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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 10 and 19 are in independent form.
Claims 10-18 are subject to claim interpretation.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding 35 USC 112(f) and 35 USC 112(b):
The newly added amendments, do not resolve the indefiniteness of “query processing layer”. The term. “mesh service” is a broad architectural concept that does not provide sufficient structural or operational boundaries for the claimed layer. Additionally, the recitation “in a machine” is a generic term and does not further define the scope of the layer. As such, the mete and bounds of the “query processing layer” remain unclear.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the “mesh service” require multiple distributed services, a specific communication protocol, or a particular deployment architecture, and therefore fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, one skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
Therefore, the claim interpretation (35 USC 112(f)) and 35 USC 112(b) are sustained.
Regarding 35 USC 101 (Abstract Idea):
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception),
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Receiving a character string after each character entry,
Comparing the character string to mapping in a database,
Modifying the character string based on matches,
Sending the modified string to a search engine,
Receiving a result,
Returning the modified result for display;
Identifying the received character string:
having the most characters
shorter string as subqueries
Creating a mapping between the target query and subqueries.
These steps amount to:
Collecting information (input);
Analyzing/comparing information (Matching against stored mapping);
Modifying information (rewriting query);
Organizing relationships (relationship between target queries and subqueries);
Storing results (creating mapping).
The claims fall within:
Mental Process (matching strings; identifying largest vs, shortest string, associating queries);
Information Analysis and Manipulation (query refinement; information organization; comparing, modifying, and storing query data).
Processing, comparing, predicting, correlating, or modifying data are all abstract idea.
See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 150 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two (Particular Application),
The claims recite the use of:
A mobile device,
A text entry field,
A query processing layer,
A search engine;
A database.
These components merely implements the abstract idea on generic computing components, performing routine functions: receiving input, storing mapping, sending queries, returning results.
The claims do not:
Improve search engine architecture
Improve database structure
Improve query processing algorithm technically
Provide a new data structure or storage technique
Improve computer performance.
There is no improvements to computer functionality or any specific technical solution to a computer centric problems. The claims focus on optimizing how search queries are updated, which are abstract improvements to information presentation and not technical improvements.
There is no recitation of, a new data structure that changes computer operation, improved network functioning, an unconventional indexing technique, a specific hardware solution.
Instead the claims recite conventional and generic computer functions performed in a routine manner, which does not amount to a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a query processing layer” in claims 10-18.
The corresponding structure is described in ¶ [0015], [0018]-[0020] of the specification, describes QPL as:
A component positioned between the text entry field and the search engine
A later that performs:
Automatic completion
Spell correction
Expansion
Translation
Comparing subqueries
Identifying matches
Generating target queries
A system component that modifies search queries prior to spending them to the engine.
These statements describe role, location and functionality, but NO structural detail.
Therefore, regarding Claims 10-17 are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation “a query processing layer…” (placeholder) recites nothing more that a software component performing a list of purely functioning operations without recitation of any corresponding structure in the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-18 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 limitation “a query processing layer” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) analysis above, the disclosed structures in ¶ [0015], [0018]-[0020] of the Specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (for computer implemented functions or algorithms) for performing each recited functions. Examiner further specifies that ¶ [0015], [0018]-[0020], do not constitute an algorithm or structure implementation for performing claimed functions. The claimed “a query processing layer” is defined exclusively by what it does, NOT what it is. The claims recite a list of high-level operational results. Each one of the steps describe an intended result, there are no indication of and hardware linked to the “a query processing layer” to generate operational results. In the absence of such structural or algorithmics disclosures, the Examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, claims 10-18 are indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding dependent Claims 11-17, these claims inherit the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore also being rejected based upon the same reason(s) stated for their parent claims.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) custom scale out in a hybrid database architecture.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process.
Independent claim 10 is directed to a system, which lack hardware and therefore rejected under 101.
Independent claim 19 directed to non-transitory processor-readable storage medium, which is directed to one of the four statutory subject matters.
Independent All other claims depend on claims 1, 10, and 19. As such, claims 1-9 and 19-20 are directed to a statutory category.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19:
With respect to step 2A, prong one (Judicial Exception), the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
Receiving a character string after each character entry,
Comparing the character string to mapping in a database,
Modifying the character string based on matches,
Sending the modified string to a search engine,
Receiving a result,
Returning the modified result for display;
Identifying the received character string:
having the most characters
shorter string as subqueries
Creating a mapping between the target query and subqueries.
These steps amount to:
Collecting information (input);
Analyzing/comparing information (Matching against stored mapping);
Modifying information (rewriting query);
Organizing relationships (relationship between target queries and subqueries);
Storing results (creating mapping).
