCT_TYPE: “jeans” without additional terms in those fields would be considered exactly matching. When there is a match in a particular field, the associated search parameter may be saved as an implicit refinement for another search pass. An implicit refinement is a specific value (or several values for a multi-valued field) of a specific field which matches a part of the search query and has at least one matching search result. For example, a search query “cute donna karen jeans” may imply two refinements: BRAND=DKNY and PRODUCT_TYPE=jeans; Kam, [0036], see implicit refinements are implicit search constraints that may be determined from the search query and indexed field values and applied by the multiple pass search controller module 230 during execution of a search pass or they may be determined and collected by the multiple pass search controller 230 during execution of a search pass and saved for application in one or more subsequent search passes. Each search pass may generate one or more implicit refinements. The collection of implicit refinements is optional; and Kam, [0037], see the collected implicit refinements stored as search context [i.e., corresponds to the “initial search context”]).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Kam discloses wherein the completion condition is at least one of a search processing time, a maximum number of search results, and one or more search criteria fulfilled by at least a subset of the first and second search results (Kam, Fig. 2, S17: No matches; Unambiguous match; Ambiguous match and see how an “Unambiguous match” goes to S27: End search and transmit search results).
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Kam discloses wherein evaluating the first search results indicates that the first search results do not comply with a predetermined returning condition (Kam, Fig. 2, see S07: Perform exact match search; Collect and store any implicit refinements, S09: > 0 Matches evaluates to “> 0 Matches”), and determining the updated search context includes varying at least one of the search parameters (Kam, Fig. 2, S11: Retrieve any implicit refinements [i.e., updated search context] and perform exact match against implicit refinements) and/or determining the number of second search results based on the at least one varied search parameter and the updated search context.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Kam discloses wherein the predetermined returning condition comprises a number of search results to be returned, and evaluating the first search results indicates that the number of the first search results is smaller than the number of search results to be returned (Kam, [0032], see the corresponding transition rules and conditions and determines whether to terminate the search and return the search results or continue the search and determine to which search pass to transition. For example, a transition rule may require a minimum number of matches as a transition condition for a particular transition path).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Du, CN 201910968294 A (hereinafter “Du”; Note: Citations are based on the English language translation attached/provided).
Claim 7
Claim 7 incorporates all of the limitations above. Kam does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more search criteria indicate that a parameter value of the first and second search results corresponds to one of the search parameters included in the search request.
Du discloses wherein the one or more search criteria indicate that a parameter value of the first and second search results corresponds to one of the search parameters included in the search request (Du, Abstract, see receiving a range query instruction, acquiring a first field value and a second field value wherein the first field value and the second field value are used for determining a query range [i.e., corresponds to the “parameter value of the first and second search results corresponds to one of the search parameters included in the search request”]; and calculating the first field value and the second field value according to the linear encryption parameter to obtain a mapped query parameter, and determining a range query result according to the query parameter and the target data).
Kam and Du are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data searching/querying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Kam and Du before him/her, to modify the iterative searching of Kam to include the parameter range of Du because it would help filter search results.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to retrieve more relevant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Du with Kam to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim 8
Claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations above. Kam does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more search criteria indicate a degree of variation of parameter values in the first and second search results.
Du discloses wherein the one or more search criteria indicate a degree of variation of parameter values in the first and second search results (Du, Abstract, see receiving a range query instruction, acquiring a first field value and a second field value wherein the first field value and the second field value are used for determining a query range [i.e., corresponds to the “variation of parameter values”]; and calculating the first field value and the second field value according to the linear encryption parameter to obtain a mapped query parameter, and determining a range query result according to the query parameter and the target data).
See claim 7 above for the motivation to combine.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kam in view of Snyder et al., US 2019/0130285 A1 (hereinafter “Snyder”).
Claim 11
Claim 11 incorporates all of the limitations above. Kam does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein evaluating the first search results and the second search results utilizes a machine learning model
Snyder discloses wherein evaluating the first search results and the second search results utilizes a machine learning model (Snyder, [0016], see iterative real-time refinement of query results pertaining to at least some types of items of an inventory, based on quickly re-training a machine learning model using interpreted feedback signals and re-scoring items using the re-trained model).
Kam and Snyder are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data searching/querying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Kam and Snyder before him/her, to modify the iterative searching of Kam to include the machine learning model of Snyder because it would return more relevant results.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to retrieve more relevant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Snyder with Kam to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
– Biebesheimer et al., 2002/0107843 for classifying user contexts;
– Fish, 2005/0097188 for search enhancement system having personal search parameters;
– Mance, 2015/0026146 for applying a set of actions to one or more objects and interacting with the results;
– Biebesheimer et al., 2002/0107842 for resource search and selection;
– Fish, 2005/0080771 for search enhancement system with information form a selected source;
– Imig et al., 8972397 for auto-collection of historical search context;
– Holub et al., 11934433 for interactive building of search expressions to match specified string values;
– Chakra et al., 9767203 for searching content based on transferrable user search contexts;
– Oztekin et al., 8645390 for reordering search query results in accordance with search context;
– Chakra et al., 2015/0012511 for searching content based on transferrable user search contexts;
– Hapke, EP 1784748 for searching a database;
– Song et al., KR 20180044481 for providing recommendation query using search context;
– Seo et al., KR 20250170392 for providing results based on the user’s context; and
– Kakuko et al., EP 4187447 for determining timing at which candidate value range is changed from a first range to a second range.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUBERT G CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1396. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00A-5:00P EST; alt. F 8:00A-4:00P EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
HUBERT G. CHEUNG
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 2161
Examiner: Hubert Cheung
/Hubert Cheung/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2161Date: June 17, 2026
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights