DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 50-67 are pending in this application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/22/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 35-36 of the remarks it indicates that Paiz US 7,809,659 Fig.34 and associated texts “Each Fixed network Central Office Switch and CPE is simulated. Each wireless network XO and wireless phone is simulated and the location of the end user is optionally triangulated or estimated to a specific location based on organizational Business Rules” as a support for the independent claims 50-52 limitation “receiving from a client device data indicative of a location of the client device”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Paiz US 7,809,659 discloses “the location of the end user is optionally triangulated or estimated to a specific location based on organizational Business Rules” is not the same as “receiving from a client device data indicative of a location of the client device”. As such, this receiving from a client device data indicative of a location of the client device is not disclosed by the Paiz US 7,809,659 Fig.34 and disclosure.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 36 of the remarks it indicates that US 7,908,263 Fig.7 and Fig.8 the right side of the brain that incorporates to each smart “The system selects {state} Pennsylvania” (701) with a loaded Cholti Glyph as the right side of the brain Set (i, |). The system selects {city} “Gettysburg” (801) or [G2] with (802) loaded Super Glyph {Zip Code}, (803) unloaded Super Glyph {IP Address} and (804) unloaded Super Glyph {ANI} as the right side of the brain Subset.” and using the geospatial model described in FIG. 10 based on U.S. Pat. No. 6,614,893 and its continuations, “the Geodata (w, x, y, Z) model was incorporated and represents geospatial data in a hierarchical format. Where w=Country, x=State, y=City, and z=Zip Codes that are within a radius of several miles of the latitude and longitude of the City and belong to the same LATA Area or State or Region” as a support for the independent claims 50-52 limitation “location specific query suggestions determined from data separate from content of the search interface resource”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because US 7,908,263 discloses “the system selects state and city” and U.S. Pat. No. 6,614,893 discloses “geospatial data model” is not the same as “location specific query suggestions determined from data separate from content of the search interface resource”. As such, this location specific query suggestions determined from data separate from content of the search interface resource is not disclosed by the US 7,908,263 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,614,893 disclosure.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 37 of the remarks it indicates that combining US 7,809,659 FIG. 34 and associated texts teaches X Commerce knows the location of each end user at all times, and US 7,908,263 FIG. 10 using the geodata (w, x, y, z) to determine one of a LATA, NPA, City and Zip Code combination used as data warehousing fingerprint to distill large scale data set, as a support for the independent claims 50-52 limitation “each initial query suggestion being a location specific query suggestion associated with an area that includes the location of the client device”. The examiner respectfully disagrees because US 7,809,659 discloses “the location of the end user is optionally triangulated or estimated” and US 7,908,263 discloses “determine one of a LATA, NPA, City and Zip Code” is not the same as “each initial query suggestion being a location specific query suggestion associated with an area that includes the location of the client device”. As such, this each initial query suggestion being a location specific query suggestion associated with an area that includes the location of the client device is not disclosed by the US 7,809,659 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,908,263 disclosure.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 37 of the remarks it argues that by default, the search engine optimizer US 7,908,263 FIG. 1, FIG. 2 shows how home pages furnish “generate search interface resource that includes a first query input field”, and “search resource without a request for the initial query suggestions”
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the search engine optimizer of US 7,908,263 FIG. 1, FIG. 2 does not show by default “generate search interface resource that includes a first query input field”, and “search resource without a request for the initial query suggestions”. As such, generate search interface resource that includes a first query input field”, and “search resource without a request for the initial query suggestions is not disclosed by the Paiz US 7,908,263 FIG. 1, FIG. 2 and disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 50-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims 50, 51 and 52 recite “receiving from a client device data indicative of a location of the client device”, “location specific query suggestions determined from data separate from content of the search interface resource”, “a query Suggestion associated with an area and is only eligible to be displayed as a query suggestion when the client device location is within the area”, “initial query suggestions for providing with the search interface resource”, “each initial query suggestion being a location specific query suggestion associated with an area that includes the location of the client device”,“ generate search interface resource that includes a first query input field”, “search resource without a request for the initial query suggestions”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 53 recites “store the initial query suggestions in a suggestion store on the client device”, “compare query characters input in the first query input field to the query suggestions stored in the suggestion store”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 58 recites “defining suggestion store as an end user profile on the client device; store the initial query suggestions in a suggestion store on the client device;
compare query characters input in the first query input field to the query suggestions stored in the suggestion store”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 63 recites “defining suggestion store as one of an end user profile; store the initial query suggestions in a suggestion store on the client device; compare query characters input in the first query input field to the query suggestions stored in the suggestion store”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claims 54, 59 and 64 recite “receive, in response to the request, additional query suggestions from the data processing apparatus, store the additional query suggestions in the suggestion store; and the server instructions cause the data processing apparatus to provide the additional query suggestions to the client device in response to the query suggestion request”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 56 recites “the client device to store the additional query suggestions in the suggestion store on the client device”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claims 55, 60 and 65 recite “wherein the second instructions cause the client device to provide a separate query suggestion request for each entry of a query character into the query input field”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 61 recites “defining suggestion store as an end user profile on the client device, the client device to store the additional query suggestions in the suggestion store on the client device”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claim 66 recites “defining suggestion store as one of an end user profile, the client device to store the additional query suggestions in the suggestion store on the client device”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
The claims 57, 62 and 67 recite “compare query characters input in the second query input field to the query suggestions stored in the suggestion store;
select query suggestions that match the query characters input in the second query input field based on the comparison; display the selected query suggestions as query suggestions for the query characters input into the second query input field”, respectively, which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Paine et al discloses US 7225182 B2 Recommending Search Terms Using Collaborative Filtering and Web Spidering.
Glover discloses US 2016/0179816 A1 Near Real Time Auto-Suggest Search Results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A Sana whose telephone number is (571)270-1753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on 571272409824098. 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.
/Mohammad A Sana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166