The claims fall within:
Mental Process (matching strings; identifying largest vs, shortest string, associating queries);
Information Analysis and Manipulation (query refinement; information organization; comparing, modifying, and storing query data).
Processing, comparing, predicting, correlating, or modifying data are all abstract idea.
See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 150 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
With respect to step 2A, Prong Two (Particular Application), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite the use of:
A mobile device,
A text entry field,
A query processing layer,
A search engine;
A database.
These components merely implements the abstract idea on generic computing components, performing routine functions: receiving input, storing mapping, sending queries, returning results.
The claims do not:
Improve search engine architecture
Improve database structure
Improve query processing algorithm technically
Provide a new data structure or storage technique
Improve computer performance.
There is no improvements to computer functionality or any specific technical solution to a computer centric problems. The claims focus on optimizing how search queries are updated, which are abstract improvements to information presentation and not technical improvements.
There is no recitation of, a new data structure that changes computer operation, improved network functioning, an unconventional indexing technique, a specific hardware solution.
Instead, the claims recite conventional and generic computer functions performed in a routine manner, which does not amount to a practical application.
With respect to Step 2B. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited components are merely generic computer/database elements performing their routine, well-understood, and conventional functions. See Alive, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The steps mentioned in the independent claims merely constitutes standard distributed-database behavior, such and basic replication, mirroring, and ownership transfer. Courts have consistently helped such high level information management operations are conventional.
The claims recite only functional, result oriented language (“detecting”, “propagating”, “transferring”,…), without specifying any technical mechanism for performing these operations in a non-conventional manner.
Considering claims as a whole, the ordered combination of elements also reflects nothing more than the typical workflow of distributed systems, and therefore DOES NOT add “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Such generic, high‐level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer‐based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent‐eligible, as noted at pg.74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. Further, See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359‐60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093‐94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to 'implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer', it cannot save O/P's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257‐1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claimpatent‐eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element".).
The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality ("similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claims in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,") as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and they operate in a well‐understood, routine, and conventional manner.
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) sets forth the following:
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec ... ; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC ... ; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc ... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ... ;
• Performing repetitive calculations, Flook ... ; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life ... ;
• Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp ... ; Ultramercial ... ;
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ... ;
• Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank ... ; and
• A web browser's back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent
• Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. ...
. . . Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the findings for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20,
The claim recites:
Comparing the character strings together with locale, using mapping in the database that associates prior character entries with locales and target queries.
This is merely a locale based comparison which is information evaluation (mental process). This simply adds an additional data attribute (locale) to the same mapping operation.
This does not change the nature of the abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea, such as improving computer functionality, data structure, or processing architecture.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 3 and 12,
The claim recites:
Locale corresponds to a fist language; maps character strings in that language to a target query in a second langue. Modifying the string to include both.
This is merely translating or mapping between languages, which is linguistic information processing (mental process).
This does not change how the computer operates, and only what data is compared, which is considered abstract idea. It does not add a technical improvement (no unconventional processing, memory handling, or algorithmic improvement) to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 4 and 13,
The claim recites:
Mapping a misspelled word to a correctly spelled target word and modifying the character string accordingly.
This is merely spelling correction, which is a classing mental process and a routine text-processing function.
This does not improve hardware, search engine architecture, or data storage. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 5 and 14,
The claim recites:
Mapping non-character symbols to a word and modifying the string to include both.
This is merely substituting symbols for words, which is not a technical solution. This is directed to manipulating content of a text string.
This is not a technical improvement in user input handling or query execution. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 6 and 15,
The claim recites:
Specifies that non-character symbol is an emoji.
Narrowing field-of-use limitation (emoji) does not change the underlaying abstract idea.
This is merely linguistic/semantic substitution performed on the content of a query.
This is not a technical improvement to computer system operation or data processing mechanism. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 7 and 16,
The claim recites:
Mapping an incomplete word to a complete target word and modifying character string accordingly.
Auto-completion is a recognized mental process and information processing abstract idea.
This is not a technical improvement to how queries are generated or processed, and merely changes the type of mapping applied. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 8 and 17,
The claim recites:
Further processing the character string and modifying the query processing layer database in response.
This is merely updating a database based on string processing, which is a routine database function. This is an abstract information manipulation.
This is not a technical improvement, such as, a new database structure or unconventional update mechanism. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
Regarding claims 9 and 18,
The claim recites:
Receiving the character string by monitoring keystroke on a mobile device.
This is merely a conventional user input operation of genetic computing devices.
This is not a technical improvement to input handling technology. It does not add a technical improvement to an abstract idea.
There is no practical application, and no inventive step, the claims are still considered abstract.
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) 1, 2, 5-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross; Daniel C. et al. (US 20160360382 A1) [Gross] in view of Christophe; Emmanuel et al. (US 11687968 B1) [Christophe] in view of KAZI; Michaeel M. et al. (US 20220172040 A1) [Kazi].
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Gross discloses, a method of modifying a search query, the method comprising: receiving a character string of a search query being entered by a user from a text entry field of a mobile device and a session ID after each character entry (receives incremental query prefixes ‘a’, ‘ap’, ‘app’,..’apple’, ¶ [1378]-[1379], search session ¶ [1369], session ID ¶ [1414]) at a query processing layer positioned between the text entry field and a search engine during a query event identified by the session ID (aggregators…sends query prefix to search domains ¶ [1393]; process determines query completion ¶ [1390]; examiner has interpreted aggregator as query processing layer);
wherein the query processing layer (aggregators…sends query prefix to search domains ¶ [1393]; process determines query completion ¶ [1390]; examiner has interpreted aggregator as query processing layer);
sending the received character string as modified after each character entry from the query processing layer to the search engine (sending prefix to search domains ¶ [1393]. Also see ¶ [01385-1388], [1405]);
receiving a result to the received character string as modified from the search engine after each character entry (results generated during session, results determined per prefix ¶ [1396]-[1390]);
returning the received result for the received character string as modified for display on the mobile device after each character entry (results presented, results determined per prefix, user interaction with results ¶ [1369]-[1390]);
identifying the received character string having the most characters as a target query (sequence end in full query “apple” ¶ [1378]) and each of the received character strings having fewer characters as subqueries of the query event (incremental prefixes (subqueries) ¶ [1378]).
However, Gross does not explicitly facilitate comparing the received character string after each character entry in the text entry field to a query processing layer database including.
Christophe discloses, comparing the received character string after each character entry in the text entry field to a query processing layer database including [mappings between prior character strings and associated target queries] (search queries…stored in a historical data store ¶ [0025], used to map search queries…determine queries ¶ [0026], co-occurrence…query suggestion ¶ [0039]);
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Christophe’s system would have allowed Gross to facilitate comparing the received character string after each character entry in the text entry field to a query processing layer database including. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Gross’ reference, because there is a need for an improved delivery of query suggestions for partial query, a client can send suggestion requests to a search system with each keystroke, and the search system can provide query suggestions having prefixes that match the entered characters.
However, neither Gross nor Christophe explicitly facilitate mappings between prior character strings and associated target queries, database operates in the query processing layer; modifying the received character string in the query processing layer after each character entry responsive to a match with one of the prior character strings using the associated target query; for creating a new mapping in the query processing layer database; creating the new mapping from the query event in the query processing layer database between the target query and the subqueries.
Kazi discloses, mappings between prior character strings and associated target queries (first search query…source…second…target search query ¶ [0014], [0042], [0044]; query reformulation…stored in query history log ¶ [0034]-[0035], [0104]), database operates in the query processing layer (embedding from query data ¶ [0048], embedding into NN ¶ [0062], Layered NN architecture ¶ [0046], Query history log ¶ [0022], [0034], in the cited sections Kazi teaches maintaining a query history log that stored query data and using that stored data to generate embeddings that are input into a layered NN for processing and generates outputs);
modifying the received character string in the query processing layer after each character entry responsive to a match with one of the prior character strings using the associated target query (target search query is a reformulation ¶ [0014], original query and query reformulation ¶ [0035], first sequence…original query… second…modified/reformulated query ¶ [0104]);
for creating a new mapping in the query processing layer database (original query is reformulated, and stored as pair/relationship and used to generate training data ¶ [0035]. Also see ¶ [0034], [0104]);
creating the new mapping from the query event in the query processing layer database between the target query and the subqueries (source query and target query association ¶ [0014], log record includes original and reformulated queries ¶ [0035]; sequence pair/relationship ¶ [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kazi’s system would have allowed Gross and Christophe to facilitate mappings between prior character strings and associated target queries, database operates in the query processing layer; modifying the received character string in the query processing layer after each character entry responsive to a match with one of the prior character strings using the associated target query; for creating a new mapping in the query processing layer database; creating the new mapping from the query event in the query processing layer database between the target query and the subqueries. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Gross and Christophe’s reference, because there is a need to improve machine learning and, more particularly, to modifying a training process to incorporate user feedback.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, wherein the query processing layer database has associated locales for the prior query entries, the method further comprising: monitoring a locale associated with the character string, wherein the comparing comprises comparing the character string and locale to the query processing layer database including mappings between the prior character entries having associated locales and associated target queries (Gross: query prefix includes location/locale ¶ [1390]; Mapping domain includes location based info ¶ [1394]. Examiner specifies that the cited section disclose locale used in query processing and contextual mating).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, wherein the search query includes a non-character symbol, the query processing layer database includes an entry with the non-character symbol mapped to a word, and the character string is modified to include both the non-character symbol and the word (Kazi: emoji explicitly disclosed, mapping to embedding and part of the query processing ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, wherein the non-character symbol is an emoji (Kazi: emoji explicitly disclosed ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, wherein the character string is an incomplete word, the query processing layer database includes a mapping between the incomplete word and an associated complete target query word, and the character string is modified to augment the incomplete word with the complete target query word (Gross: prefix are used for query completion ¶ [1385]-[1391]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, processing the character string (Gross: query processing a suggestion engine ¶ [1385]-[1393]); and
modifying the query processing layer database responsive to processing of the character string (Kazi: query reformulation…stored in query history log ¶ [0034], mapping between queries ¶ [0014]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi discloses, wherein the receiving the character string step comprises: monitoring keystrokes on a screen of a mobile device used to enter the character string into a query entry field (Gross: query prefix updated as user types/making entries (character by character input) ¶ [1390]).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view or Christophe in view of Kazi in view of Gilliland; Charles Jordan et al. (US 9824147 B1) [Gilliland].
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi teach all the limitations of claim 2.
However, neither one of Gross, Christophe or Kazi explicitly facilitates wherein the locale is associated with a first language, the character string is in the first language, the query processing layer database includes a mapping to a target query in a second language, and the character string is modified to include both the character string before modification in the first language and the target query in the second language.
Gilliland discloses, wherein the locale is associated with a first language, the character string is in the first language, the query processing layer database includes a mapping to a target query in a second language, and the character string is modified to include both the character string before modification in the first language and the target query in the second language (While search engine 124 executes the search query without regard to the application language and client locale, translated search server 125 also executes the search query when (e.g., in accordance with a determination that) certain filter criteria are satisfied. If the filter criteria are satisfied, translated search server 125 translates the search query into a second language (herein referred to as a “target language”), obtains search results that are in the target language, and then translates search result information (e.g., document identifiers, document snippets, document metadata, etc.) from the target language back into the application language. These processes are described in detail below with respect to FIGS. 4A-4B [col. 4, ll. 35-49]. Also see Figs. 8B, 8C).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Gilliland’s system would have allowed Gross, Christophe and Kazi to facilitate wherein the locale is associated with a first language, the character string is in the first language, the query processing layer database includes a mapping to a target query in a second language, and the character string is modified to include both the character string before modification in the first language and the target query in the second language. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Gross, Christophe and Kazi’s reference, because it would be desirable to determine when such translation is unnecessary, or unlikely to be useful to the user, and in those circumstances to avoid translating the search query and search results, thereby eliminating the computational expense associated with unnecessarily translating search queries and search results.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view or Christophe in view of Kazi in view of Dhillon; Inderjit et al. (US 11106690 B1) [Dhillon].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Gross, Christophe and Kazi teach all the limitation of claim 1.
However, neither one of Gross, Christophe or Kazi explicitly facilitate wherein the character string is a misspelled word, the query processing layer database includes a mapping between the misspelled word and an associated correctly spelled target query word, and the character string is modified to augment the misspelled word with the correctly spelled target query word.
Dhillon discloses, wherein the character string is a misspelled word, the query processing layer database includes a mapping between the misspelled word and an associated correctly spelled target query word, and the character string is modified to augment the misspelled word with the correctly spelled target query word (Dhillon: Any necessary corrections for spelling errors in the query are generated 220 by applying an edit-distance potential function. A further step involves applying 230 a multi-layer, character-level, recurrent neural network, trained on a data set to develop a character-level language model, to the query and the spelling corrections to generate a plurality of suggestions 110 for completing the query [col. 3, ll. 12-18], [col. 4, ll. 7-18]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Gilliland’s system would have allowed Gross, Christophe and Kazi to facilitate wherein the character string is a misspelled word, the query processing layer database includes a mapping between the misspelled word and an associated correctly spelled target query word, and the character string is modified to augment the misspelled word with the correctly spelled target query word. The motivation to combine is apparent in the Gross, Christophe and Kazi’s reference, because there is a need for a system to improve query submission and query processing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri From 9 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
3/30/2026
/MOHAMMAD S ROSTAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154